Connect with us

Awareness

Mammograms Increase Risk Of Breast Cancer, Here Are The Safe Alternatives For Breast Exams

Published

on

You may have heard that mammograms, the tests that are commonly used to detect breast cancer, can actually increase the risk cancer. Well, you’re not wrong! Yet, these breast screenings are considered to be the most effective form of detecting breast cancer, at least according to the Center For Disease Control (CDC).

advertisement - learn more

There’s actually an overwhelming amount of research that proves mammograms can have a negative impact on your health and can even result in misdiagnoses. Staying on top of breast health is still important, but how can you avoid mammograms? Thankfully, there are numerous safe alternatives to this method of breast screening.

--> Help Support CE: Become a member of CETV and get access to exclusive news and courses to help empower you to become an effective changemaker. Also, help us beat censorship! Click here to join.

Why Mammograms May Threaten Your Health

If you get mammograms periodically, I would highly advise you consider alternative means of testing for breast cancer. There are numerous studies that suggest mammograms can not only be ineffective at identifying cancer, but are harmful to your health as well. To start, let’s look at the studies that test the effectiveness of mammograms for identifying cancer.

One of the biggest issues with mammograms is over-diagnosis and, as a result, over-treatment. A National Cancer Institute commissioned an expert panel that 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 subject 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. The researchers 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).

22% of screenings detected invasive breast cancers were over-diagnosed, representing one over-diagnosed breast cancer for every 424 women who received mammography screening in the trial. 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.”

advertisement - learn more

In a 2009 Cochrane Database Systematic Review of breast cancer screening and mammographs, the authors concluded, “Screening led to 30 percent overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5 percent. This means that for every 2000 women screened for 10 years, one will have her life prolonged, and 10 healthy women who would not have been diagnosed if they had not been screened, will be treated unnecessarily.”

Perhaps the most notable information was provided by the Swiss Medical Board, an independent health technology assessment initiative. The board was asked to create an unbiased review of mammography screening. The board comprises a medical ethicist, a clinical epidemiologist, a pharmacologist, an oncologic surgeon, a nurse scientist, a lawyer, and a health economist.

The Swiss Medical Board reported that for every breast-cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year course of annual screening starting at age 50:

  • 490-670 women will likely have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination
  • 70-100 will likely have an unnecessary biopsy
  • 3-14 will likely be over-diagnosed with a breast cancer that would never have become clinically apparent

Given the overwhelming amount of research showing the ineffectiveness of mammograms, the board recommended completely abolishing mammogram screenings. In addition, approximately 50 percent of women have dense breast tissue, meaning that it’s difficult for mammographs to even process. Both dense breast tissue and cancer appear white on an X-ray, thus it’s extremely difficult and practically impossible for a doctor to detect cancer with this type of tissue (source).

Mammograms are not only often ineffective, but they could do more harm than good as well. A study published in the British Medical Journal in 2012 proved that women carrying the BRCA 1/2 mutation are extremely susceptible to developing radiation-induced cancer, meaning that mammograms are much more harmful to them. Women with this mutated gene who were exposed to diagnostic radiation before the age of 30 were found to be twice as likely to develop breast cancer in comparison to women without that mutation.

The study also found that the radiation-induced cancer was dose-responsive; in other words, the higher the dosage, the greater their risk of developing cancer. The authors stated, “The results of this study support the use of non-ionizing radiation imaging techniques (such as magnetic resonance imaging) as the main tool for surveillance in young women with BRCA 1/2 mutations.”

Even though this research suggests women with this mutated gene shouldn’t have a mammogram annually, since it can literally double their risk of developing breast cancer, the National Cancer Institute still suggests that they continue to do so starting at the age of 25.

Another study in the British Medical Journal from December 2011 questioned whether or not breast cancer screenings did more harm than good, and as it turns out, it does more harm indeed! 

So you can get a clear picture, you can get as much radiation from one mammogram screening as you could from 1,000 chest X-rays. Mammograms also tightly compress your breasts, which can result in a greater spread of cancerous cells if they already exist at the time of the test. Dr. Samuel Epstein, one of the world’s top cancer experts, said: “The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade’s screening.”

USA Today reported on a new breast screening technology, 3-D mammography, which is said to double the amount of radiation exposure. The article explains, “Radiation is a known cause of breast cancer. Researchers in recent years have become concerned about radiation exposure from medical imaging, particularly CT scans. A 2009 analysis estimated that CT scans cause about 29,000 cancers and 14,500 deaths a year.”

The following video is taken from The Truth About Cancer, in which Ty Bollinger interviews Dr. Ben Johnson on the correlation between mammograms and breast cancer:

Alternatives to Mammograms for Cancer Screening: 

If you’ve already had a mammogram or multiple in your life, don’t stress too much! If you’re concerned about the radiation associated with the testing, there are numerous other alternatives to test for breast cancer that are just as effective, if not more.

Dr. Ben Johnson suggests, “Well there’s two better options. If you’ve got a lump, if you think you’ve got something, ultrasound is great. It’s a test of anatomy… But if you’re looking about prevention, if you’re talking about screening, there’s really only one device out there and that is thermography. An infrared thermal camera. Nothing touches the lady. Nothing smashes her breasts. There’s no cancer causing radiation.”

He continues to say, “So, that would be like an ultrasound because they can see the lump, they can see its consistency. They can see where there’s calcium in it. And they can look at blood flow because tumors are going to have increased blood flow. So, for instance, a sensitivity of ultrasound is up around 80%. It’s much higher than mammograms. And the sensitivity is higher too.”

Thermography is highly recommended as an alternative breast cancer test as it’s non-invasive and can even detect tumour activity years before a mammogram could. A 2008 study published in the American Journal of Surgery stated that breast thermography has a 97% “sensitivity rating” for finding malignancies before a visible tumour has been formed. Contact the American College of Clinical Thermography for more information.

Another alternative is the ONCObolt, which was designed by Purdue University researchers Dr. Dorothy and Dr. James Morré. ONCObolt tests for the universal cancer cell marker ENOX2 and can also identify the specific origin of cancer cells in the bloodstream. ONCOblot is has an astonishing 99% accuracy rate for discovering tumours when they are tinier than a pinhead. To learn more, check out the Oncoblot website or talk to a health professional.

To be clear, I am not a doctor. I am simply someone who is extremely passionate about exposing the cancer industry and providing people with safe alternatives to conventional testing and treatment. It’s crucial that we spread awareness about this topic, because so many of the conventional methods or diagnosis and treatment cause cancer including the tests and treatments involving radiation and especially chemotherapy. When we open up the dialogue to actually suggest better methods of testing and treatment, we promote positive change, and at the very least, educate one another.

If you have any questions about this article or about conventional treatments, please feel free to reach out to me, but I would also strongly advise consulting with your doctor, preferably a naturopath!

If you’re unfamiliar with the corruption within the cancer industry, you can start by watching the docu-series The Truth About Cancer and reading our related articles outlined below.

Related Articles:

Are Breast Screenings The Biggest Catastrophe In Women’s Health Today?

Researchers Reveal Horrendous Facts About Breast Screenings (Mammograms)

6 Reasons Why Many People Think Chemotherapy & The Cancer Industry Is A Giant Scam

Doctors Told Him He Was Definitely Going To Die & His Cancer Was “Incurable” – So He Decided To Try Cannabis Oil

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

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

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

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

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

CDC Director: ‘Masks May Offer More Protection From COVID-19 Than The Vaccine’

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    CDC director Robert Redfield said on Wednesday that wearing a mask might be "more guaranteed" to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is there so much conflicting information out there? Why is it so difficult to arrive at any concrete truth? How does the politicization of science play a role?

What Happened: Centers For Disease Control (CDC) Director Robert Redfield recently stated that wearing a mask may be “more guaranteed” to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine. This calls into question the efficacy of the vaccine, which is set to make its way into the public domain at the end of this year, or shortly after that. We thought we’d cover this story to bring up the efficacy of vaccines in general, and the growing vaccine hesitancy that now exists within a number of people, scientists and physicians across the world.

“I’m not gonna comment directly about the president, but I am going to comment as the CDC director that face masks, these face masks, are the most important powerful public health tool we have.” – Redfield

Not long ago, many scientists presented facts about vaccines and vaccine safety at the recent Global Health Vaccine Safety summit hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. At the conference, Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project emphasized the issue of growing vaccine hesitancy.

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

Redfield’s comments came after President Trump downplayed the effectiveness of wearing mask, and Trump also stated that Covid would probably go away without a vaccine, referring to the concept of ‘herd immunity’ as practiced in Sweden, but has also been quite outspoken about the fact that a vaccine may arrive by November.

When it comes to the COVID vaccine, multiple clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines have shown severe reactions within 10 days after taking the vaccine. You can read more about that here.  The US government and Yale University also recently collaborated in a clinical trial to determine the best messaging to persuade Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine. You can read more about that here.

Are Masks Effective?

Multiple studies have claimed to show definitively  that mask-wearing effectively prevents transmission of the coronavirus, especially recent ones. This seems to be the general consensus and the information that’s come from our federal health regulatory agencies. There are also multiple studies calling the efficacy of masks into question. For example, a fairly recent study published in the New England Medical Journal  by a group of Harvard doctors outlines how it’s already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection a public setting. According to them,

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

You can read more about that story here and find other complimenting studies.

When it comes to masks, there are multiple studies on both sides of the coin.

Then we have many experts around the world calling into question everything from masks to lockdown. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%.

They are one of many who have emphasized this point.

More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19, and also make similar points. You can read more about that story here.

Again, there are many examples from all over the world from various academics, doctors and scientists in the field.

This is why there is so much confusion surrounding this pandemic, because there is so much conflicting information that opposes what we are hearing from our health authorities. Furthermore, a lot of information that opposes the official narrative has been censored from social media platforms, also raising suspicion among the general public.

How Effective Are Vaccines?

Vaccines have been long claimed to be a miracle, and the most important health intervention for the sake of disease prevention of our time. But as mentioned above, vaccine hesitancy is growing, and it’s growing fast.

According to a study published in the journal EbioMedicine,

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

In the United States, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows what vaccines have resulted in deaths, injury, permanent disabilities and hospitalizations. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury act has also paid out nearly $4 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured children.

According to a MedAlerts, 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. What is even more disturbing about these numbers is that VAERS is a voluntary and passive reporting system that has been found to only capture 1% of adverse events.

The measles vaccine has also been plagued with a lack of effectiveness, with constant measles outbreaks in heavily vaccinated population pointing towards a failing vaccine. You can read more about that in-depth and access more science on it here. In 2015, nearly 40 percent of measles cases analyzed in the US were a result of the vaccine.

It’s not just the MMR vaccine that shows a lack of effectiveness. For example, a new study published in The Royal Society of Medicine is one of multiple studies over the years that has emerged questioning the efficacy of the HPV vaccine. The researchers conducted an appraisal of published phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer and their analysis showed “the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy” in the data they used. The researchers emphasized that “it is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop.”  The researchers point out that the trials used to test the vaccine may have “overestimated” the efficacy of the vaccine.

It’s one of multiple studies to call into question the efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine. It’s also been responsible for multiple deaths and permanent disabilities.

Another point to make regarding vaccine injury is that data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. This data comes 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) that found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million. You can access that report and read more about it here.

The Takeaway: 

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Alternative News

1 Million + People Download Study Showing Heavy Aluminum Deposits In Autistic Brains

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A landmark paper published in 2018 showing high amounts of aluminum in autistic brains has not been dowloaded more than 1 million times.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are federal health regulatory agencies ignoring the emerging science showing concerns with regards to injected aluminum? Why don't they address the concerns and conduct safety studies?

What Happened: In 2018, Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University, who is considered one of the world’s leading experts in aluminum toxicology, published a paper in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine & Biology showing very high amounts of aluminum in the brain tissue of people with autism. Exley has examined more than 100 brains, and the aluminum content in these people is some of the highest he has ever seen and raises new questions about the role of aluminum in the etiology of autism. Five people were used in the study, comprising of four males and one female, all between the ages of 14-50. Each of their brains contained what the authors considered unsafe and high amounts of aluminum compared to brain tissues of patients with other diseases where high brain aluminum content is common, like Alzheimer’s disease, for example.

It’s now been downloaded by more than 1 million people. The photo below was posted recently via his Instagram account.

Here is a summary of the study’s main findings:

-All five individuals had at least one brain tissue with a “pathologically significant” level of aluminum, defined as greater than or equal to 3.00 micrograms per gram of dry brain weight (μg/g dry wt). (Dr. Exley and colleagues developed categories to classify aluminum-related pathology after conducting other brain studies, wherein older adults who died healthy had less than 1 μg/g dry wt of brain aluminum.)

-Roughly two-thirds (67%) of all the tissue samples displayed a pathologically significant aluminum content.

-Aluminum levels were particularly high in the male brains, including in a 15-year-old boy with ASD who had the study’s single highest brain aluminum measurement (22.11 μg/g dry wt)—many times higher than the pathologically significant threshold and far greater than levels that might be considered as acceptable even for an aged adult.

-Some of the elevated aluminum levels rivaled the very high levels historically reported in victims of dialysis encephalopathy syndrome (a serious iatrogenic disorder resulting from aluminum-containing dialysis solutions).

-In males, most aluminum deposits were inside cells (80/129), whereas aluminum deposits in females were primarily extracellular (15/21). The majority of intracellular aluminum was inside non-neuronal cells (microglia and astrocytes).

-Aluminum was present in both grey matter (88 deposits) and white matter (62 deposits). (The brain’s grey matter serves to process information, while the white matter provides connectivity.)

-The researchers also identified aluminum-loaded lymphocytes in the meninges (the layers of protective tissue that surround the brain and spinal cord) and in similar inflammatory cells in the vasculature, furnishing evidence of aluminum’s entry into the brain “via immune cells circulating in the blood and lymph” and perhaps explaining how youth with ASD came to acquire such shockingly high levels of brain aluminum.

Following up this paper, Exely recently published recently published a paper titled “The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science.” In their publication, they provide evidence for their position that “the safety of aluminium-based vaccine adjuvants, like that of any environmental factor presenting a risk of neurotoxicity and to which the young child is exposed, must be seriously evaluated without further delay, particularly at a time when the CDC is announcing a still increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders, of 1 child in 54 in the USA.”

In the interview below, Exley answers a lot of questions, but the part that caught my attention was:

We have looked at what happens to the aluminum adjuvant when it’s injected and we have shown that certain types of cells come to the injection site and take up the aluminum inside them. You know, these same cells we also see in the brain tissue in autism. So, for the first time we have a link that honestly I had never expected to find between aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines and that same aluminum potentially could be carried by those same cells across the blood brain barrier into the brain tissue where it could deposit the aluminum and produce a disease, Encephalopathy (brain damage), it could produce the more severe and disabling form of autism. This is a really shocking finding for us.

The interview is quite informative with regards to aluminum toxicology in general, but if you’re interested in the quote above, you can fast forward to the twelve minutes and thirty seconds mark.

Why This Is Important: There are many concerns being raised about aluminum in vaccines, and where that aluminum goes when it’s injected into the body. Multiple animal studies have now shown that when you inject aluminum, it doesn’t exit the body but travels to distant organs and eventually ends up in the brain where it’s detectable 1-10 years after injection. When we take in aluminum from our food or whatever however, the body does a great job of getting rid of it.

When you inject aluminum, it goes into a different compartment of your body. It doesn’t come into that same mechanism of excretion. So, and of course it can’t because that’s the whole idea of aluminum adjuvants, aluminum adjuvants are meant to stick around and allow that antigen to be presented over and over and over again persistently, otherwise you wouldn’t put an adjuvant in in the first place. It can’t be inert, because if it were inert it couldn’t do the things it does. It can’t be excreted because again it couldn’t provide that prolonged exposure of the antigen to your immune system. – Dr Christopher Shaw, University of British Columbia. (source)

Furthermore, federal health regulatory agencies have not appropriately studied the aluminum adjuvants mechanisms of action after injection, it’s simply been presumed safe after more than 90 years of use in various vaccines.

It’s also important to note that A group of scientists and physicians known as The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) have discovered a crucial math error in a FDA paper regarding the safety of aluminum in vaccines.

If you want to access the science and studies about injected aluminum not exiting the body, and more information about aluminum in vaccines in general, you can refer to THIS article, and THIS article I recently published on the subject that goes into more detail and provides more sources, science and exampels. 

The Takeaway: When it comes to vaccine safety, why does mainstream media constantly point fingers and call those who have concerns “anti-vax conspiracy theorists?” Why don’t they ever address the science and concerns being raised that paint vaccines in a light that they’ve never been painted in? What’s going on here? Would more rigorous safety testing of our vaccines not be in the best interests of everybody? Who would ever oppose that and why?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

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

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

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

Continue Reading

Alternative News

CDC Virologist: OP Vaccine Has Created Polio Outbreaks

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    According to Mark Pallansch, a CDC virologist, the oral polio vaccine has created more disease outbreaks than they've stopped. The oral polio vaccine is now responsible for many outbreaks across multiple countries.

  • Reflect On:

    Can these outbreaks caused by the oral polio vaccine really be brought under control by another vaccine used to combat the oral polio vaccine outbreaks? Is that such a good idea or is more caution warranted here?

This article has been updated and corrected. 

What Happened: In 2019 Mark Pallansch, a virologists with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, told sciencemag.org that by using mOPV2 (oral polio vaccine), “we have now created more new emergences of the virus than we have stopped.” This is known as “vaccine-derived poliovirus.” Yes, you read that correctly, and it’s one of multiple examples of vaccines causing disease outbreaks. For example, A study published in 2017 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology found that “During the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees. Of the 194 measles sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences…” This means 37 percent of the cases analyzed were a result of the vaccine. You can read more about the measles and the MMR vaccine specifically, here.

Why This Is Important: The spread of the virus due to the oral vaccine is plaguing Africa,

The global initiative to eradicate polio is badly stuck, battling the virus on two fronts. New figures show the wild polio virus remains entrenched in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, its other holdout, where cases are surging. In Africa, meanwhile, the vaccine itself is spawning virulent strains. The leaders of the world’s biggest public health program are now admitting that success is not just around the corner—and intensively debating how to break the impasse. (source)

Children’s Health Defense explains,

The oral polio vaccine (OPV) is in use around the world and constitutes the “workhorse” of global polio eradication efforts due to its low cost and ease of administration. The OPV contains live but weakened polioviruses that match up to wild polioviruses. Vaccine researchers have long known that these OPV-derived viruses can themselves cause polio, particularly when they get “loose in the environment.” In settings with poor sanitation and iffy hygiene, the vaccine viruses can easily “find their way into water sources, and onto contaminated hands or foods,” where they can then launch a self-perpetuating chain of transmission. Researchers concede that an OPV virus “can very rapidly regain its strength if it starts spreading on its own,” acquiring “mutations that make it basically indistinguishable from the wild-type virus.” In other words, there is no meaningful difference between a wild and OPV-derived poliovirus “in terms of virulence and in terms of how the virus spreads.”

The oral vaccine has been causing outbreaks in multiple countries for a long time, in fact,  it has been responsible for close to 90% of the vaccine-derived polioviruses circulating since the year 2000, but it was only recently when the World Health Organization (WHO) brought more attention to the issue via their website in September of this year.

In fact, between August 2019 and August 2020, there were 400 recorded cases of vaccine-derived polio in more than 20 countries worldwide

The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), headed by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation had scientists actually predict predict that some vaccine-virus-derived outbreaks would indeed occur, but they thought they could handle these outbreaks with another vaccine.

Now,

The frequency with which type 2 vaccine-derived outbreaks are occurring has far exceeded projections—and the rush to administer the new monovalent type 2 vaccine appears to be exacerbating rather than stemming the problem. In an astonishing admission, a CDC virologist has stated that due to the stop-gap use of the new type-2-only vaccine, “We have now created more new emergences of the virus than we have stopped.” Another vaccine expert has remarked, “if you just keep trickling in with a little bit of [monovalent] vaccine every time you think you have a problem all you’re doing is reseeding [more transmission chains].”

There had been no cases of wild poliovirus on the African continent since September 2016, but by July 2019, the WHO was cautioning that there was a high risk of ongoing type 2 vaccine virus spreading across Africa. Outbreak investigators have been documenting an uptick in circulating vaccine-derived  poliovirus type 2 in both human and environmental samples since mid-2017 (two years after the “switch”), generally obtaining human samples either from children presenting with acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) or from “healthy community contacts.” Although the WHO describes polio as just one of AFP’s possible causes, African labs have been isolating type 2 vaccine virus in case after case of AFP.

To date, surveillance reports have noted the presence of the vaccine-derived type 2 poliovirus in Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, and Somalia. In Nigeria, type 2 has spread from the north of the country to Lagos—Nigeria’s largest and most densely populated city. In Ghana, soon after investigators found type 2 vaccine viruses in sewage in the capital of Accra, a toddler 400 miles away was diagnosed with vaccine virus paralysis—representing Ghana’s “first ever” reported outbreak of type 2 vaccine-derived poliovirus.

And to think in Pakistan they were jailing parents who were refusing to give their children the oral polio vaccine, perhaps they still are?

Something else to consider: According to fact-checker Health Feedback, “Vaccination has been effective in eradicating polio from the vast majority of developing countries, preventing an estimated 16 million cases and 1.5 million deaths worldwide. While vaccine-derived polio cases do occur, they are very rare and can be avoided by improving sanitation and vaccine coverage in vulnerable communities.”

They go on to state that

While vaccine-derived polio cases currently exceed wild poliovirus cases, this is only because polio vaccination campaigns have eradicated the wild virus from the vast majority of countries. Only one of the three original strains of wild poliovirus remains. In contrast to the estimated 350,000 children paralyzed by polio in 1988, which is the year when the GPEI launched the vaccination program, the WHO reported only 539 polio cases worldwide in 2019. In the absence of the oral vaccine, the virus could have paralyzed more than 6.5 million children in the past ten years.

You can read more about what they have to say, about polio and the polio vaccine here.

The Takeaway: Why is so much credible information about the safety concerns regarding vaccines never addressed by the mainstream media? Why do they never address and counter the concerns, and why instead do they constantly use ridicule and terms like “anti-vax conspiracy theorists?”  Would more rigorous safety testing of our vaccines not be in the best interests of everybody? Who would ever oppose that and why?

Related CE Article: Scientists Call For Safety Testing of Aluminum Based Vaccine Adjuvants

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

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

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

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

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

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

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!