- The Facts:
A new study raises concerns and questions about the effectiveness of the HPV and if it really plays any role at all in preventing cervical cancer.
- Reflect On:
Are vaccines as effective as they're marketed to be?
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 part of the problem, as the study points out, is that it’s unknown as to whether certain infections would clear, or would persist and lead to cervical changes. This is a big point. Every year around the world, approximately 13.1/100,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer, so the rate of incidence is quite low. Furthermore, the vaccination is offered to girls aged 9-13, as the study points out, “before sexual debut and naive to HPV infection.”
-->Watch now: Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting and hear from 40 of the world's leading experts on the subject, all FREE! Click here to register now!
The study reviewed 35 published papers relating to 12 randomized blinded non-HPV vaccine-controlled Phase 2 and 3 trials of Gardasil and Cervarix conducted from 2001 to 2016 assessing efficacy against cervical cancer and its precursors. Researchers also examined 39 meta-analyses and systematic reviews of HPV vaccine efficacy.
No Evidence HPV Vaccine Prevents Cervical Cancer
They emphasized after their examination that that none of the trials they examined were actually designed to determine efficacy or effectiveness of the HPV vaccine against cervical cancer. In fact, there were no reported cases of cervical cancer in any of the trials.
The time between first exposure to HPV and peak development of CIN3 is 7–10 years. It takes a further 10 years or so for cervical cancer to develop according to natural history studies. All trials had a mean length of follow-up of six or fewer years, apart from the HPV-023 extension with a mean follow-up of 8.9 years.
The authors point out that it was even questionable whether or not the vaccine prevents pre-cancerous lesions.
HPV Infections Often Clear On Their Own
One issue is that cervical cancer takes many years to develop. Out of all the women who get an HPV infection, approximately 70 percent of those are going to clear that infection all by themselves. The body will take care of it, and you don’t even have to detect it, within two years of the infection, approximately 90 percent of women will have cleared that HPV infection with no help. By three years, half of the remaining 10 percent will have progressed into a CIN 2 3 lesion, a pre-cancerous legion. So, approximately 5 percent of of the original 100 percent of women with an HPV infection will develop into a pre-cancerous lesion.
So now, you have that small group of women who now have pre-cancerous lesions, so now lets look at those moving into actual cancer. What we know is that amongst women with CIN 3 lesions, which is a little bit more severe than CIN 2 lesions, it takes five years for approximately 20 percent of those to develop into cancer, if they do. Furthermore, it takes about 30 years for 40 percent of them to become cancer.
The information above is why multiple studies have questioned the administration of the HPV vaccine. In a study published in Autoimmunity Reviews, the authors note that “The decision to vaccinate with HPV vaccine is a personal decision, not one that must be made for public health. HPV is not a lethal disease, in 95 percent of the infections; and the other 5 percent are detectable and treatable in the precancerous state.
So, one must ask themselves, What are the chances of a 9-13 year old girl getting an HPV infection? And what are the chances of that infection clearing itself? Furthermore, the vaccine only provides 5-10 years immunity, so when that 9 year old reaches the age of 19, or perhaps sooner, the immunity they’ve received from a few, out of many types of HPV infections, is no longer there. There are more than 100 HPV infections, and only 12 of them are carcinogenic to humans.
Furthermore, the idea that the HPV vaccine helps prevent cervical cancer, according to this recent study, is not a correct assumption, so one must ask themselves why is it marketed in that manner?
Corroboration From Other Studies
Again the main study of discussion in this article is complemented by many others that emphasize the same thing. For example, 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.
Is The HPV Vaccine 100% Safe?
Given the information above, I would personally have a hard time justifying giving my daughter the HPV vaccine. The risk is very low for a young girl to develop cervical cancer, as you can see from the information provided above. Furthermore, the HPV vaccine is not completely safe for everybody. For example, after the HPV vaccine, a disabling syndrome of chronic neuropathic pain, fatigue, and autonomic dysfunction may manifest. In questionnaires from 45 individuals who experienced issues after HPV vaccination,
Twenty-nine percent of the cases had immediate (within 24 h) post-vaccination illness onset. The most common presenting complaints were musculoskeletal pain (66%), fatigue (57%), headache (57%), dizziness/vertigo (43%), and paresthesias/allodynia (36%). Fifty-three percent of affected individuals fulfill the fibromyalgia criteria…After a mean period of 4.2 ± 2.5 years post-vaccination, 93% of patients continue to have incapacitating symptoms and remain unable to attend school or work.
A Study published in Clinical Rheumatology entitled “Serious adverse events after HPV vaccination: a critical review of randomized and post-marketing case series” also brings up concerns:
HPV vaccine randomized trials were identified in PubMed. Safety data were extracted. Post-marketing case series describing HPV immunization adverse events were reviewed. Most HPV vaccine randomized trials did not use inert placebo in the control group. Two of the largest randomized trials found significantly more severe adverse events in the tested HPV vaccine arm of the study.Is The Aluminum In HPV Vaccines The Issue?
A study published in Current Medical Chemistry states,
Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. (source)
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.
An interesting point that caught my attention was made by Dr. Martin Howell Friede, Coordinator of Initiative For Vaccine Research at the World Health Organization. He brought up the topic of vaccine adjuvants like aluminum. In certain vaccines, without these adjuvants the vaccine simply doesn’t work. Dr. Friede mentioned 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. He mentioned aluminum specifically.
He showed concern given the fact that “without adjuvants, we are not going to have the next generation of vaccines.” He also stated that,
When we add an adjuvant, it’s because it is essential. We do not add adjuvants to vaccines because we want to do so, but when we add them it adds to the complexity. And I give courses every year on ‘how do you develop vaccines’ and ‘how do you make vaccines’ and the first lesson is, while you are making your vaccine, if you can avoid using an adjuvant, please do so. Lesson two is, if you’re going to use an adjuvant, use one that has a history of safety, and lesson three is, if you’re not going to do that, think very carefully.
You can read more about that, and find links to the conference and it’s full coverage in this article I published about it a few weeks ago.
In 2018, a paper published in The Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry found that 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 post-vaccination. The researchers also found massive damage to motor neurons and behaviour abnormalities after injection. This study complimented and earlier study published in in 2015 that found the following:
Evidence that aluminum-coated particles phagocytozed in the injected muscle and its draining lymph nodes can disseminate within phagocytes throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain further suggests that alum safety should be evaluated in the long term.
When it comes to the HPV vaccine, there are multiple examples of injury. Here is one specific examples out of many you can read about more in depth.
It’s no secret that vaccines are not completely safe for everyone, it’s clearly not a ‘one size fits all’ product, and that’s evident by the fact that nearly $4 billion has been paid out to families of vaccine injured children via the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). As astronomical as the monetary awards are, they’re even more alarming considering that only an estimated 1% of vaccine injuries are even reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).
If the numbers from VAERS are correct – only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported and only 1/3 of the petitions are compensated – then up to 99% of vaccine injuries go unreported. Furthermore, vaccines are a liability-free product, that’s part of the NCVIA. There is no incentive to make a safe product.
Ask yourself, with all of this information out there, is it right to make vaccines mandatory? It’s no secret that vaccine hesitancy is on the rise, not because people are lacking education, but the complete opposite. It’s on the rise because more and more people are coming across information that does not resonate with them, and they are looking for answers.
The community at large should not use terms like ‘anti-vax’ or ‘pro-vax.’ Neither should the word ‘conspiracy’ be tossed around. This simply separates people when, at the end of the day, we all want the same thing and that’s healthy children. Accordingly. the concerns of vaccine safety advocates should be addressed, acknowledged, and not ignored.
Our Biology Responds To Events Before They Even Happen
- The Facts:
Multiple experiments have shown strong evidence for precognition in several different ways. One of them comes in the form of activity within the heart and the brain responding to events before they even happen.
- Reflect On:
Do we have extra human capacities we are unaware of? Perhaps we can learn them, develop them, and use them for good. Perhaps when the human race is ready, we will start learning more.
Is precognition real? There are many examples suggesting that yes, it is. The remote viewing program conducted by the CIA in conjunction with Stanford University was a good example of that. After its declassification in 1995, or at least partial declassification, the Department of Defense and those involved revealed an exceptionally high success rate:
To summarize, over the years, the back-and-forth criticism of protocols, refinement of methods, and successful replication of this type of remote viewing in independent laboratories has yielded considerable scientific evidence for the reality of the (remote viewing) phenomenon. Adding to the strength of these results was the discovery that a growing number of individuals could be found to demonstrate high-quality remote viewing, often to their own surprise… The development of this capability at SRI has evolved to the point where visiting CIA personnel with no previous exposure to such concepts have performed well under controlled laboratory conditions. (source)
The kicker? Part of remote viewing involves peering into future events as well as events that happened in the past.
It’s not only within the Department of Defense that we find this stuff, but a lot of science is emerging on this subject as well.
For example, a study (meta analysis) published in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience titled “Predicting the unpredictable: critical analysis and practical implications of predictive anticipatory activity” examined a number of experiments regarding this phenomenon that were conducted by several different laboratories. These experiments indicate that the human body can actually detect randomly delivered stimuli that occur 1-10 seconds in advance. In other words, the human body seems to know of an event and reacts to the event before it has occurred. What occurs in the human body before these events are physiological changes that are measured regarding the cardiopulmonary, the skin, and the nervous system.
A few years ago, the chief scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, Dr. Dean Radin, visited the scientists over at HearthMath Institute and shared the results of one of his studies. Radin is also one of multiple scientists who authored the paper above. These studies, as mentioned above, tracked the autonomic nervous system, physiological changes, etc.
Scientists at HeartMath Institute (HMI) added more protocols, which included measuring participants’ brain waves (EEG), their hearts’ electrical activity (ECG), and their heart rate variability (HRV).
As HMI explains:
Twenty-six adults experienced in using HeartMath techniques and who could sustain a heart-coherent state completed two rounds of study protocols approximately two weeks apart. Half of the participants completed the protocols after they intentionally achieved a heart-coherent state for 10 minutes. The other half completed the same procedures without first achieving heart coherence. Then they reversed the process for the second round of monitoring, with the first group not becoming heart-coherent before completing the protocols and the second group becoming heart-coherent before. The point was to test whether heart coherence affected the results of the experiment.
Participants were told the study’s purpose was to test stress reactions and were unaware of its actual purpose. (This practice meets institutional-review-board standards.) Each participant sat at a computer and was instructed to click a mouse when ready to begin.
The screen stayed blank for six seconds. The participant’s physiological data was recorded by a special software program, and then, one by one, a series of 45 pictures was displayed on the screen. Each picture, displayed for 3 seconds, evoked either a strong emotional reaction or a calm state. After each picture, the screen went blank for 10 seconds. Participants repeated this process for all 45 pictures, 30 of which were known to evoke a calm response and 15 a strong emotional response.
The results of the experiment were fascinating to say the least. The participants’ brains and hearts responded to information about the emotional quality of the pictures before the computer flashed them (random selection). This means that the heart and brain were both responding to future events. The results indicated that the responses happened, on average, 4.8 seconds before the computer selected the pictures.
How mind-altering is that?
Even more profound, perhaps, was data showing the heart received information before the brain. “It is first registered from the heart,” Rollin McCraty Ph.D. explained, “then up to the brain (emotional and pre-frontal cortex), where we can logically relate what we are intuiting, then finally down to the gut (or where something stirs).”
Another significant study (meta-analysis) that was published in Journal of Parapsychology by Charles Honorton and Diane C. Ferrari in 1989 examined a number of studies that were published between 1935 and 1987. The studies involved individuals’ attempts to predict “the identity of target stimuli selected randomly over intervals ranging from several hundred million seconds to one year following the individuals responses.” These authors investigated over 300 studies conducted by over 60 authors, using approximately 2 million individual trials by more than 50,000 people. (source)
It concluded that their analysis of precognition experiments “confirms the existence of a small but highly significant precognition effect. The effect appears to be repeatable; significant outcomes are reported by 40 investigators using a variety of methodological paradigms and subject populations. The precognition effect is not merely an unexplained departure from a theoretical chance baseline, but rather is an effect that covaries with factors known to influence more familiar aspects of human performance.” (source)
“There seems to be a deep concern that the whole field will be tarnished by studying a phenomenon that is tainted by its association with superstition, spiritualism and magic. Protecting against this possibility sometimes seems more important than encouraging scientific exploration or protecting academic freedom. But this may be changing.”
– Cassandra Vieten, PhD and President/CEO at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (source)
We are living in a day and age where new information and evidence are constantly emerging, challenging what we once thought was real or what we think we know about ourselves as human beings. It’s best to keep an open mind. Perhaps there are aspects of ourselves and our consciousness that have yet to be discovered. Perhaps if we learn and grow from these studies, they can help us better ourselves and others.
The 5G Health Summit Starts Tomorrow (June 1st) – Reserve Your Free Spot Here
- The Facts:
A global online summit featuring doctors, scientists & activists addressing the health concerns of 5G technology and what people can do about it is set to take place the first week of June and it's free to sign up.
- Reflect On:
Why are safety concerns that've been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals called a "conspiracy theory?" Why is this idea ridiculed? Why don't our federal health regulatory agencies simply to some health safety testing before rolling it out?
Some of the world’s leading scientists, doctors and activists are gathering for a free online summit that begins on Monday June 1st and will run for approximately one week. The summit will dive into the health concerns of 5G technology, and why it’s a concern and what people can do about it. The summit is completely free to sign up and watch, and you can do so here.
We’ve also put together an E-book titled “Is 5G Safe? An Easy to Understand Guide” summarizing the published peer-reviewed research that is raising concerns about electromagnetic radiation that’s emitted from our favourite wireless devices, cell phones and more, as well as novel 5G technology. It’s a great resource that you can share with family or friends who desire to look at the proof, research, evidence and concerns that thousands of doctors and scientists have been and are creating awareness about all over the globe. We wrote it in language designed to be simple and factual.
Once you sign up for the summit, you get access to the free E-book.
It’s quite strange that any researched journalist could dismiss the health concerns of 5G technology, as well as 4G and 3G, when there are nearly 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies that raise cause for concern. A study published in 2019 in Frontiers in Public Health is one of many that raises concerns about 5G technology, explaining how there is no safety testing, and that in vivo and in vitro studies regarding this type of technology and it’s predecessors have shown that it’s harmful to human health, even at levels below current “safety” limits.
At the end of the day, whether you believe this type of technology is safe or you don’t, would it not be in the best interests of everybody to have the technology go through some type of required safety testing? Shouldn’t any technology that has any sort of biological effect be put through safety testing? Why has there not been any safety testing?
In December 2018, US. Senator Richard Blumenthal and U.S. Representative Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) sent a letter to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr seeking answers regarding potential health risks posed by new 5G wireless technology. At a hearing, that took place last year, Blumenthal criticized Carr for failing to provide answers, and did the same thing to other industry representatives that were in attendance for not putting the technology through safety testing. You can watch a clip of that hearing and read more about it, here.
How can our federal health regulatory agencies approve products that are clearly a cause for concern?
This is why the summit is going to be such a great resource. It will answer many questions, and again, let people know what they can do about it!
Sign up for the free 5G Summit starting June 1st. Hear from 40 of the world’s leading experts on the subject, all FREE! Click here to register now!
Dr. Buttar Reveals Declassified Government Report Related to 5G Dangers
- The Facts:
Dr. Rashid Butter discusses a declassified report on millimetre wave technology and the effects it has on human health. These are the same waves used in 5G technology.
- Reflect On:
If we already know these waves cause harm to human health, why do we use them in airport scanners? Why are we about to roll out an entire wireless network based on these technologies?
People often say 5G hasn’t been tested, and to some extent that is true. But given 5G uses millimetre wave technology and that technology has been studied for quite some time, it has obviously been tested by those who have worked on them. So why hasn’t this information been widely released? Why are we not looking at the available data on millimetre wave technology as it relates to 5G?
Recently we came across 7 Russian studies that were summarized in a report declassified through the CIA. These studies were declassified in 2012 and marked “For Goverment Use Only.” From what you can gather very quickly in this report, the conclusions should shut down 5G rollout instantly. At least until someone can show, beyond any reasonable doubt, that this technology is safe.
Let’s have a quick look at how this report was concluded:
“Thus the conducted investigations indicate high biological activity and an unfavourable influence of millimeter radiowaves on the organism. The expression of the biological reactions increased with an increase of the period of iridation and depended on individual characteristics of the organism.”
What this translates to in plain English is, millimetre-wave frequencies do affect the human body negatively, and the longer the exposure, the more damage that occurs. Since 5G uses millimetre waves and is set to push a constant barrage of frequency on humans anywhere they go, this would mean sustained wave exposure, and thus inevitable biological damage.
Incredibly, these are the same wave technologies used in airport fully body scanners that we have been raising awareness about for years. It’s important to note, you CAN opt out of going through those scanners.
Dr. Rashid Buttar has given an incredible interview where he goes page by page as to exactly what this declassified CIA research reveals. The report summarizes 7 studies on the effects of millimeter-wave radiation levels between 37-60GHz. These levels are “safe” according to government, but that is NOT what the science says.
As we have said for the last year and a half, now is a potent time to understand the dangers of 5G and work to stop its rollout. This interview is a must listen. Click here to watch Dr. Rashid Buttar’s interview.
As we can tell in our world right now, a ton of truth is coming to the surface, the environment to create change is ripe. If we can stay grounded, in our hearts and avoid descending into hate, we can TRULY make a big difference here.
Dr. Buttar Reveals Declassified Government Report Related to 5G Dangers
People often say 5G hasn’t been tested, and to some extent that is true. But given 5G uses millimetre wave...
University Mathematician Decodes The Crop Circle With A Binary Code & Extraterrestrial Face
Did you know that crop circles are actually real? How they’re made and who or what is making them is...