Connect with us

Alternative News

Doctor Explains How The HPV Vaccine Is Linked To A Rise In Cervical Cancer Rates

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Cervical cancer rates in several countries have risen since the introduction of the HPV vaccine, and pap smear tests have dropped. When pap smear tests were routinely conducted, cancer rates remained low.

  • Reflect On:

    After reading the article, is it really worth it? It doesn't make much sense, so why is it so heavily marketed?

It takes a long time to affirm that a preventive action really protects. But the failure of this supposed protection can sometimes be very quickly obvious. To prove that the Titanic was truly unsinkable would have required decades of navigation on the most dangerous seas of the world. Demonstrating that it wasn’t, took only a few hours … This  Titanic demonstration is unfortunately reproduced by the Gardasil vaccination.

advertisement - learn more

Evidence that vaccination increases the risk of invasive cancer can be rapid, if the vaccine changes the natural history of cancer by accelerating it. The analysis of trends in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer published in official statistics (registers) was studied in the first and most fully vaccinated countries (Australia, Great Britain, Sweden and Norway). Unfortunately, it’s the case for HPV vaccines.

--> Practice Is Everything: Want to become an effective changemaker? Join CETV and get access to exclusive conversations, courses, and original shows that empower you to embody the changemaker this world needs. Click here to learn more!

The above quotation comes from the research of Dr. Nicole Delepine, a surgeon and Oncologist from France. It’s not really a surprise, as a fairly recent study published in the journal EbioMedicine outlined this point, stating in the introduction:

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 (Larson et al., 2011). These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population.

Apart from finding an increased rate in cervical cancer since the introduction of the HPV vaccine, she also discovered a “spectacular success of cervical smear screening with a steady decrease in the rate of invasive cervical cancer. In all of the countries that performed smear screening, the pre-vaccination period from 1989 to 2007 was marked by a ‘significant’ decrease in the standardized incidence of cervical cancer.”

A Pap smear, also called a Pap test, is a screening procedure for cervical cancer. It tests for the presence of precancerous or cancerous cells on the cervix.

advertisement - learn more

In less than 20 years, the percentage of incidences of invasive cancer of the cervix decreased from 13.5 to 9.4 in Great Britain, 13.5 to 7 in Australia, 11.6 to 10.2 in Sweden, 15.1 to 11 in Norway,  10.7 to 6.67 in the USA, and 11 to 7.1 in France as a result of pap smear tests, we are seeing the opposite with the vaccine.  Out of all countries across the globe that used smear screening, the average annual rate of decline was 2.5% between 1989 and 2000 and 1% between 2000 and 2007, resulting in a total decrease of nearly 30% across 1989-2007. (1,2,3,4,5) 

A similar trend was reported by Sweden’s Center for Cervical Cancer prevention. In 2007, they reported that incidences of invasive cervical cancer are climbing in nearly all countries. Over the two-year period from 2013 to 2015, for example, there was a steep 20 percent increase. (source)

In Sweden, Gardasil has been used since 2006. The vaccination program was rolled out in 2010, with vaccination coverage of 12-year-old girls approaching 80%. In 2012-2013, thanks to a catch-up program, almost all girls aged 13 to 18 were vaccinated.

In this country, incidences of cervical cancer have increased steadily since vaccinations started, from 9.6 per 100000 in 2006 to 9.7 in 2009, 10.3 in 2012, and 11.49 in 2015. (source)

This increase is mostly due to the increase in the incidence of invasive cancers among women aged 20-24 whose incidence doubled ( from 1.86 in 2007 to3.72 in 2015 p<0.001) and in women aged 20 to 29 the incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix increased by 19% (from 6.69 to 8.01) – Dr. Delepine

On April 30th of 2018, a study published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics suggested that the HPV vaccine may actually be causing cervical cancer in some women rather than preventing it. According to the editors of the journal, “the issues raised by it [the study] are important and discussion on it is in the public interest.

That last point there is so important: “discussion on it is in the public interest.” Any type of discussion regarding heavily marketed medication is extremely important, and it’s highly concerning when there is a large attempt to ridicule or prevent such a discussion from taking place.

The study was retracted, but remains accessible on the journal’s site.

As editors, we are wary of the extreme ideological divide that views discussions on vaccines as either “pro” or “anti”. In low and middle-income countries like India, where early HPV infection and incidence of carcinoma cervix are relatively high, scientific discussion and resolution of issues concerning the HPV vaccine is critical, for women receiving it, and for policy making on its introduction in the universal immunisation programme. We hope that the hypothesis of possible harm of vaccinating women previously exposed to HPV is carefully explored in future studies. (source)

Gardasil’s prevention failure has essentially erased the perceived benefits of the Pap smear, which is accelerating the onset of cervical cancer, according to Delepine. She points out how, in all of the countries who have implemented large HPV vaccination programs, there’s been a significant increase in the frequency of invasive cancers within the most vaccinated populations.

Delepine uses some “official sources” to make her point more clear.

Australia was the first country to organize routine immunization for girls (April 2007 school-based program for females aged 12–13 years, July 2007 time-limited catch-up program targeting females aged 14–26 years) and then for boys (2013). According to the last Australian Institute of Health and Welfare publication (2018 publication describing the detailed rates until 2014) the standardized incidence in the overall population has not decreased since vaccination 7/100000 in 2007 versus 7.4 in 2014.

This global stabilization results from two contradictory trends that only appears by examining trends, according to age groups.

Vaccinated age groups women have seen their risk increase:

100% increase for those aged 15 to 19 (from 0.1 in 2007 to 0.2 in 2014)

113% increase (from 0.7 to 1.5) in groups aged 20 to 24 more than 80% of them were catch up vaccinated when 13 to 17 years old.

But, as the figures are very small, this increase does not reach statistical significance.

About a third increase for 25-29 group (from 5.9 to 8 ,p=0.06) and for 30-34 (from 9.9 to 12.4 c=0.80 p=0.01) less vaccinated. These increases are statistically significant cannot be due to hazard. (source)

She goes on to emphasize how non-vaccinated women continue to benefit from screening with a Pap smear.

During the same period, older women (and therefore unvaccinated) saw their cancer risk decrease significantly: less 17% for women aged 55 to 59 (from 9.7 to 8.1), less 13% for women aged 60 to 64 ( from 10.3 to 8.9), less 23% for those aged 75 to 79 (from 11.5 to 8.8) and even less 31% for those aged 80 to 84 (from 14.5 to 10).

In 2016, national statistics from the UK showed a significant increase in the rate of cervical cancer.

Women aged between 20 and 25 years, vaccinated for more than 85% of them, when they were between 14 and 18 years old, have seen their cancer risk increase by 70% in 2 years (from 2.7 in 2012 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2014 p = 0.0006) and those aged 25 to 30,  (aged between 18 and 23 at the time of the vaccination campaign)  have seen their cancer risk increase by 10. (source)

From their inception, the two HPV vaccines (Merck’s Gardasil and, outside the U.S., GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix) have been aggressively marketed, with their potential benefits oversold and their many risks disguised, particularly through the use of inappropriate placebos. It has been left to independent researchers to critique the regulatory apparatus’ fraudulent evidence. Recent letters published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) have brought forward some stark numbers that illustrate the vaccine’s appalling record: A seriously adverse event rate of 1 in 15 (7%) and a death rate among the vaccinated (14 per 10,000) that far exceeds the risk of dying from cervical cancer which is 0.23 per 10,000 (BMJ letter, May 2018).

Reports to the World Health Organization’s global adverse drug reactions database—conservatively estimated to represent 10% of actual reactions—show over 305,000 adverse reactions where the HPV vaccine “is believed to have been the cause,” including 445 deaths (23 of which were sudden) and over 1,000 cancerous tumors (including 168 cervical cancers), among other serious reactions (BMJ letter, December 2017).

“A healthy 16-year-old is at zero immediate risk of dying from cervical cancer but is faced with a small but real risk of death or serious disability from a vaccine that has yet to prevent a single case of cervical cancer.”

Researchers at the Uppsala Monitoring Center in Sweden have described how easy it is for risks to “escape epidemiological detection.” The implications, according to this group, are that “case reports and case series can no longer be discarded simply as ‘anecdotes’ or ‘coincidence,’ and their contribution to the evidence base should not be ‘trumped’ by the findings of an epidemiological study.” The bottom line is that a corrupt vaccine approval process should not be allowed to sacrifice young women on the altar of industry profits.

How effective is the HPV vaccine? How necessary is it? These are important questions to ask, especially when they are marketed as ‘completely  safe’ and ‘necessary’ by big pharmaceutical companies. Why do we believe them? Why is it that one who questions the administration of any type of vaccine these days are instantaneously vilified and sometimes even shut down from having any type of real dialogue? Why are health professionals and university professors losing their jobs simply for questioning such medicines? Numerous publications emerge every year in reputable scientific/medical journals questioning the safety of vaccines, providing some very startling yet important information. Not only that, but scientists around the world are meeting every single year to discuss these concerns as well. For example, take aluminum, which is found inside of the Gardasil vaccine.

Prior to a few years ago, the bioaccumulation of aluminum, among several other vaccine ingredients, was completely unknown. Aluminum has been added into vaccines for more than one hundreds years and has simply been presumed to be safe without any safety testing actually being done. In fact, it was recently discovered that injected aluminum does not exit the body like the aluminum that’s found in our food. It’s carried by macrophages (white blood cells) and transported into our organs, eventually ending up in the brain, where it can be detected up to one year later. After these animal model studies were completed in 2017, scientists opened up the brains of multiple autistic people and found some of the highest brain aluminum content ever found in human brain tissue. You can access those studies and read more about them here.

Aluminum, just like several other vaccine ingredients (MSG, aborted human fetal cells, etc.) have been added into vaccines for more than 100 years, yet they’ve been presumed save. Only recently have scientists begun looking to see what actually happens to these ingredients when they are injected into the body.

When it comes to the HPV vaccine, is it really necessary? There is a very small percentage of women who will contract an HPV infection throughout their lifetime, and 95 percent of these women who do get an HPV infection will clear it by themselves within a couple of years, you don’t even have to detect it. Of the remaining 5 percent, approximately half of those women will develop pre-cancerous lesions, which could then take decades to develop into cancerous lesions. Furthermore, the HPV vaccine only provides 5-10 years of immunity, and girls (and boys) are injected with it at approximately 12 years old. How likely is it that a child will develop an HPV infection between the ages of 12 and 17? To further my point, there are thousands of girls who have experienced severe adverse reactions and death as a result of the HPV vaccine. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) has paid approximately $4 billion to families with vaccine-injured children. These adverse reactions are the reason why the Japanese government suspended its recommendation and endorsement of the HPV vaccine. Keep in mind that these injuries only take into account 1 percent of vaccine-injured children as well, seeing as how 99 percent of them go completely unreported. (source)

However, things are changing, especially as more doctors choose to independently educate themselves. For example, a study published in the journal Pediatrics found that many paediatricians don’t strongly recommend the HPV vaccine. Researchers used a national survey, asking approximately 600 doctors to outline their stance on the HPV vaccine. Conducted between October 2013 and January 2014, the study found that a large percentage of paediatricians and family doctors — nearly one third of those surveyed — are not strongly recommending the HPV vaccine to parents and preteens, which is why HPV vaccination rates continue to drop.

Not only do we have scientific studies and adverse reactions as justifiable reasons for parents to opt out of vaccinating their children with Gardasil, but we have scientific fraud as well.

Those of you who have been involved in the past in the battle to protect our children from poorly made vaccines or toxic chemicals in our food or in our water know the power of these industries and how they’ve undermined every institution in our democracy that is supposed to protect little children from powerful, greedy corporations. Even the pharmaceutical companies have been able to purchase congress. They’re the largest lobbying entity in Washington D.C.. They have more lobbyists in Washington D.C. than there are congressman and senators combined. They give twice to congress what the next largest lobbying entity is, which is oil and gas… Imagine the power they exercise over both republicans and democrats. They’ve captured them (our regulatory agencies) and turned them into sock puppets. They’ve compromised the press… and they destroy the publications that publish real science. – Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The quote above comes from a video embedded in this article I published not long ago:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr Explains How Big Pharma Completely Owns Congress

Back to the vaccine injuries. When it comes to the HPV vaccine, there are thousands of examples to choose from.

“When one looks at the independent literature, so studies that are not sponsored by the vaccine manufacturers, so with relation to Gardasil there have been several reports documenting multiple sclerosis and encephalitis, which is brain inflammation, in girls who have received their Gardasil vaccine, so, just because a study sponsored by the manufacturers does not identify problems with the vaccine does not necessarily mean the vaccine is safe. In fact if one looks at the manufacturer studies, they’re often not designed to detect serious adverse events. There was a study done by a group of researchers sponsored by Glaxo Smith and Kline and they were looking at Cervarix, which is another HPV vaccine, and the authors acknowledged that none of the studies that they evaluated have been designed to detect autoimmune diseases. So obviously, you’re not going to find what you’re not looking for. And in spite of these obvious flaws, they concluded that there is no evidence that Cervarix is associated with increased risk for autoimmune diseases, and this is absurd because you haven’t looked for it, the study has not been designed to detect autoimmune diseases.” – Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, Post-doctoral Fellow at the University of British Columbia where she works in Neurosciences and the Department of Medicine (source)

Above is a great point. “All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis.” (PMID: 28188123) This is quite the statement, and it highlights something many people don’t consider very often about vaccines. All vaccines are approved using science from their manufacturers. They only look to see how effective it is for the target disease, and nothing else. If they did look for other things, there would be no chance that they could sell them, market them, and make the amount of money they do on these products. These big pharma companies also own our federal regulatory agencies. Put two and two together and things become quite clear.

The latest example to make noise regarding HPV vaccine injury is Jennifer Robi, a 24-year-old former athlete and scholar who has been confined to a wheelchair since receiving her third Gardasil vaccine at age sixteen. She suffers continual uncontrolled neuro/muscular contractions (jerking) and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and many other symptoms of systemic autoimmune dysregulation.

Jennifer’s attorney, Sol Ajalat, initially brought her case in Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and then, following a judgment in the program, elected to proceed in civil court. Since VICA (the Vaccine Injury Compensation Act) forbids recoveries for product defect or negligence, Ajalat brought Jennifer’s civil case under the theories that Merck committed fraud during its clinical trials and then failed to warn Jennifer (and, by implication, other injured girls) about the high risks and inflated the benefits of the vaccine.

You can read more about that story here.

Another example I’ve written of in the past is of a boy named Colton.  Below is a clip from the recently released film, Vaxxed, of Colton and his mother Kathleen who share his story of vaccine injury following the Gardasil vaccine with the Vaxxed team in Oren. Another story that will hopefully spark more questions and dialogue within the mainstream medical community. Unfortunately, Colton was unable to cope with his injuries and recently took his own life.

The Takeaway

Vaccines used to be touted as God’s gift to humanity, being marketed as completely safe and as life savers for everybody. They’re still marketed that way, but vaccination rates are dropping as more and more parents are becoming aware of the research that doesn’t really get any public attention. And yes, it’s ‘peer reviewed’ published research by hundreds of scientists all over the world, and the hits just keep on coming. This narrative, although labelled as ‘anti-vax,’ is simply due to the fact that vaccines are not as safe as they’re marketed to be, and we still have a long ways to go when the mainstream makes it seem criminal when you simply ask questions. Many people still react with anger and emotion, and are still unwilling to examine or even look at the evidence.  That being said, people are actually doing their own research and thinking for themselves. It’s become very difficult to rely on health professionals given the fact that they rely largely on pharmaceutical companies’ research. Doctors actually don’t know much about vaccines, let alone what’s in them, and they seem to only know how they work. This is very concerning. The interest and concern over vaccinations is evident to us here at CE, and our vaccine articles alone have amassed well over one hundred million views.

Sources Used:

[1] Cancer Research UK, Cervical Cancer (C53): 1993-2015, European Age-Standardized Incidence Rates per 100,000 Population, Females, UK Accessed 08 [ 2018 ].

[2] AIHW [2]. 13. AIHW 2017. Cancer in Australia 2017. Cancer series no. 101. Cat. No. CAN 100. Canberra: AIHW.

[3] NORDCAN, Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries 3.1.2018

[4] Bo T Hansen, Suzanne Campbell, Mari Nygård Long-term incidence of HPVrelated cancers, and cases preventableby HPV vaccination: a registry-based study in Norway BMJ Open 2018; 8: e019005

[5] Table 5.1 Cancer of the Cervix Uteri (Invasive) Trends in SEER Incidence and US Mortality SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2012

[6] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2017 Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books: cervical cancer Canberra: AIHW. <Http://www.aihw.gov.au/acim-books>.

[7] A Castanona, P Sasienia Is the recent increase in cervical cancer in women aged 20-24 years in

England a cause for concern? Preventive Medicine 107 (2018) 21-28

[8] Nationellt Kvalitetsregister für Cervix cancer prevention (NKCx), http://nkcx.se/templates/_rsrapport_2017.pdf [in Swedish]

[9] Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Hansen HL, Hertzum-Larsen R, Johannesen TB, Kejs AMT, Khan S, Olafsdottir E, Petersen T, Schmidt LKH, Virtanen A and Storm HH: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 8.1 (28.06.2018). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society. Available from http://www.ancr.nu, accessed it 30 / 09 / 2018 .

[10] Cancer in Norway 2016

[11] Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Hansen HL, Hertzum-Larsen R, Johannesen TB, Kejs AMT, Khan S, Olafsdottir E, Petersen T, Schmidt LKH, Virtanen A and Storm HH: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 8.1 (28.06.2018). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society. Available from http://www.ancr.nu, accessed is 1 / 10 / 2018

[12] SEER 9 National Center for Health Statistics, CDC

[13] Francim, HCL, Public Health France, INCa. Projections of Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Metropolitan France in 2017 – Solid Tumors [Internet]. Saint-Maurice: Public health France [updated 02/01/2018; viewed on the 09/05/2018

[14] https://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/gardasil-alerte-risque-imminent-d-206314 Gardasil, alert, imminent risk of mandatory vaccination against HPV unnecessary, and sometimes dangerous , for girls and boys.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Another Lawsuit Filed Against Merck Claiming HPV Gardasil Vaccine Caused Debilitating Injury

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Another lawsuit has been filed alleging severe injury and disability as a result of the HPV vaccine. This time it's on behalf of Sahara Walker, a 19 year old girl from Wisconsin who suffered debilitating injuries after receiving the vaccine.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are concerns regarding vaccinations always unacknowledged by mainstream media? Why are those who raise concerns always considered "anti-vax conspiracy theorists?"

What Happened: Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, a law firm based in the United States, along with attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr recently filed their fourth lawsuit against Merck on behalf of Sahara Walker. Walker is a 19 year old girl from Wisconsin who suffered debilitating injuries from the Gardasil HPV vaccine.

Two days after she took the vaccine, she starting vomiting and experiencing headaches, sever body aces, extreme fatigue that had her bed ridden where she remained, unless she used a wheelchair.

Over time Sarah’s symptoms became more severe. In 2015 her medication schedule rose to 55 pills a day while she endured 54 doctor appointments. She was eventually diagnosed with neurocardiogenic syncope, postural  postural orthostatic tachycardia (POTS), a form of orthostatic intolerance called orthostatic hypotension, small fiber neuropathy and severe autoimmune autonomic neuropathy.

An article written by Kennedy explains,

Today, Sahara, 19, takes 14 prescription medications and receives an expensive intravenous immunoglobulin treatment every three weeks.

“I want to warn kids of the terrible risks for this vaccine and let other injured girls know that they are not alone,” Sahara explained. “The Gardasil vaccine stole my life. Before Gardasil, my future was filled with endless possibilities. Now, my life is a parade of accommodations and medical interventions. It’s not how a 19 year old should live. I’m fighting for all of us.”

If Merck had warned Sahara’s mother about Gardasil’s dangers, she never would have allowed her daughter to receive the HPV vaccine.

“We are pro-vaccine, but we would have never had Sahara get Gardasil if we knew the risks,” Sahara’s mother said. “She went from perfectly healthy to sick and disabled within days of the shot. It’s beyond any doubt that Gardasil caused her injuries.”

Internal documents showed that Merck cherry-picked its own data to mislead the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and doctors about Gardasil’s safety and efficacy. We aim to get justice for Sahara and others impacted and to force Merck to stop defrauding the public so that we can protect our children.

Why This Is Important: Deaths and permanent disabilities have been reported as a result of the HPV vaccine all across the globe for many years.

For example, researchers from Mexico’s National Institute of Cardiology pored over 28 studies published through January 2017—16 randomized trials and 12 post-marketing case series—pertaining to the three human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines currently on the market globally. In their July 2017 peer-reviewed report, the authors, Manuel Martínez-Lavin and Luis Amezcua-Guerra, uncovered evidence of numerous adverse events, including life-threatening injuries, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths, reported after vaccination with GlaxoSmithKline’s bivalent Cervarix vaccine and Merck’s quadrivalent or nine-valent HPV vaccines (Gardasil and Gardasil 9)

Japan stopped recommending the HPV vaccine as a result of serious adverse reactions. Multiple films have documented this phenomenon, we’ve written about one of them before called Sacrificial Virgins.

There are a number of documented examples from all over the world, and they are full of debate between the manufacturer and the person injured with regards to whether or not the vaccine actually played any role in the injuries and deaths. For example, A 14-year-old boy named Christopher Bunch passed away more than a year ago, and the mother and father are claiming that it was as a result of the HPV vaccine. His mother started a petition over a year ago claiming that her son “died as a direct result of the HPV vaccine.”

On January 26th, the father of the boy, Elijah Eugene Mendoza-Bunch, wrote this via his Facebook page,

So back on December 11th 2019 I sent an email to CEO Ken Frazier of Merck song to speak with him about the HPV VACCINE and how it killed my son and how it is destroying lives. Well here we are January 25th (the day I got it in the mail) and this is the response from Merck….

You can view their response and read more about that story here.

These are just a few of many examples.

Science Calling The Vaccine Into Question: 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.

 A study published in 2013 in Current Pharmaceutical Design carried out a review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. They found that,

HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications). Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odds with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data.

For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified. Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).

We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles.

Vaccine ingredients have also come under a lot of scrutiny over the years, especially aluminum, and the HPV vaccine contains aluminum.

“There has not been any clinical trials designed and carried out to test the safety of aluminum adjuvants. Not a single clinical safety trial for any vaccine that includes an aluminum adjuvant.” – Professor Christopher Exley, Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry and group leader of the Bioinorganic Chemistry Laboratory at Keele University.

It’s concerning that aluminum hasn’t been tested for safety.  Dr. Martin Howell Friede, Coordinator of Initiative For Vaccine Research at the World Health Organization mentioned at a WHO vaccine conference at the end of 2019, that there are clinical studies that blame adjuvants for adverse events seen as a result of administering vaccines, and how people in general often blame adverse reactions to vaccines being the result of the vaccine adjuvant. You can find a link to that conference and read more about it here.

Professor Christopher Shaw from the University of British Columbia in Canada explains that injected aluminum doesn’t come into the same methods of excretion as the aluminum we take in from food, for example. When we inject aluminum, it stays in the body, it may cross the blood brain barrier, enter into cells and various organs in the body.

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 –  Canadian neuroscientist and professor of ophthalmology at the University of British Columbia (source)

In 2018, shaw published a paper in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry that found almost 100 percent of the intramuscularly injected aluminum in mice as vaccine adjuvants was absorbed into the systemic circulation and traveled to different sites in the body such as the brain, the joints, and the spleen where it accumulated and was retained for years post-vaccination. (source)

Exley and a team of scientists published a paper in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology 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.”

The publication goes on to address concerns it has with another paper that was published a year prior, emphasizing that the authors of that specific publication, JP Goullé & L Grangeot-Keros,

The Takeaway: Did you know that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury (NCVIA) Act has paid  out nearly $4 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured children? This is not money coming from the pharmaceutical company. The NCVIA insures that these payments come from taxpayers, the pharmaceutical companies are not held liable. Vaccines are a liability free product.

Why is any type of information that paints vaccines in a ‘negative’ light completely unacknowledged in the mainstream? Does the information in the article alone not warrant some sort of discussion, or at least some sort of acknowledgement as to why some people are concerned?

Why does mainstream media always use terms lie “anti-vax conspiracy theorist” and ridicule? More important than facts and who is right or wrong is our ability to communicate with each other without consequences. We must learn to see the perspective of those who disagree with us, and understand and feel why they feel the way they do. This needs to be our focus, if we can’t get along with people who disagree with us, we are never going to move forward and this applies to everyone.

I would argue that there is more than enough information out there regarding vaccinations that support the idea of informed consent instead of mandatory measures.

 

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Awareness

New Research Adds Evidence That Weed Killer Glyphosate Disrupts Hormones

Avatar

Published

on

New research is adding worrisome evidence to concerns that the widely used weed killing chemical glyphosate may have the potential to interfere with human hormones.

In a paper published in the journal Chemosphere titled Glyphosate and the key characteristics of an endocrine disruptor: A review, a trio of scientists concluded that glyphosate appears to have eight out of ten key characteristics associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals . The authors cautioned, however, that prospective cohort studies are still needed to more clearly understand the impacts of glyphosate on the human endocrine system.

The authors, Juan Munoz, Tammy Bleak and Gloria Calaf, each affiliated with the University of Tarapacá in Chile, said their paper is the first review to consolidate the mechanistic evidence on glyphosate as an endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC).

Some of the evidence suggests that Roundup, Monsanto’s well-known glyphosate-based herbicide, can alter the biosynthesis of the sexual hormones, according to the researchers.

EDCs may mimic or interfere with the body’s hormones and are linked with developmental and reproductive problems as well as brain and immune system dysfunction.

The new paper follows publication earlier this year of an assortment of animal studies that indicated glyphosate exposures impact reproductive organs and threaten fertility.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely used herbicide, sold in 140 countries. Introduced commercially in 1974 by Monsanto Co, the chemical is the active ingredient in popular products such as Roundup and hundreds of other weed killers used by consumers, municipalities, utilities, farmers, golf course operators, and others around the world.

Dana Barr, a professor at Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health, said the evidence “tends to overwhelmingly indicate that glyphosate has endocrine disrupting properties.”

“It’s not necessarily unexpected since glyphosate has some structural similarities with many other endocrine disrupting pesticides; however, it is more concerning because glyphosate use far surpasses other pesticides,” said Barr, who directs a program within a National Institutes of Health-funded human exposure research center housed at Emory. “Glyphosate is used on so many crops and in so many residential applications such that aggregate and cumulative exposures can be considerable.”

Phil Landrigan, director of the Global Observatory on Pollution and Health, and a professor of biology
at Boston College, said the review pulled together “strong evidence” that glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor.

“The report is consistent with a larger body of literature indicating that glyphosate has a wide range of adverse health effects – findings that overturn Monsanto’s long-standing portrayal of glyphosate as a benign chemical with no negative impacts on human health,” said Landrigan.

EDCs have been a subject of concern since the 1990s after a series of publications suggested that some chemicals commonly used in pesticides, industrial solvents, plastics, detergents, and other substances could have the capacity to disrupt connections between hormones and their receptors.

Scientists generally recognized ten functional properties of agents that alter hormone action, referring to these as ten “key characteristics” of endocrine-disruptors. The ten characteristics are as follows:

EDC’s can:

  • Alter hormone distribution of circulating levels of hormones
  • Induce alterations in hormone metabolism or clearance
  • Alter the fate of hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone receptor expression
  • Antagonize hormone receptors
  • Interact with or activate hormone receptors
  • Alter signal transduction in hormone-responsive cells
  • Induce epigenetic modifications in hormone-producing or hormone-responsive cells
  • Alter hormone synthesis
  • Alter hormone transport across cell membranes

The authors of the new paper said a review of the mechanistic data showed that glyphosate met all of the key characteristics with the exception of two:  “Regarding glyphosate, there is no evidence associated with the antagonistic capacity of hormonal receptors,” they said. As well, “there is no evidence of its impact on hormonal metabolism or clearance,” according to the authors.

Research over the last few decades has largely focused on links found between glyphosate and cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL.) In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

More than 100,000 people have sued Monsanto in the United States alleging exposure to the company’s glyphosate-based herbicides caused them or their loved ones to develop NHL.

The plaintiffs in the nationwide litigation also claim Monsanto has long sought to hide the risks of its herbicides. Monsanto lost three out of three trials and its German owner Bayer AG has spent the last year and a half trying to settle the litigation out of court.

The authors of the new paper took note of the ubiquitous nature of glyphosate, saying “massive use” of the chemical has “led to a wide environmental diffusion,” including rising exposures tied to human consumption of the weed killer through food.

The researchers said that though regulators say the levels of glyphosate residue commonly found in foods are low enough to be safe, they “cannot rule out” a “potential risk” to people consuming foods containing contaminated with the chemical,  particularly grains and other plant-based foods, which often have higher levels than milk, meat or fish products.

U.S. government documents show glyphosate residues have been detected in a range of foods, including organic honey, and granola and crackers.

Canadian government researchers have also reported glyphosate residues in foods. One report issued in 2019 by scientists from Canada’s Agri-Food Laboratories at the Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry found glyphosate in 197 of 200 samples of honey they examined.

Despite the concerns about glyphosate impacts on human health, including through dietary exposure, U.S. regulators have steadfastly defended the safety of the chemical. The Environmental Protection Agency maintains that it has not found any human health risks from exposure to glyphosate.”

Written by Carey Gillam, research director of U.S. Right to Know, where it was originally posted. 

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Portuguese Court Rules That The PCR Test “Is Unable To Determine” A COVID-19 Infection

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A Portuguese court has determined that the PCR tests used to detect COVID-19 are not able to prove an infection beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus determined that the detainment of four individuals was unlawful and illegal.

  • Reflect On:

    With no clear cut answer, and many doctors and scientists contradicting each other, should governments be allowed to take measures that restrict our freedoms? Instead of force, should they provide the science and simply make recommendations?

What Happened: The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test “is unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that such positivity result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”, said the Lisbon Court of Appeal. (source)

A Portuguese appeals court has ruled against the Azores Regional Health Authority, declaring the quarantining of four individuals is unlawful. One of them tested positive for COVID using a PCR test, and the other three were deemed to be high risk due to exposure, and as a result, the regional health authority forced them to undergo isolation. The appeal court heard scientific arguments from several scientists and doctors who made the case for the lack of reliability of the PCR tests in detecting the COVID-19 virus.

The court found that, based on the currently available scientific evidence, the PCR test is unable to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that a positive test actually corresponds to a COVID-19 infection for several reasons, two of the main reasons were that the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used, and the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.

This was also brought up recently by tech mogul Elon Musk who recently revealed he had four tests completed in one day. Using the same test and the same nurse, he received two positive results and two negative results, causing him to state his belief that “something bogus” is going on here. He then asked his Twitter following

“In your opinion, at what Ct number for the cov2 N1 gene should a PCR test probably be regarded as positive? If I’m asking the wrong question, what is a better question?”

In the Portuguese appeal hearing, Jaafar et al. (2020) was cited, stating that “if someone is testing by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is  <3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”  The court further noted that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.

They also cited Surkova et al. (2020), stating that any diagnostic test must be interpreted in the context of the actual probability of disease as assessed prior to the undertaking of the test itself, and expresses the opinion that “in the current epidemiological landscape of the United Kingdom, the likelihood is increasing that Covid 19 tests are returning false positives, with major implications for individuals, the health system and society.”

The court also made the point that a medical diagnosis is a medical act, thus only a physician can determine if a person is ill, no other person or institution has a right to do that.

The court concluded that “if carried out with no prior medical observation of the patient, with no participation of a physician certified by the Ordem dos Médicos who would have assessed symptoms and requested the tests/exams deemed necessary, any act of diagnosis, or any act of public health vigilance (such as determining whether a viral infection or a high risk of exposure exist, which the aforementioned concepts subsume) will violate [a number of laws and regulations] and may configure a crime of usurpação de funções [unlawful practice of a profession] in the case said acts are carried out or dictated by someone devoid of the capacity to do so, i.e., by someone who is not a certified physician [to practice medicine in Portugal a degree is not enough, you need to be accepted as qualified to practice medicine by undergoing examination with the Ordem dos Médicos, roughly our equivalent of the UK’s Royal College of Physicians].”

In addition, the court rules that the Azores Health Authority violated article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, as it failed to provide evidence that the informed consent mandated by said Declaration had been given by the PCR-tested persons who had complained against the forced quarantine measures imposed on them….From the facts presented to the court, it concluded that no evidentiary proof or even indication existed that the four persons in question had been seen by a doctor, either before or after undertaking the test. (source)

According to Vasco Barreto, a researcher at the Center for the Study of Chronic Diseases (Cedoc) of the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the Universidade Nova de Lisboa,  it was irresponsible the way two magistrates dealt with the case. “PCR tests have a specificity and sensitivity greater than 95%. That is, in the overwhelming majority of cases they detect the virus that causes covid-19,” he said. This is indicated in a scientific article that is cited in the judgment, but that is read “completely wrong” by the magistrates, according to Germano de Sousa, former President of the Ordem dos Médicos and owner of a network of laboratories.

You can read more on why this judgement was “unscientific” according to them, here.

Why This Is Important: When it comes to the testing used to detect a COVID-19 infection, there is a wealth of information making it quite clear that the  (PCR)  tests are inadequate and unreliable for determining who is infected and who isn’t. As a result, there seems to be a strong possibility, according to many experts, that the number of cases recorded around the globe probably include a great number of false positives, meaning people who tested and do test positive for the virus don’t actually have it.

But is this true?

There is also a great deal of information making it quite clear that the PCR tests being used are indeed accurate, and very accurate. So, ask yourself this, how can there be “clear” information on both sides? What’s the correct information? How do we know what to believe? Are you open to consider another perspective about this pandemic, one that opposes what you believe? Can you see from the perspective of another person even though they may disagree with you?

There are many examples to choose from that reflect the idea that PCR tests are not accurate, and that they are. For example, the Bulgarian Pathology Association claimed that they are “scientifically meaningless.”  They cite an article published in “Off Guardian” that makes some very interesting points.

It’s been a common theme. Well after this, British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab stated that:

“The false positive rate is very high, so only seven percent of tests will be successful in identifying those that actually have the virus.”

In July, professor Carl Heneghan, director for the centre of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and outspoken critic of the current UK response to the pandemic, wrote a piece titled: “How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?” He has argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could be as high as 50%.

Former scientific advisor at Pfizer, Dr. Mike Yeadon argued the proportion of positive tests that are false is actually “around 90%”.

How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

On the other side of the coin, According to Dr. Matthew Oughton, an infectious diseases specialist at the McGill University Health Centre and the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal:

”The rate of false positives with this particular test is quite low. In other words, if the test comes back saying positive, then believe it, it’s a real positive.”

According to Dr. Robert H. Shmerling, Senior Faculty Editor at Harvard Health Publishing.

False negatives – that is, a test that says you don’t have the virus when you actually do have the virus – may occur. The reported rate of false negatives is as low as 2% and as high as 37%. The false positive rate – that is, how often the test says you have the virus when you actually do not – should be close to zero. Most false-positive results are thought to be due to lab contamination or other problems with how the lab has performed the test, not limitations of the test itself

It also seems to be accepted by many scientists in the field that the number of infected persons is much higher than what we’ve been made to believe from testing, thus driving the infection/fatality rate even lower than what we are seeing. Estimates of infection fatality rate are on par with seasonal flu from this perspective according to many scientists and health professionals.

For example, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician and epidemiologist created The Great Barrington Declaration opposing lockdown. Approximately 45,000 doctors and scientists have now signed it. The compares COVID -19 to the seasonal flu.

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.”  John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Stanford University has said that the infection fatality rate is close to 0 percent for people under the age of 45 years old, explaining how that number rises significantly for people who are older, as with most other respiratory viruses. You can read more about that and access that here.

These are a few of multiple examples.

Is There Conflicting Info Due To The Politicization of Science? 

Kamran Abbas is a doctor, executive editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. He has recently published an article about COVID-19 in the BMJ, the suppression of science and the politicization of medicine.

In it, he offers some food for thought,

Politicians and governments are suppressing science….Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

Globally, people, policies, and procurement are being corrupted by political and commercial agendas…The UK’s pandemic response relies too heavily on scientists and other government appointees with worrying competing interests, including shareholdings in companies that manufacture covid-19 diagnostic tests, treatments, and vaccines. Government appointees are able to ignore or cherry pick science—another form of misuse—and indulge in anti-competitive practices that favour their own products and those of friends and associates.

The stakes are high for politicians, scientific advisers, and government appointees. Their careers and bank balances may hinge on the decisions that they make. But they have a higher responsibility and duty to the public. Science is a public good. It doesn’t need to be followed blindly, but it does need to be fairly considered. Importantly, suppressing science, whether by delaying publication, cherry picking favourable research, or gagging scientists, is a danger to public health, causing deaths by exposing people to unsafe or ineffective interventions and preventing them from benefiting from better ones. When entangled with commercial decisions it is also maladministration of taxpayers’ money.

The Takeaway: Politicization of science was enthusiastically deployed by some of history’s worst autocrats and dictators, and it is now regrettably commonplace in democracies. The medical-political complex tends towards suppression of science to aggrandize and enrich those in power.”

Are we really going to get anywhere if we are constantly polarized with regards to what we believe about this pandemic? More important than information and facts is our ability to empathize with another person who does not share our own beliefs and try to understand where they are coming from and why they feel the way they do. It’s also important for them to empathize with you, and at the end of the day we all must do this with each-other if we want to move forward. Polarization and separation, constantly arguing and fighting with one another will never get us anywhere at all, and simply leaves us open as a collective to harmful responses by governments.

Why is so much information being censored? Why is everything that’s controversial these days deemed a “conspiracy theory” and not really explored by a large majority of people? Given we are deeply feeling the need to make sense of our world, is it time we begin to look at developing the inner faculties necessary to move beyond ideology, limited thinking patterns and truly begin looking at what evidence around us says?

If there’s anything this pandemic has taught us, it’s that we need to change the way we think and how we relate with one another. Obviously, the measures being forced upon us are difficult, and may be causing a lot more harm than good, if any good at all.

Dive Deeper

These days, it’s not just knowing information and facts that will create change, it’s changing ourselves, how we go about communicating, and re-assessing the underlying stories, ideas and beliefs that form our world. We have to practice these things if we truly want to change. At Collective Evolution and CETV, this is a big part of our mission.

Amongst 100's of hours of exclusive content, we have recently completed two short courses to help you become an effective changemaker, one called Profound Realization and the other called How To Do An Effective Media Detox.

Join CETV, engage with these courses and more here!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Due to censorship, please join us on Telegram

We post important content to Telegram daily so we don't have to rely on Facebook.

You have Successfully Subscribed!