Connect with us

Awareness

Swiss Medical Board Condemns Mammography Screenings: Important Facts For Women

Published

on

In 2013, the Swiss Medical Board, an independent health technology assessment initiative, was requested to prepare a review of mammography screening. The team of medical professionals included a medical ethicist, a clinical epidemiologist, a pharmacologist, an oncologic surgeon, a nurse scientist, a lawyer, and a health economist. Two of those members, Nikola Biller-Andorno, M.D. Ph. D. and Peter Juni, M.D, opened up about the project in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

advertisement - learn more

They said: “As we embarked on the project, we were aware of the controversies that have surrounded mammography screening for the past 10-15 years. When we received the available evidence and contemplated its implications in detail, however, we became increasingly concerned.”

In 2016, it is estimated that approximately 246,660 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in women in the United States as well as 61,000 new cases of non-invasive breast cancer. Mammograms continue to be touted as the most effective screening tool we have today to find breast cancer.

However, these two doctors were shocked to discover that there is minimal evidence that actually indicates that the benefits of mammography screening outweigh the harms.

“The relative risk reduction of approximately 20 percent in breast-cancer mortality associated with mammography that is currently described by most expert panels came at the price of a considerable diagnostic cascade, with repeat mammography, subsequent biopsies, and over-diagnosis of breast cancers — cancers that would never have become clinically apparent.”

The Canadian National Breast Screening Study, which was conducted over the course of 25 years, concluded that 106 of 484 screen-detected cancers were over-diagnosed.

advertisement - learn more

The doctors explained: “This means that 106 of the 44,925 healthy women in the screening group were diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer unnecessarily, which resulted in needless surgical interventions, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or some combination of these therapies.”

The fact that the benefits of this form of cancer screening are so overestimated seems worrisome for the medical community and patients at large. How, in this day and age, do we not have more awareness, more answers, and better technology?

Another review of 10 trials involving more than 600,000 women discovered no evidence that mammography screening was effective on overall mortality. This caused concern over the benefits of the medical practice. A survey of U.S. women’s views on the mammography screenings discovered that 71.5 percent of women think that it lessened risk of death from breast cancer by half, while 72.1 percent believed that 80 deaths could be avoided per each 1,000 women screened. Their perceptions were gravely over-calculated. In fact, when looking at the real numbers, mammography results in a risk reduction of 20 percent and only 1 death can be prevented per 1,000 women screened.

The Swiss Medical Board report became public in February 2014, provoking the board to advise that the quality of mammography screening ought to be evaluated and that women should be educated about both the benefits and the harms of the medical practice.

The report created controversy within the Swiss medical community, even though it supports a growing perspective around the world that mammography for breast cancer screening in asymptomatic populations is outdated and harmful at best.

When reviewing the data in regards to every breast cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year period of yearly screening starting at the age of 50, you will find that:

    • 490-670 women usually have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination
    • 70-100 women usually have an unnecessary biopsy
    • 3-14 women were the victim of over-diagnosed breast cancer that would never reach clinical relevance

Furthermore, up to 50 percent of women have breast tissue that is dense. This makes it very hard to read mammograms correctly, as dense breast tissue and cancer both show up white on an X-ray.

Due to the lack of evidence in support of mammography and the clear potential risks involved with them, the board chose to recommend cancelling mammography-screening programs altogether. Although their recommendations are not legally binding, the report caused an uproar amongst Swiss cancer experts and organizations. The doctors on board reported:

“One of the main arguments used against it was that it contradicted the global consensus of leading experts in the field… Another argument was that the report unsettled women, but we wonder how to avoid unsettling women, given the available evidence.”

It’s clearly no mystery why the board become increasingly concerned about their researcher. The “evidence” simply does not back up the global consensus of other experiences in the field suggesting that mammograms were safe and capable of saving lives.

When it comes down to it, we are dealing with outdated clinical trials, the benefits do not clearly outweigh the harms, and women’s perceptions of mammography benefits do not match reality,

More Information On Breast Screenings

I believe that if you did have a tumor, the last thing you would want to do is crush that tumor between two plates, because that would spread it. – Dr. Sarah Mybill, General Practitioner (taken from the documentary trailer below)

I think if a woman from the age of 50 has a mammogram every year, or every two years, she’s going to get breast cancer as a direct result from that – Dr. Patrick Kingsley, Clinical Ecologist (take from the documentary trailer below)

In 2011, 220,097 women and 2,078 men in the United States were diagnosed with breast cancer, and 40,931 women and 443 men in the United States died from breast cancer. It has become the most common type of cancer among women.

Below is a trailer to a documentary entitled, “The Promise.”  The film interviews various researchers, scientists, doctors (and more), all of whom are hoping to shed light on a practice which is turning out to be not only useless, but harmful to those taking part. There is more information below the video, but I highly recommend you watch the documentary.

There is a wealth of scientific data concluding that mammograms are not, as the CDC claims, the most effective way to detect breast cancer. In fact, having a mammogram is likely the last thing you want to do if you have breast cancer.

A study published in The European Journal of Public Healthtitled “Trends in breast cancer stage distribution before, during and after introduction of a screening programme in Norway” found that breast screenings actually increase the incidence of localized stage cancers without reducing the incidence of advanced cancers. (source)

The study, which used a huge population sample of 1.8 million Norwegian women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1987 – 2010, found that:

“The annual incidence of localized breast cancer among women aged 50–69 years rose from 63.9 per 100 000 before the introduction of screening to 141.2 afterwards, corresponding to a ratio of 2.21 (95% confidence interval: 2.10; 2.32).The incidence of more advanced cancers increased from 86.9 to 117.3 per 100 000 afterwards, corresponding to a 1.35 (1.29; 1.42)-fold increase. Advanced cancers also increased among younger women not eligible for screening, whereas their incidence of localized cancers remained nearly constant.”

This study outlines how Norway’s breast screening program has actually increased the chance of being diagnosed with early stage breast cancer by more than 200%, as well contributing to an increased chance of receiving advanced stage breast cancer diagnosis by 35%. This is the opposite of what mammograms are supposed to do; if they were useful then the incidence of cancers would be lower and not higher.

The study concluded that:

Incidence of localized breast cancer increased significantly among women aged 50–69 years old after introduction of screening, while the incidence of more advanced cancers was not reduced in the same period when compared to the younger unscreened age group.(source)

It’s important to note that, “although the study did measure the impact of Norway’s breast screening programme, a comparison of trends between participants and non-participants in the age group eligible for screening warrants further investigation. Also the causal link between stage distribution and mortality needs to be investigated in the context of screening.”

 A paper published in 2011 in the British Medical Journal  set out to prove that breast screening by mammography is associated with a steeper fall in mortality cancer compared to other countries who were not offering this service. They did not expect to find the complete opposite; they found a drop in breast cancer mortality among women who were not screened. They concluded that the recent downward trend in breast cancer mortality had nothing to do with screening and everything to do with improvements in treatment and service provision. (source)

The new data published in the BMJ now suggests that none of the gratifying falls in breast cancer can be attributed to screening and that the very existence of a NHSBSP (national breast screening programme) should be questioned. Unless there is public pressure for an independent inquiry to challenge the status quo, it will be business as usual for the screening programme. Furthermore, the Department of Health has painted itself into a corner and it is no longer a question of scientific debate – the subject has become too politicized by those who like to avoid U-turns at all costs. –  Michael Baum, Professor Emeritus of Surgery and visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London, is a leading British surgical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer treatment (source)

This would be an asymptomatic woman walking along the high street, having a mammogram, and then two weeks later she’s told she has to have a mastectomy. This is so cruel that it should make you weep. (quote taken from the documentary trailer above)

As Sayer Ji, founder of Greenmedinfo.com points out, a National Cancer Institute commissioned expert panel concluded that “early stage cancers” are not cancer, they are benign or indolent growths. This means that millions of women were wrongly diagnosed with breast cancer over the past few decades and have been subjected to harmful treatment, when they would have been better off leaving it untreated or diagnosed; frighteningly, it is not uncommon for a breast cancer misdiagnosis to occur.

Another study that was recently published in the British Medical Journal concluded that regular mammogram screenings do not reduce breast cancer death rates. And they found no evidence to suggest that mammograms are more effective than personal breast exams at detecting cancer in the designated age group. The study involved 90, 000 Canadian women and compared breast cancer incidence and mortality up to 25 years in women aged 40-59.(source)

The study was conducted over a period of 25 years.

Many Studies Showing The Same Thing

The sheer number of studies that have been published on breast mammography examinations and their failure to produce a benefit in screened populations is overwhelming. What’s even more disturbing is the fact that these types of examinations have also been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer, and to have negative implications for both physical and mental health.

For a database of published studies on this topic, you can click HERE. You can also find access to more research here.

U-turns do not embarrass clinical scientists, unlike politicians: if the evidence changes then our minds must change. As the national programme began to run its course, two disturbing observations made me begin to question my original support. First, about 10 years after the initiation of the service, updated analyses of the original data set by independent groups in Europe and the US found that the initial estimate of benefit in the reduction of breast cancer mortality was grossly exaggerated. –  Michael Baum, Professor Emeritus of Surgery and visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London, is a leading British surgical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer treatment (source)

Other sources used not listed in the article.

(1) http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/25/eurpub.cku015.abstract?sid=3c63c31b-f978-4742-8c11-1a1caf5f9bce

(2) http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4411

(3) http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/february/breastscreening.pdf

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/fail-another-mammography-study-finds-they-dont-save-lives

For a database of published studies on this topic, you can click HERE

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

25 Reasons to Avoid the Gardasil Vaccine

Published

on

It has been 13 years since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) supplied fast-tracked approval for Merck’s Gardasil vaccine—promoted for the prevention of cervical cancer and other conditions attributed to four types of human papillomavirus (HPV). The agency initially licensed Gardasil solely for 9- to 26-year-old girls and women, but subsequent FDA decisions now enable Merck to market Gardasil’s successor—the nine-valent Gardasil 9 vaccine—to a much broader age range—9 to 45 years—and to both males and females.

As a result of Gardasil’s expanding markets not just in the U.S. but internationally, the blockbuster HPV vaccine has become Merck’s third highest-grossing product, bringing in annual global revenues of about $2.3 billion. However, Gardasil’s safety record has been nothing short of disastrous. Children’s Health Defense and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. have just produced a video detailing the many problems with the development and safety of Gardasil. Please watch and share this video so that you and others may understand why Mr. Kennedy refers to Merck’s methodologies as “fraudulent flimflams.”

What follow are 25 key facts about Gardasil/Gardasil 9, including facts about the HPV vaccines’ clinical trials and adverse outcomes observed ever since Merck, public health officials and legislators aggressively foisted the vaccines on an unsuspecting public.

Inappropriate placebos and comparisons

  1. A placebo is supposed to be an inert substance that looks just like the drug being tested. But in the Gardasil clinical trials, Merck used a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant called AAHS instead of using an inert saline placebo.
  2. Among girls and women who received the vaccine and among girls and women who received AAHS, an astonishing 2.3% in both groups experienced conditions indicative of “systemic autoimmune disorders,” many shortly after receiving Gardasil.
  3. Multiple scientific studies associate aluminum not just with autoimmune diseases but with autism, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia and Parkinson’s disease as well as behavioral abnormalities in animals.
  4. Merck lied to study participants, falsely saying that the clinical trials were not safety studies, that the vaccine had already been found to be safe and that the “placebo” was an inert saline solution. [Source: The HPV Vaccine on Trial  (photo evidence, pp. 6 and 12).]
  5. When Merck conducted clinical trials for its next HPV vaccine formulation, Gardasil 9, it used Gardasil as the “placebo” in the control groups, again relying on the lack of an inert placebo to mask safety signals.
  6. The 500 micrograms of aluminum adjuvant (AAHS) in Gardasil 9 are more than double the amount of aluminum in Gardasil; this raises the question of whether Gardasil 9’s heavy reliance on the Gardasil trials for comparison is justifiable.
  7. The World Health Organization states that using a vaccine (rather than an inert substance) as a placebo creates a “methodological disadvantage” and also notes that it may be “difficult or impossible” to assess vaccine safety properly without a true placebo.

Inappropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria

  1. In the only Gardasil trial in the target age group (11- and 12-year-old girls) with a control group design, fewer than 1200 children received the vaccine and fewer than 600 served as controls. This single trial involving fewer than 1800 children set the stage for the vaccine’s subsequent marketing to millions of healthy preteens all over the world.
  2. The Gardasil clinical trials had numerous exclusion criteria. Not allowed to participate in the trials were people with: severe allergies; prior abnormal Pap test results; over four lifetime sex partners; a history of immunological disorders and other chronic illnesses; reactions to vaccine ingredients, including aluminum, yeast, and benzonase; or a history of drug or alcohol abuse—yet Merck now recommends Gardasil for all of these groups.

Inadequate monitoring

  1. Some of the study participants—but not all—were given “report cards” to record short-term reactions such as redness and itching. The report cards monitored reactions for a mere 14 days, however, and Merck did not follow up with participants who experienced serious adverse events such as systemic autoimmune or menstrual problems.
  2. Injured participants complained that Merck rebuffed their attempts to report adverse side effects. In numerous instances, Merck maintained that these “weren’t related to the vaccine.”
  3. Half (49.6%) of the clinical trial subjects who received Gardasil reported serious medical conditions within seven months. To avoid classifying these injuries as adverse events, Merck dismissed them as “new medical conditions.”
Annual deaths from cervical cancer in the U.S. are 2.3/100,000. The death rate in the Gardasil clinical trials was 85/100,000—or 37 times that of cervical cancer.

Cervical cancer risk-benefit ratio not worth it

  1. The median age of cervical cancer death is 58 years. Gardasil targets millions of healthy preadolescents and teens for whom the risk of dying from cervical cancer is practically zero. Interventions for healthy people must have a risk profile that is also practically zero.
  2. Annual deaths from cervical cancer in the U.S. are 2.3/100,000. The death rate in the Gardasil clinical trials was 85/100,000—or 37 times that of cervical cancer.
  3. With 76 million children vaccinated at an average cost of $420 for the three-shot Gardasil series, the cost of saving one American life from cervical cancer amounts to about $18.3 million dollars. By contrast, the value of a human life according to the Department of Health and Human Services’s (HHS’s) National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is $250,000—the maximum amount that the government program will award for a vaccine-related death.
  4. According to Gardasil’s package insert, women are 100 times more likely to suffer a severe event following vaccination with Gardasil than they are to get cervical cancer.
  5. The chances of getting an autoimmune disease from Gardasil, even if the vaccine works, are 1,000 times greater than the chances of being saved from a cervical cancer death.
  6. Women in Gardasil clinical trials with evidence of current HPV infection and previous exposure to HPV had a 44% increased risk of developing cervical lesions or cancer following vaccination.
  7. Women who get the Gardasil vaccine as preteens or teens are more likely to skip cervical cancer screening as adults, mistakenly assuming that HPV vaccination is a replacement for screening and that the vaccine will eliminate all risk.
Since Gardasil came on the U.S. market in 2006, people have reported over 450 deaths and over 61,000 serious medical conditions from HPV vaccines to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

Fertility effects

  1. Accumulating evidence points to Gardasil’s potentially severe adverse effects on fertility, including miscarriage and premature ovarian failure.
  2. Merck never tested the vaccine for fertility effects. However, Gardasil and Gardasil 9 clinical trials showed high spontaneous miscarriage rates of 25% and 27.4%, respectively—significantly higher than the background rates of approximately 10%-15% in this reproductive age group.
  3. Polysorbate 80 and sodium borate (Borax) are associated with infertility in animals. Both are Gardasil ingredients, and both were present in the one clinical trial protocol that professed to use a benign saline placebo.

Post-licensing

  1. In 2015, Denmark opened five new “HPV clinics” to treat children injured by Gardasil. Over 1300 cases flooded the clinics shortly after their opening.
  2. Since Gardasil came on the U.S. market in 2006, people have reported over 450 deaths and over 61,000 serious medical conditions from HPV vaccines to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
  3. Merck lied to VAERS about the case of Christina Tarsell’s death, falsely claiming that her doctor blamed a virus instead of Gardasil. [Source: The HPV Vaccine on Trial  (p. 144).]

The vaccine that should never have been licensed

As suggested in the conclusion to the 2018 book The HPV Vaccine on Trial, the rollout of Gardasil in 125 countries worldwide has illustrated—in an all-too-real and shocking manner—the phenomenon that prompted Hans Christian Andersen to write “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Around the world, over 100,000 Gardasil-related adverse events have now been reported to the FDA and WHO, and accounts continue to multiply of “scandal, lawsuits, severe injuries, and deaths.” For almost 200 years, Andersen’s story has taught readers about the need to speak the truth, pay attention to evidence and listen to children. The rosy narrative manufactured for the dangerous Gardasil vaccine must not be allowed to hold sway any longer. It is time, in the words of the HPV Vaccine on Trial authors, to proclaim—loudly—that “the Emperor has no clothes.”

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Wikileaks: Ecuador is Being Run By “Criminals & Liars.” Assange’s Entire Legal Defense Given To The United States

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Three weeks before the U.S. deadline to file its final extradition request for Assange, Ecuadorian officials are travelling to London to allow U.S. prosecutors to help themselves to Assange's belongings.

  • Reflect On:

    How do the global elite have the right and power to do what they do to people like Julian Assange and Edward Snowden? Do we really live in a democracy when small groups of people in power can basically make decisions that go against the majority?

What’s happening with Julian Assange is heart-breaking. He’s a hero, just like Edward Snowden. Government secrets are kept, not to protect ‘national security’ as commonly claimed, but rather to protect political and corporate interests. After all, the United States is evidently run by a small group of corporations. These corporations have a huge influence when it comes to dictating government policy, and they do not like those who disclose their secrets. For years, Wikileaks has been leaking documents that’ve exposed major corruption within multiple governments, including the United States and basically the entire western military alliance. They’ve exposed that our world operates very differently than how it’s been presented, and they’ve never had to retract a single story. They exposed the invisible government, or “the real menace of Republic,” a term coined by John F. Hylan, former Mayor of New York City. Hylan has said that the “invisible government, which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation.” He exposes the ones “who virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.”  (source)

Transparency is what Julian Assange is all about, and the American empire and even the global empire have been desperately trying to keep their secrets and prosecute anyone or anything that threatens their secrecy. That’s what this is all about. And they proved that with Chelsea Manning.

It’s not just people like Assange who are being demonized and hunted, it’s alternative media as well. The war on ‘fake news’ that’s been happening for the last little while has resulted in alternative media outlets being labeled as ‘fake’, even if they’re presenting credible information and sources. Any media outlet who even questions a controversial issue has been labeled as ‘wrong’ or ‘fake.’

What is happening to Assange is extremely unjust, and should serve as a massive ‘wake up’ call for anyone who isn’t already ‘awake.’ Truth and free press threaten the ability of the global elite to continue their cycle of creating problems and then proposing solutions in order to achieve their desired outcome. Some of the biggest leaks WikiLeaks has made were when they revealed the connections between terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS to the western military alliance, and more specifically to the US government. Current presidential candidate and Congresswoman at the time, Tulsi Gabbard, even introduced a bill to stop this from happening.

We saw arms deals and the funding/support of terrorist organizations that the US claimed to be fighting against. This is a great example of how the global elite funds and creates a problem in order to justify a desired outcome (in this case it was heightened national security measures back home to protect people from ‘the war on terror’ and justify their infiltration of another country for ulterior motives).

I could go deeper into this, but the bottom line is that the arrest of Julian Assange comes at the hands of the criminals around the globe he was exposing, and it’s ironic that they are using their power and influence over mainstream media to portray Assange as the one who needs to be put behind bars.

advertisement - learn more

The Latest Update On Assange

Below is the latest update from the Wikileaks team via a recent press release.

Three weeks before the U.S. deadline to file its final extradition request for Assange, Ecuadorian officials are travelling to London to allow U.S. prosecutors to help themselves to Assange’s belongings.

Neither Julian Assange nor U.N. officials have been permitted to be present when Ecuadorian officials arrive to Ecuador’s embassy in London on Monday morning.

The chain of custody has already been broken. Assange’s lawyers will not be present at the illegal seizure of his property, which has been “requested by the authorities of the United States of America.”

The material includes two of his manuscripts as well as his legal papers, medical records and electronic equipment. The seizure of his belongings violates laws that protect medical and legal confidentiality and press protections.

The seizure is formally listed as “International Assistance in Criminal matters 376-2018-WTT requested by the authorities of the United States of America.” The reference number of the legal papers indicates that Ecuador’s formal cooperation with the United States was initiated in 2018.

Since the day of his arrest on April 11, 2019, Mr. Assange’s lawyers and the Australian consul made dozens of documented demands to the embassy of Ecuador for the release and return of his belongings, to which they received no response.

Earlier this week the UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy, who met with Mr. Assange in Belmarsh prison on April 25, asked to be present to monitor Ecuador’s seizure of Assange’s property. Ecuador inexplicably refused the request, despite the fact that since 2003, Ecuador has explicitly committed itself to granting unimpeded open invitations for UN special rapporteurs to investigate any aspect of their mandate in Ecuadorian jurisdiction.

The seizure and transfer of Mr. Assange’s property to the U.S. is the second phase of a bilateral cooperation that in January and February saw Ecuador arranging U.S. interrogations of past and present Ecuadorian diplomats posted to the embassy of Ecuador in London while Mr. Assange was receiving asylum. The questioning related to the U.S. grand jury investigation against Assange and WikiLeaks. As part of phase one of the cooperation, the United States also asked Ecuador to provide documents and audiovisual material of Assange and his guests, which had been gathered during an extensive spy operation against Assange inside the embassy.

On Friday, President Lenin Moreno initiated a state of emergency that suspends the rights of prisoners to “inviolability of correspondence, freedom of association and assembly and freedom of information” through Executive Decree 741.

Kristinn Hrafnsson, Editor-in-Chief of WikiLeaks said:

“On Monday Ecuador will perform a puppet show at the Embassy of Ecuador in London for their masters in Washington, just in time to expand their extradition case before the U.K. deadline on 14 June. The Trump Administration is inducing its allies to behave like it’s the Wild West.”

Hrafnsson continued:

“Ecuador is run by criminals and liars. There is no doubt in my mind that Ecuador, either independently or at the behest of the US, has tampered with the belongings it will send to the United States.”

Baltasar Garzon, international legal coordinator for the defence of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, said:

“It is extremely worrying that Ecuador has proceeded with the search and seizure of property, documents, information and other material belonging to the defence of Julian Assange, which Ecuador arbitrarily confiscated, so that these can be handed over to the agent of political persecution against him, the United States. It is an unprecedented attack on the rights of the defence, freedom of expression and access to information exposing massive human rights abuses and corruption. We call on international protection institutions to intervene to put a stop to this persecution.”

Lawyer for Mr. Assange, Aitor Martinez, whose confidential legal papers were photographed with a mobile phone by embassy workers as part of a spy operation against Mr. Assange in October 2018, said:

“Ecuador is committing a flagrant violation of the most basic norms of the institution of asylum by handing over all the asylee’s personal belongings indiscriminately to the country that he was being protected from–the United States. This is completely unprecedented in the history of asylum. The protecting country cannot cooperate with the agent of persecution against the person to whom it was providing protection.

Ecuador has now also refused a request by the UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy, Joe Cannataci, to  monitor and  inspect the cooperation measure. Ecuador’s refusal to cooperate with the UN Special Rapporteur defies the entire international human rights protection system of the United Nations. Ecuador will from now on be seen as a country that operates outside of the system of safeguards of rights that defines democratic countries.”

Ecuadorian defence attorney for Mr. Assange, Carlos Poveda, said:

“In the face of countless abuses, and acting on provisions in domestic legislation and international human rights instruments, the defence has challenged the execution of this measure. All applications have been rejected. While the prosecution office proclaims its commitment to human rights protections, there has been no transparency and the investigation is conducted in secret. Without justification, and absent of all legal criteria, the measure shows the interest in obtaining information that the United States can use to proceed with its flagrant persecution. Meanwhile Ecuador has hinted that it too intends to proceed with investigations. Meanwhile, to date our criminal complaints of espionage against Julian Assange remain unprocessed, despite the gravity of the facts reported.”

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading

Alternative News

New Study Finds That Measles Outbreaks Are Occurring In Many VACCINATED Individuals

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new study from China has been added to the long list that questions the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine given the fact that outbreaks are occurring in highly vaccinated populations and within vaccinated individuals.

  • Reflect On:

    Are vaccines really as safe as they're marketed to be?

There is a lot of hysteria surrounding measles outbreaks right now, and a lot of mainstream media bombardment in North America whereby unvaccinated children are wrongfully blamed for multiple measles outbreaks. This media hysteria capitalizes on terms like “anti-vax conspiracy theorists” instead of actually acknowledging the points that are being made by vaccine awareness advocates, many of whom are scientists and doctors. The point is, when people are trying to shut down and block credible information and critical thinking, you know something is up.

When it comes to the measles, blaming these outbreaks on unvaccinated people makes absolutely no sense at all. Why? Because, since the introduction of the measles vaccine, outbreaks have occurred in highly vaccinated populations. Furthermore, ample evidence has been presented showing that vaccinated people might also be shedding their virus and infecting others with it.

For example, during the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees. Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences. The media (Pharma-owned) generated high public anxiety. This fear mongering led to the demonization of unvaccinated children, who were perceived as the spreaders of this disease. Rebecca J. McNall, a co-author of the published report, is a CDC official in the Division of Viral Diseases who had the data proving that the measles outbreak was in part caused by the vaccine. It is evidence of the vaccine’s failure to provide immunity. (source)

There are dozens of studies on measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations that found that the cause of these outbreaks was not due to failure to vaccinate, but rather because of a failing vaccine. I will provide more examples further in the article, but for now, I want to get to some recently published information.

This research was published in the journal Vaccine, titled “Assessing measles vaccine failure in Tianjin, China,” and it’s another study showing measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations.

“Despite increasing global measles vaccination coverage, progress toward measles elimination has slowed in recent years. In China, children receive a measles-containing vaccine (MCV) at 8 months, 18– 24 months, and some urban areas offer a third dose at age 4–6 years. However, substantial measles cases in Tianjin, China, occur among individuals who have received multiple MCV doses.” 

advertisement - learn more

The study explains how there has been an increase in global measles vaccinations, and they’re right. Despite this fact, mainstream media in America continues to blame low vaccination rates for these outbreaks, when that could not be further from the truth. Luckily, the CDC has a super-easy, interactive map that illustrates this data very clearly, and it would be great if members of the mainstream media actually started to take a look at the data. Vaccination rates in the States are actually very high. So why are they blaming the unvaccinated? Washington State, for example, has a 90 percent MMR vaccination coverage.

The study from China goes on to explain:

 Twenty-nine percent of those in the surveillance dataset and 54.4% of those in the case series received at least one dose of MCV. The minimum and median time-to-diagnosis since vaccination revealed an increase in time since vaccination for incremental doses. Considerable measles cases in Tianjin occur in vaccinated children, and further research is needed to understand the reasons for vaccine failure.

Another study published in the highly authoritative Bulletin of the World Health Organization looked at recent measles occurrences throughout China and found that there were 707 measles outbreaks in the country recorded between 2009 and 2012, with a steep upward trend in 2013. “The number of measles cases reported in the first 10 months of 2013 – 26,443 – was three times the number reported in the whole of 2012.” This is odd considering that since  2009 “…the first dose of measles-virus-containing vaccine has reached more than 90% of the target population.” (source)

A study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases – whose authorship includes scientists working for the Bureau of Immunization, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA – looked at evidence from the 2011 New York measles outbreak, which showed that individuals with prior evidence of measles vaccination and vaccine immunity were both capable of being infected with measles and infecting others with it (secondary transmission). The study concluded that “measles may occur in vaccinated individuals, but secondary transmission from such individuals has not been documented.” (source)

Furthermore, according to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid out approximately $4 billion to compensate families of vaccine injured children. As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering HHS claims that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). If the numbers from VAERS and HHS are correct – only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported and only 1/3 of the petitions are compensated – then up to 99% of vaccine injuries go unreported and the families of the vast majority of people injured by vaccines are picking up the costs, once again, for vaccine makers’ flawed products.

From 2013 to 2017, measles killed 2 people, but the vaccine killed 127 people. The odds of dying from the measles are 0.01 – 0.02 percent, meaning you have a greater chance of getting hit by a lightning bolt multiple times. Furthermore, if your child contracts the measles, they will be immune for life, but that cannot be said for vaccinated children.

Our Episode About Vaccines On CETV

On a recent episode of CETV, we discussed the mainstream media and the way they fear monger and blame the unvaccinated without addressing important facts. We talked about the history of measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations, provided multiple clips from scientists and doctors sharing information related to the above, and cited examples of fraud, specifically with regards to the MMR vaccination and the CDC.

Below you can watch our discussion, and the first hour is free. To watch the other 2 hours of this episode, become a member of CETV.

Another Episode Specifically About The MMR Vaccine

In a later episode of The Collective Evolution Show on CETV, Joe, Richard and I discussed New York’s mandatory vaccination order as well as Del Bigtree’s analysis of the MMR studies he received and the reason that Big Pharma does not want to do proper, large-scale studies on the safety of vaccines.

A FOIA request by Del Bigtree reveals that the 8 studies supporting the release of the MMR vaccine were only 6 weeks long, used only 800 children, and led to respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses in many of the children.

Related Recent & Important Articles On Vaccines

Biochemical Engineer Drops Bombshell Facts About Measles & The MMR Vaccine In Washington

Worlds Leading Authority On Aluminum Toxicity Has GoFundMe to Study Aluminum In Vaccines Shut Down

We now know that aluminum, once injected, does not leave the body but travels to distant organs and the brain. More information on that in the article linked above.

More Examples of Measles Outbreaks In Highly Vaccinated Populations

A measles outbreak in vaccinated individuals occurred in Israel during 2017—reported on by the CDC—where all but one patient had laboratory evidence of a “previous immune response” (secondary vaccine failure), and the one patient who did not display such evidence reported having received two doses of the vaccine (primary vaccine failure). In addition, the index patient—the one who launched the chain of transmission—had received three doses of the measles-containing vaccine.

If we go back in history a little bit:

Barratta et al. (1970) investigated an outbreak in Florida from December 1968 to February 1969 and found little difference in the incidence of measles in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. (source)

Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in 1985 and 1986, 152 measles outbreaks in US school-age children occurred among persons who had previously received the measles vaccine. “Every 2-3 years, there is an upsurge of measles irrespective of vaccination compliance.” (source)

In 2010, there were a number of children in Croatia who had contracted measles that were fully vaccinated (source). The interesting thing about this case was the fact that not only had they become infected with measles from the vaccine strain, rather than the normal “natural” strain, but they were also contagious.

According to an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987, “An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced.” They concluded that “outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.” (source)

An article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled, “A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate prevention and control measures,” looked into an outbreak of 137 cases of measles in Montana. School records indicated that 98.7% of students were appropriately vaccinated, leading the researchers to conclude: “This outbreak suggests that measles transmission may persist in some settings despite appropriate implementation of the current measles elimination strategy.” (source)

According to an article published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1991, “In early 1988 an outbreak of 84 measles cases occurred at a college in Colorado in which over 98 percent of students had documentation of adequate measles immunity…” due to an immunization requirement in effect since 1986. They concluded that “…measles outbreaks can occur among highly vaccinated college populations.” (source)

According to an article published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health in 1991, a 1989 measles outbreak was “largely attributed to an incomplete vaccination coverage,” but following an extensive review the researchers concluded that “incomplete vaccination coverage is not a valid explanation for the Quebec City measles outbreak.” (source)

According to an article published in the journal Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, in a measles outbreak from March 1991 to April 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, 76.4% of those suspected to be infected had received measles vaccines before their first birthday. (source)

According to an article published in the South African Medical Journal in 1994, “[In] August 1992 an outbreak occurred, with cases reported at many schools in children presumably immunised.” Immunization coverage for measles was found to be 91%, and vaccine efficacy found to be only 79%, leading them to conclude that primary and secondary vaccine failure was a possible explanation for the outbreak. (source)

Furthermore, what about the bioaccumulation of vaccine ingredients? Studies have shown that injected aluminum does not exit the body, and can be detected inside the brain up to a year after injection.  There are several other concerning vaccine ingredients like aborted human fetal cells, formaldehyde, and MSG. Why are these never looked at when studies are being conducted? You can read more and access information and studies about aluminum here.

The Takeaway

How safe are our vaccines? Why does the mainstream constantly use terms like “anti-vax conspiracy theorists” to brainwash people instead of actually addressing the points made by vaccine awareness advocates? Why are they always attacking instead of just discussing? It’s OK to question vaccines, think for yourself, utilize critical thinking, and seek out information that mainstream media seems to ignore.

Help Support Collective Evolution

The demand for Collective Evolution's content is bigger than ever, except ad agencies and social media keep cutting our revenues. This is making it hard for us to continue.

In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!

SUPPORT CE HERE!

cards

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod

UPDATE: YouTube has demonetized our channel for no apparent reason.

For as little as $3 a month, you can contribute to helping CE thrive! Thanks for being on our Hero's Team. We appreciate you and your support deeply! 

Thanks, you're keeping conscious media alive.