The ‘Flu Jab’ – Forewarned is Forearmed I

Tis the season, by which I don’t mean that annual episode of robotic excess and consumption. I’m referring to the time of year when pharmaceutical marketeers (advertising departments, sales reps,GPs, MDs, etc) are busy peddling their big bucks product, the ‘flu jab’.

Now, because they break the skin, immunisations are technically a form of surgery. As such, in most countries, informed consent is required by law. Unfortunately, consent is rarely if ever informed. Knowing what I know of the subject I feel it safe to say that if an individual is ever informed, that is, given access to all the publicly available information, consent is very unlikely to be given.

The following are three articles I have decided to post in their entirety, rather than quote and paraphrase. Information like this needs to be shared as comprehensively and widely as possible. Links to additional sources of information regarding the influenza immunisation and immunisations/vaccinations in general are also provided.

The articles are written from a US perspective, but equally apply elsewhere.

Ineffective Flu Shots Backed by Faulty Science 

Anthony Gucciardi

GreenMedInfo.com

Flu season is approaching, and it’s been a tradition of sorts to prepare with a flu shot. It’s almost ingrained in American culture that the answer to preempt disease is with a ‘harmless’ immunization. With the option to vaccinate at your local pharmacy now, there’s a high chance that many citizens are going to roll up their sleeves, shell out the cash, and take the shot.

It’s interesting to consider, however, that flu shots, while being pushed on the public harder than ever, are shockingly ineffective. There is a noticeable lack of validation for just how effective the flu shot really is at creating a successful immunization.

The science behind vaccines is that they trigger your immune system into responding to a threat. By doing this, the immune system assimilates the capacity to deal with said threat. This makes the effectiveness of a vaccine relative to how it stimulates your immune system. If your immune system is weak, your body will likely skip any immunization process, and you may even end up contracting the virus that you were trying to prevent.

In many cases, the body may not be able to generate a response. If the strain of virus changes, then the immunization you received prior to this becomes useless. Or your immune system may be too burdened to properly respond to stimulus.

It’s noteworthy that flu shots are totally ineffective against new strains of the flu, and they are only partially effective against existing flu strains. Essentially, manufacturers have to play a guessing game in order to produce an effective shot, and if any of the variables change, then the relevance of the flu shot is compromised. This guessing game in creating a flu shot could take 12-18 months, leaving an incredible time lapse in between flu strains and thereby making the guessing game even more difficult to win.

So why take a risk, when we know that vaccines are dangerous and untested? The flu shot has been determined to be 1% effective – odds just about no one would go against if they were told upfront by their doctor. When there are natural alternatives that have proven success in bolstering your immune system’s strength, there is no reason to take this kind of risk in order to lower your flu risk by 1%.

If you take a shot filled with toxic chemicals and an irrelevant strain of a virus, you are actually increasing your risk for illness by weakening your immune system. In contrast, using natural supplements like vitamin D is proven to be much more effective in disease prevention and building up the immune system.

In order to achieve health and wellness, the paradigm of the medical establishment must be eschewed in favor of an individual and personal pursuit of health. The average person is given a halfway response to his health concerns and illnesses. He is given something that may appear good or helpful when in reality it is causing him to become sicker, and depend on the established healthcare system in America.

As the playing field changes, many people are now taking their health into their own hands, empowering them to live stronger, better, and more fully than if they were to blindly trust the answers that are given to them.

___________

3 Reasons to Reconsider Flu Shots

Anthony Gucciardi
GreenMedInfo.com

Flu shots are becoming the most widely recommended vaccine on the planet, with The Federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) changing their flu shot recommendation from children between 6 months and 5 years old demographic to virtually everyone except those between the ages of 19-49 who are in perfectly good health. Even within this category there is a barrage of organizations warning against avoiding the ubiquitous flu shot.

The fact of the matter is that seasonal flu shots are simply not backed by reputable science, and a number of major studies have even shown that the seasonal flu shot is not effective at all in preventing the flu. Adding fuel to the fire, this ineffective shot comes with pages of nasty side effects that will certainly make you reconsider getting one this year. Here are 3 major reasons you, your family, and the medical establishment should reconsider flu shots as effective flu prevention tools:

1. Seasonal flu vaccines have been found to only be 1% effective

A new major study has numerically determined the effectiveness of the flu shot to be 1%. This means that despite the H1N1-loaded flu jab, there is still a 99% chance that you will not be protected against the flu. The reason for this, despite the faulty science behind the development of the vaccine, has to do with flu strains. It is extremely challenging, to the point of guessing, which flu strain will affect your area. With such a wide selection, it is very rare (about 1%, according to the study), for it to be the correct strain.

The researchers from the study stated:

“The corresponding figures [of people showing influenza symptoms] for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%)” announced the study authors.  In other words, you would have to vaccinate 100 people to reduce the number of people affected by the influenza virus by just one.

The findings do not stop there. The researchers also highlighted other findings about the flu vaccine, which topple the mainstream concept of their safety and effectiveness:

• “Vaccination had…no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates.”
• “Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalized or working days lost.”
• “The analysis howed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions…”
• “There is no evidence that [influenza vaccines] affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.” — Meaning vaccines do not affect transmission of disease, what they are designed for.
• “In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.”

2. Flu shots have been linked to killer nerve disease

Even government health officials have confirmed the link between the H1N1-containing flu shot and the killer nerve disease known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome. A government agency known as The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a warning over the connection following the phony swine flu pandemic. The news came after mainstream media reported on the fact that even 50% of doctors were refusing the H1N1 vaccine over health concerns.

Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.

The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use,” she wrote in a letter to neurologists.

3. Vitamin D is over 800% more effective with no side effects

A major clinical trial performed at the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective in preventing and reversing influenza. Led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima, the study involved 334 children, half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3. This is actually a very low amount of vitamin D, with many natural health experts recommending around 5,000 IUs per day for most individuals. If the researchers used a higher amount like 5,000 IUs, the findings and subsequent percentage would most likely be even more profound.

What the study found was that 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza over the 4 month duration of the study, while only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This is in comparison to the flu shot being effective in 1 out of 100 participants, with countless side effects.

This means that vitamin D is 800% more effective in preventing the flu than vaccines at 1200 IUs daily. The percentage could likely climb into the thousands if the dosage was upped to the recommended 5,000 IUs per day, and perhaps even higher beyond that.

There is simply no reason to receive a flu shot when natural alternatives like vitamin D exist. Deadly nerve disease, narcolepsy, and overall ineffectiveness are but a few of the negative aspects of the flu shot. Spread the word about flu shots during Vaccine Information Week, starting October 1st.

_______________

The Shocking Lack of Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccines

by Sayer Ji

GreenMedInfo.com

With the flu season ramping up, many are looking to vaccination as a “preventive” approach. Those who abstain are often accused of being uneducated, or worse, socially irresponsible.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

As it presently stands, it is not sound medical science, but primarily economic and political motivation which generates the immense pressure behind mass participation in the annual ritual of flu vaccination.

It is a heavily guarded secret within the medical establishment (especially within the corridors of the CDC) that the Cochrane Database Review, which is the gold standard within the evidence-based medical model for assessing the effectiveness of common medical interventions, does not lend unequivocal scientific support to the belief and/or propaganda that flu vaccines are safe and effective.

To the contrary, these authoritative reviews reveal there is a conspicuous absence of conclusive evidence as to the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in children under 2, healthy adults, the elderly, and healthcare workers who care for the elderly.

What is even more disconcerting is that only one safety study on inactivated flu vaccines has been performed in children under 2 (the population most susceptible to adverse reactions), even though in the USA and Canada current guidelines recommend the vaccination of healthy children from six months old.

Another alarming finding following the global pandemic declared by the World Health Organization in 2009, is that receipt of the seasonal flu vaccine among Canadians actually increased the rate of medically attended pandemic H1N1 infection. Vaccines, therefore, may actually decrease resistance to viral infection via their immunosuppressive actions.

Can Vaccination Replace Natural Immunity?

At the outset it should be acknowledged that there could be no medical justification for vaccination in the first place if it were not for the observation that periodic infection from wild type pathogens confers lasting, natural immunity. In a very real sense periodic infectious challenges are Nature’s immunizations, without which the very concept of vaccination would make absolutely no sense.

The vaccination process artificially simulates and co-opts a natural process, generating a broad range of adverse unintended consequences, many of which have been documented here. Vaccine proponents would have us believe that natural immunity is inferior to synthetic immunity, and should be replaced by the latter.  In some cases they even suggest breastfeeding should be delayed during immunizations because it “interferes” with the vaccine efficacy.

Sounds like naked economic incentives have trumped genuine, serious health concerns for the entire population, especially the very young, the elderly and the sick.

This warped perspective follows from the disingenuous standard vaccine researchers use to “prove” the “efficacy” of their vaccines. The chemical kitchen sink is thrown at the immune system in order to conserve the expensive-to- produce antigen and to generate a more intense immune response – a process, not unlike what happens when you kick a beehive. These chemicals include detergents, anti-freeze, heavy metals, DNA from aborted human fetuses (diploid cells) and other species, etc. Amazingly, vaccine researchers and manufacturers do not have to prove the antibodies actually have affinity with the antigens they are marketed to protect us against, i.e. they do not have to prove “effectiveness,” only “efficacy.” This semantic trick is at the root of how the world has been deceived into accepting interventions so dangerous that their risk, like nuclear power, is underwritten by world governments, not private insurers who know they would go bankrupt paying out claims to the injured.

Another point that can not be understated is that the trivalent (3-strained) influenza vaccines are incapable of protecting us against the wide range of pathogens which produce influenza-like illness:

“Over 200 viruses cause influenza and influenza-like illness which produce the same symptoms (fever, headache, aches and pains, cough and runny noses). Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only Influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses.” (Cochrane Database).

It is therefore exceedingly clear that it is a mathematical impossibility for influenza vaccines to be effective at preventing wild-circulating strains of influenza. Nutritional support, then, becomes the most logical and reasonable solution.

Immune Status Determines Susceptibility To Infection

The fact is that our immune status determines susceptibility. If the immune system is continually challenged with environmental toxicants, nutritional deficiencies and/or incompatibilities, chronic stress, influenza is far more likely to take hold. If your immune system is strong, many infectious challenges occur, are met with an appropriate response, and often go unnoticed. In other words, it is not a lack of a vaccination that causes infection, rather, the inability of the immune system to function effectively. [Note:

In some cases, we may become infected and the ultimate outcome is that we enjoy even greater immunity.]

While there are a broad spectrum of natural substances which have been studied for their anti-influenza properties, vitamin D deserves special consideration due to the fact that it is indispensable to produce antiviral peptides (e.g. cathelicidin) within the immune system, and can be supported for pennies a day.

A study  published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2010, revealed that children receiving 1200 IUs of vitamin D a day were at 59% reduced risk for contracting seasonal Influenza A infection. Moreover as a secondary outcome, only 2 children in the treatment group versus 12 for the control group, experienced an asthma attack.

There are actually a broad range of preventive strategies that are evidence-based, and available without prescription.

1)   Echinacea Tea: J Altern Complement Med. 2000 Aug;6(4):327-34

2)   Elderberry:  J Altern Complement Med. 1995 Winter;1(4):361-9.

3) American Ginseng:  J Altern Complement Med.  2006 Mar;12(2):153-7.

4) Green Tea: J Nutr. 2011 Oct ;141(10):1862-70. Epub   2011 Aug 10.

5) Probiotics: Pediatrics. 2009 Aug;124(2):e172-9.

6) Vitamin D: PLoS One. 2010;5(6):e11088. Epub 2010 Jun 14.

Protect Yourself From Poisons From The Sky

From the new Centre of the Psyclone blog.

I really enjoy these little periods of amused satisfaction that come after years of bashing my head against the wall of people’s cognitive dissonance, denial and outright ignorance, when the evidence has filtered between the cracks enough to create a wave that just washes over the wall, leaving a silence where once there was the lowing of the herd.

The subject of Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (SAG) is finally in the mainstream. Solar Radiation Management (SAM) by SAG is probably known to more people through the term ‘chemtrails’, a word used to describe the trail of deposited aerosolised chemicals in the sky

Recently:

•  Swedish Green Party leader Pernilla Hagberg came forward on the issue, saying that the sprayings are a joint endeavour by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the US National Security Agency (NSA), as well as the Swedish government in her own country, to modify atmospheric conditions via deliberate aerosol spraying efforts.
• Former Premiere of British Columbia, Bill Vander Zalm sent a letter to dozens of politicians across BC calling for action in response to the dangers of climate control.
• Last month saw the Global March Against Chemtrails with marches in places around the world.

There is a mountain of data on ‘what’ it is, which supports and or gives rise to speculation into the possible ‘whys’. The links in this article make a good starting point.

The sole purpose of this post is providing data on how individuals can mitigate the potential negative health consequences of, in particular, increased heavy metal concentrations in the environment.

Researchers and analysts are unanimous in their findings regarding aluminium being a primary ingredient in the chemical cocktail we’re being blanketed with. Aluminium is a selective neurotoxin and a nerve cell poison of specific affinity for the brain. Its degenerative effects on the brain are known to many, so much so that aluminium cookware is no longer available.

How then do we protect ourselves from exposure? Given that the chemicals are in the air, water and soil, it’s practically impossible to avoid ingesting them. Because of that, strategies need to focus on removing the compounds from our bodies on a regular basis. Fortunately, as is so often the case, Nature provides safe and effective means for doing that. The following is a post written for Natural News that lists several effective and accessible ways of removing, not only aluminium, but all toxic metals from the body.

Protect Yourself from Poisons in the Sky
by Paul Fassa

(NaturalNews) There are ways to protect oneself from chemtrail toxins and rid oneself of toxins that are in them. Most of the methods of detoxing chemtrail poisons are very workable for virtually all toxic metals, regardless of their source. In case you`re fairly new to the subject of chemtrails, or wish to find out more on what toxins are in those fascinating chemtrails that too frequently decorate the sky, visit http://www.naturalnews.com/026200.html.

Toxic metal molecules, such as aluminum and barium within the sprayed chemtrails, invade various cells and perform a “molecular mimicry.” This mimicry involves displacing important mineral molecules in human cells and binding toxic molecules to those host cells. Eventually, a destructive process occurs on cellular and DNA levels. Because of that binding, a chelating agent is needed to remove those mimicking molecules

Hair analysis, urine testing, and blood testing can provide a detailed list of metal toxins and their levels. Those tests are not accessible to everyone. If you are in a chemtrailed area and you are experiencing less than normal health, problems focusing, lethargy, low energy, and memory problems, it wouldn`t be a bad idea to look into any form of chelation within your budget or comfort zone.

Chelation

The word is derived from chelae, which means claw or pincer. The idea is to remove blockages or toxins through microscope “claws” or “traps”. These traps are contained in liquids for the body`s assimilation. Then the toxins, now captured and trapped in other molecules, can be eliminated by the body`s normal digestive process. There are chelation agents, such as EDTA, which can be administered intravenously or orally.

EDTA chelation agents are synthetically produced chemicals. They have not shown the ability to withdraw a wide spectrum of heavy metal toxins. It seems that sometimes EDTA will disperse the heavy metals into other tissues and organs instead of facilitating complete removal. And there have been serious side effects reported from EDTA chelation.

However, there are less expensive, more natural chelation agents and methods, which can be administered without medical supervision.

Chelating Metal Toxins With Zeolite

Zeolite is a relatively inexpensive chelation agent available only on line currently from several sources. It is well suited for removing metal toxins from tissues and blood while ridding them without hazarding other organs. Its molecules have the ability to capture metal toxins of all types and keep them enclosed until the zeolite particles are expelled from the body via urine or stool. Buyer beware: High prices may not be an indication of superior quality among liquid zeolite products.

Zeolite is found in earth. Because it is composed of particles that are negatively charged, it attracts items that are positively charged. Zeolite`s molecules are considered “molecular sieves” because they can contain other molecules and keep them caged within. These molecular sieves of zeolite are negatively charged, and they attract positively charged metal toxins like a magnet. Consequently, in its original mineral earth form, it is not pristine.

Whatever positively charged toxins that were part of the earth or water in that area have been captured by the active zeolite particles. The raw zeolite is not merely inactive because it has taken in its quota of other molecules. That raw form of zeolite is toxic since it has attracted metal toxins within the surrounding earth. This is why purifying the zeolite is necessary for human consumption.

Some zeolite processors purify raw zeolite by using heat, others by using chemicals. There is disagreement and controversy among zeolite producers over which method may have a more negative impact on the efficacy of zeolite. Apparently, this issue has not been completely resolved by third party testing. The microscopic zeolite particles are suspended in a neutral liquid, often purified water, for easy consumption.

Detoxing and Chelating With Fulvic Acid

Even though not as touted and well known as zeolite products, fulvic acid has been around for a very long time. It has even been used in Ayurvedic Medicine, possibly the oldest accessible healing protocol in existence. It is a powerful overall detox and heavy metal chelation agent. It is well researched and used within the mainstream medicine halls of China, Russia, and India. The Tibetan Mountains offer possibly the richest source of pristine fulvic acid shales.

Fulvic acid is sometimes used as a liquid base for Zeolite molecules, even though it has its own chelation properties similar to zeolite. Fulvic acid has many other health restorative ramifications, which are supported by clinical reports. It has been used successfully in China to treat a variety of serous, stubborn lung disorders.

The lungs and the brain are the most obviously affected organs from chemtrail spraying. The health benefits observed and recorded for fulvic acid are too numerous to mention in this article. Check out the appropriate URL or link in the “sources area” below for a pdf medical report dealing with fulvic acid uses in clinics and hospitals. Fulvic acid is available and inexpensive.

Chelating With Clay

Bentonite clay baths have been known to pull out toxins from the body, and they are also recommended for heavy metal toxins. The tiny flakes that compose the clay are similar to both zeolite and fulvic acid. They contain negative ions that attract the positive ions of toxins and pathogens.

Though effective, the clay bath routine calls for caution. It is advised to not immerse the body fully, especially if one has a heart condition. It is also advised to separate clay baths at least a week apart. Mineral supplementation is also recommended because the clay does pull out some of the body`s beneficial minerals as well.

Chlorella and Cilantro: A Diet for Chelation

The combination of a super food, chlorella, and the highly accessible herb cilantro with its leaves of coriander, forms an excellent daily diet protocol for heavy metal toxicity. A common usage is a daily heavy dose of chlorella and cilantro.

You can make a cilantro pesto that can be used to dress pastas or other foods, or to take daily by the spoonful. One site recommends two spoonfuls of this pesto daily. If you know how to make pesto, just replace the basil leaves with cilantro. Or simply find a regular pesto recipe and substitute cilantro for basil. Consider cilantro as the active ingredient for chelation. Here`s a somewhat pricier recipe for pesto specifically designed to optimize chelating heavy metals:

* 4 cloves garlic
* 1/3 cup Brazil nuts (selenium)
* 1/3 cup sunflower seeds (cysteine)
* 1/3 cup pumpkin seeds (zinc, magnesium)
* 2 cups packed fresh cilantro (coriander, Chinese parsley)
* 2/3 cup flaxseed oil
* 4 tablespoons lemon juice (vitamin C)
* 2 tsp dulse powder
* Sea salt to taste
Process the cilantro and flaxseed oil in a blender until the coriander is chopped. Add the garlic, nuts and seeds, dulse and lemon juice and mix until the mixture is finely blended into a paste. Add a pinch of sea salt to taste and blend again.

According to Mike Adams of Natural News, the maximum benefits of chlorella are achieved with a daily dose of 5 grams. That is accomplished easiest and least expensively by using the powder form of chlorella mixed into juices. His terrific, comprehensive free ebook, Superfoods for Optimum Health: Chlorella and Spirulina, can be downloaded via the URL or link below in the source area.

So the combination of consuming cilantro and chlorella as part of a daily diet regime will help chelate heavy metal toxins considerably, as well as other toxins, while building good overall health. And this dietary regime is not expensive to maintain over the long term. It would be optimum to combine this “poor man`s” chelation and detox method with one or more of the chelation agents mentioned earlier in this article. You can do your research on those chelation agents while starting on this dietary approach.

Regardless of which regime, protocol, or chelation agent you pursue, protecting yourself from chemtrials or any other source of toxins requires the foundation of sound health practices. Those include avoiding processed food additives, drinking pure water, eating organic produce and whole grains, decent exercise, sufficient rest, a good attitude in general, and above all not stressing over chemtrails!

Sources:
Mike Adams free ebook on Super Foods —
http://www.truthpublishing.com/chlorellaspirulina_p/pdf-cat21249.htm
Wikipedia
Medical Reports on Fulvic Acid http://livesuperfoods.com/images/humic_fulvic.pdf
Article:Cilantro Pesto Said to Remove Heavy Metals
http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/art_cilantroremheavymetals.html
Surviving chemtrails, weaponized parasites, molds, fungi and “nanobots” by Ingri Cassel http://proliberty.com/observer/20081207.htm

About the author

Paul Fassa is dedicated to warning others about the current corruption of food and medicine and guiding others toward a direction for better health with no restrictions on health freedom. You can visit his blog at http://healthmaven.blogspot.com

______________

What in the World Are They Spraying? (Documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
http://vimeo.com/16527009

www.uk-skywatch.co.uk

www.geoengineeringwatch.org

http://aircrap.org

http://www.binarydissent.com/weather-modification-demystifying-chemtrails-with-scientific-proof/

Measles is Good For You!

A brief note: A well-meaning SEO-oriented friend advised me recently that the length of this post overshot the ideal word count target of 500 words,  (by around 4000 as it happens!) which put me in danger of losing my audience. My reply was that the purpose of the blog itself was to provide a wide spectrum of relevant and balanced information for people looking to protect and support themselves, family and friends, and anyone that couldn’t concentrate longer than the time it took to read 500 words was reading the wrong material anyway.

This blog, though informal, is meant for the serious out-of-the-box researcher, not someone surfing for byte-sized entertainment. Information presented through this blog is collated from as many sources as possible to streamline user’s access to data, of the kind not normally found floating in the mainstream. Similarly, this and subsequent posts won’t contain images except those that contain additional or supporting information. Data-sharing is the objective here, and I balk at patronising with images such as, in the case of this post, a syringe held in latexed hands with an out-of-focus child on a parent’s knee in the background, or a pharma company logo, or, or…

As well as throughout, links to valuable data outlets are provided at the end of most posts.

___________

Before I get on to showing you how measles is good for you, I’d like to examine various aspects of this latest scare show.

I’ve come to it a little late and The Measles Scare is in full swing. The media are keeping people poised with up to date information about the epidemic. A national immunisation catch-up program is running smoothly. If we’re careful and do as we’re told, we may avoid a catastrophe.

We’re not out of the woods yet though. The Independent recently predicted that a ‘very large outbreak’ of measles could hit London.’

Some vectors identified as virus-carrying have been ‘subsections’ of society known to have decided against vaccinating their children. According to experts these parents are putting others at risk from their potentially infected children. Interestingly, the pupils of private schools have been identified as one of the subsections because of the number of middle-class parents who decided against the vaccination programs in the 1990s.

Middle class, that’ll be the same income bracket that has the means to choose organic food for its higher nutritional content and absence of agrochemical poisons and genetically modified aspects. A social segment whose academic and media parameters are generally wider than the parameters set by the birdseed papers and TV media looked to for information by what Huxley would have called the Epsilons, and by Orwell, the proles.

Gypsies and travellers have also been identified as ‘reservoirs of the disease’.

That phrase, ‘reservoirs of the disease’, along with numerous others has at times made the researching for this post quite frustrating. In the last couple of days I’ve read around 200 current articles, papers and posts concerning measles and vaccinations. Prior to that has been an over two-decade interest in and study of human health, particularly in relation to the health industry (note the phrase).

Reading through government health industry statements and press releases, and media reports has angered me several times, even to the point of cursing the sly, manipulative deceiving and outright lying of various outlets and individuals, who very often appear to be working together to promote the pro-vaccination party line and denigrate any opposition. A gaggle of ‘experts’, ‘specialists’, ministers, coordinators, et cetera, ad nauseum have been trotted out to bleat the doctrine, measles is potentially fatal, vaccinate now. Parents, those who it is hinted at are responsible, along with Dr Wakefield who instigated the MMR mistrust, for this ‘epidemic’, are reassured that nobody judges them for the decision they made back then, they had just based their decision on a, as the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport called it, ‘piece of extremely bad science’, but now they had to vaccinate for everybody’s benefit.

Now even before the BBC reported the collapse of Building Seven of the World Trade Centre before it fell down, I’ve known not to trust anything that comes out of its mouth.

One of the experts trotted out by the BBC was Dr Paul Offit, variously described as a US-based measles expert, vaccine specialist and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr Offit is a fairly well known and frequent commentator in favour of vaccinations who dismisses many vaccine risks and promotes vaccine mandates. He is currently advocating American-style mandatory vaccinations in Britain.

Vaccine entrepreneur is another way Paul Offit has been described. In fact, he’s also known as Dr Paul “For Proft” Offit. What the BBC doesn’t tell us is that their measles expert Offit has already made millions of dollars profit from his ties to vaccines and the measles MMR vaccine maker Merck. Counting Offit’s Millions: More on How Merck’s Rotateq Vaccine Made Paul Offit Wealthy is an update to an earlier investigative research piece that revealed details of Offit’s ‘conflicts of interest’, a cliché too moderate to describe the shady goings-on.

In 2009 it was reported:

“Offit, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, earned millions of dollars as part of a $182m sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck RotaTeq vaccine. The amount of income distributed to Offit could be as high as $46 million. Offit has refused to say how much he made from the vaccine.

The high price placed on the patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the American CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to help create the “market” for rotavirus vaccine – effectively, to vote himself rich.”

Coincidentally, the Department of Health has just successfully created a £25m market for a rotavirus vaccine in Britain, to be used on babies within weeks of them being born. It was reported last November that the government hopes to roll out GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) new Rotarix vaccine program. Rotovirus is not known to cause deaths in British infants but to cause sickness and diarrhoea. From this September GSK’s Rotarix vaccine is to be given to 840,000 babies every year in Britain, which will cost around £25m. The Department of Health claim they “believe” it will save the NHS £20million.

But what the BBC did not report in their current measles stories is that Dr Offit, in his position of authority on the American Advisory Commitee on Immunization Practices, voted in 1998 for drug manufacturer Wyeth’s ‘Rotashield’ rotavirus vaccine to be approved to be given to babies. Just a year after the approval of Rotashield, the vaccine was linked to an increased risk of a serious bowel complication called intussusception. It was quickly taken off the market.

Dr Paul “For Profit” Offit was one of the members who voted yes three times to introduce this Rotashield vaccine (despite it not having FDA approval) and then abstained from the vote to suspend the use of the Rotashield vaccine despite the links to serious complications for babies.

An American government report, “Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making”, was critical of the decision to introduce this vaccine in the first place “as it had not even been approved by the FDA” and noted that “It is clear that the VRBPAC and the ACIP (the American body that approves vaccines) are dominated by individuals with close working relationships with the manufacturers of vaccines”. It went on to say, “The end result was that a product was placed on the market that had to be withdrawn within one year because it was injuring the children it was meant to protect.”

Because of Offit’s and others’ votes to introduce Rotashield, this helped other rotavirus vaccines to be approved for use in America, one of which was GSK’s Rotarix.  This was suspended from the market when it was found to be contaminated with pig virus DNA. The American Food and Drug Agency found Merck’s RotaTeq vaccine, from which Offit had made considerable profit, was also contaminated.

The FDA stated when they announced the reinstatement of the Rotarix vaccine that they would continue to monitor both vaccines for continued problems with contamination”

Did MPs or the BBC do their homework on the rotavirus vaccines being monitored by the FDA in America?  Did the Department of Health read the latest update on Glaxo’s Rotarix announced by the FDA on 12Th September 2012, issued not long before the DoH announced the rollout of the Rotarix vaccine in Britain from this September? Because the FDA concluded from a GlaxoSmithKline Rotarix study in Mexico that, “as expected, because of the routine use of Rotarix in Mexico, most (698) of the 750 babies studied who developed intussusception had been vaccinated with 1 or 2 doses of Rotarix.” Intussusception is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition that occurs when the intestine gets blocked or twisted.

Despite the possible link to babies developing serious health problems and contamination of the major rotavirus vaccines the Department of Health has just approved Rotarix to be given to 840,000 British babies every year in Britain, with the vaccination programme due to be promoted by doctors in Britain within the next few months.

What do the FDA now recommend regarding GSK’s Rotarix vaccine on the back of the results of the Mexican study?

“Parents should closely watch their infants for signs of intussusception, especially within the first 7 days after vaccination with Rotarix. These include, stomach pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, blood in the stool or change in bowel movements. It is important to contact the child’s healthcare provider if the child has any of these signs at any time after vaccination, even if it has been several weeks since the last dose of vaccine.”

With the addition of Rotarix vaccine from this September, babies and children in Britain will now subjected to ten jabs and two oral doses of vaccine drops before the age of five with Department of Health claims that this is to protect them against 11 different diseases.

Should we consider this man, widely known as Dr. Paul “For Profit” Offit, to be an “expert” in vaccine safety when he champions contaminated vaccines and abstains from voting to remove a vaccine linked to a life threatening condition?

Should we trust Offit’s claims on the BBC that MMR vaccines should be made compulsory, especially when he has consulted for the MMR vaccine manufacturer Merck and has personally made considerable profit from Merck and vaccines? In fact, in light of the facts around Dr Offit’s  ‘conflict of interest’, shouldn’t the financial connections of other ‘experts’, ‘leading doctors’, ‘specialists’ and ministers be taken into account when reviewing what they say on the issue?

But what of Dr Wakefield, author of the paper said to have been responsible for parents in the 90s deciding against the vaccines?

Contrary to the impression cultivated by the media, Dr Wakefield is a vaccine advocate, not a critic. The conclusion of his research, which included a study of a number of autistic children, was that there was sufficient evidence to show that the triple vaccine played a causative role in the development of autism of those studied, and recommended that the shots be administered singly with 12 month intervals between.

One country that has eliminated the MMR vaccine in favour of three separate doses is Japan.

A slightly less obvious impression given by the media in their targeting of Dr Wakefield is that his was and is the only research to show a link between vaccines and autism. Well, happily for those of you that really are seeking to make an informed choice, I can tell you the Wakefield research isn’t the only research. Not by a long shot. Numerous scientists from around the globe have presented credible peer-reviewed research studies that indicate a direct link between the exposure to adjuvants and additives like aluminium and mercury, both widely known neurotoxins that have damaging effects on the brain and nervous system. Links are provided below for data sources

Despite the extent of the scientific research that proves a link between vaccines and a long list of induced damage, Department of Health mouthpieces still come out and make statements such as, ‘Every time there’s a health scare, parents withdraw their children from vaccination. But there is no evidence to show that the MMR jab is linked to autism and bowel disorders.’

However, thousands of families (between 2,000 and 5,000, the numbers vary between sources) have had enough evidence to have taken legal action claiming their children have been damaged by the MMR jab. About half believe it has triggered autism in their toddlers even though the Government has ruled out any link. Back in 2008, the US Court of Federal Claims also admitted that vaccines can cause autism. A young girl, whose identity was sealed for the family’s protection, was awarded compensation after a series of vaccines caused her to develop severe autism symptoms, including loss of language skills, no response to verbal direction, and no eye contact, among other things.

A year prior, a young boy named Bailey was also awarded compensation after suffering a seizure and developing Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following vaccination with MMR. Bailey’s family was eventually awarded compensation for the boy’s injuries, which the court reluctantly admitted were caused by the vaccine.

Did you know the UK government has a Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme? I didn’t until I read the accounts of the parents of teenagers who died just days after receiving a combined Measles and Rubella vaccination as part of a government campaign.

Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme? A curiously named scheme if, as we’re supposed to believe, vaccines are safe.

In 2008 an Italian court found that “there was a reasonable scientific probability that the MMR jab had triggered in Valantino Bocca an autistic disorder associated with medium cognitive delay”, and awarded Valentino’s parents compensation, to be paid by the Italian ministry of health. Valentino, developing normally, was given the shot at 14 months and started to suffer from diarrhoea, lost interest in food and within a few days lost the ability to use his spoon. Worse was soon to come when he began to be restless at night, screaming in pain for hours. It was later found that he was suffering from a painful bowel condition that is common in autistic children. With an adjusted diet of no wheat or milk, he was able to sleep but the autism symptoms continued, and even at the age of nine, he still does not speak.

Other recent court rulings against the MMR include a £90,000 payout for brain damage to a boy called Robert Fletcher, and a $1.5 million payout for Hannah Poling who received MMR and six other vaccinations in one day and then developed autism.

So, a large number of scientists and doctors have produced peer-reviewed research that demonstrates links between vaccines and a list of induced damages, courts are awarding compensation to the victims based on evidence that proves a link, but still the media promotes the mantra, ‘measles are deadly, vaccines are safe’.

Doing the research this time round, I was struck with the similarity to another piece I’d written that was evident even in the research stage. The same pattern, the same Modus Operandi, the same players, only back then the bogeyman was Swine Flu. I think the fact that I wrote an article on it, but also the fact that it wasn’t that long ago has made the parallels easier to see.

More often than not the criminal events conducted today copy a template of criminal events of the past, following an ‘if it worked before, it’ll work again’ mentality. An aspect of criminal investigations is the search for a modus operandi (MO), a particular way of working, which can act as a signature and reveal, if not specific agencies, a particular method that points to specific agency.

Everything You Wanted To Know About Swine Flu, But Didn’t Know You Should Ask was going to be called Those Who Forget History II, The Swine Flu Hullabaloo. Among other things it discusses the parallels between the ‘epidemic’ in the 1970s and the hype at the time, and clearly shows the recurring MOs and patterns mentioned. The article also links to one of the most comprehensive books on the subject of Swine Flu and the vaccination industry. The 1997 book Swine Flu Exposé by Eleanora McBean. Ph.D..N.D. (readable online) needs to be read by everyone. As McBean says, it’s about time a large and comprehensive book of the long concealed facts about vaccination is brought forth. This is the largest and most informative book on the subject ever written in America. It contains data collected from medical records, army reports, and startling findings from researchers all over the world. The book is intended to help combat the disastrous effects of vaccine promoters and their deceptive propaganda.

Another excellent insider’s view on how the health industry really functions in relation to immoral marketing, corruption and bribery, is Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You To Know About. Kevin Trudeau, an industry insider takes the lid off the American health service to expose very dodgy dealings that are replicated internationally. Fundamentally, it’s all about the money.

Humans are intrinsically healthy and tend to remain so if they are given nutritious, non-GMO foods, fresh air, and clean water. We have extremely effective protective barriers against infectious diseases, including our skin and immune system.

Knowing that these facts are true for all members of the human species, how did we come to embrace the idea that injecting solutions of chemically-treated, inactivated viruses, parts of bacteria, traces of animal tissue and heavy metals was a reasonable strategy for keeping human beings, babies, children and adults healthy?

I’ll tell you how. Marketing. But don’t take my word for it.  The publications linked to above and the links below to sources of information provide the data you need if you want to know the truth about the health industry and/or the pharmaceutical industry. Industries both, one being effectively a subsidiary of the other, or its retail outlet. In fact, Big Pharma has potentially the biggest sales department in the world, using as it does international medical bodies like the World Health Organisation, national bodies like the Centre for Disease Control,  the Federal Drug Agency, their counterpart health and drug authorities in most other countries, doctors, etc as marketing and promotion departments and sales personnel.

Seeing the collusion, corruption and bare-faced manipulation by so many supposedly independent entities, more than one observer has described this latest scare as a Psychological Operation or PsyOp. Using such language in a context like this invariably opens one up to the charge of conspiracy theorist. A PsyOp then, for those of you that missed that class, has been described by an ex-military veteran in the field as,

‘the planned use of communications to influence human attitudes and behaviour … to create in target groups behaviour, emotions, and attitudes that support the attainment of national objectives… disseminated by face-to-face communication, television, radio or loudspeaker, newspapers, books, magazines and/or posters’.

The hype and behaviour I’m witnessing certainly fit that bill. As does the details of the Natural News article UK Children Brainwashed into MMR Vaccine Support Through Manipulation of Academic Exam

The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) test is the most widely taken academic qualification exam among 14- to 16-year-olds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The test questions are designed by the United Kingdom’s Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA).

Question 5 on the Science portion of the January 2008 test concerned the 1998 study that first raised concerns between the MMR vaccine and autism. In that study, published in the The Lancet, Andrew Wakefield and colleagues examined

12 autistic children after their parents raised concern that their conditions might have been caused by the MMR shot. Although the study did not find any causal relationship between the vaccine and autism, the authors concluded there was enough concern to recommend that parents instead give their children individual vaccines for each of the three diseases, spaced a year apart.

The GCSE test question was split into two parts. In the first part, students were asked to explain how the MMR vaccine functions to protect children from the three diseases. The second part briefly described Wakefield’s study, concluding by saying, “Dr Wakefield’s research was being funded through solicitors for the twelve children. The lawyers wanted evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers.”

The students were then asked, “(i) Was Dr Wakefield’s report based on reliable scientific evidence? … (ii) Might Dr Wakefield’s report have been biased?”

Students were given points for part (i) only if they criticized the study for having a small sample size and for relying on parents’ anecdotal reports as evidence. They were given points for part (ii) only if they agreed that Wakefield might have been biased by being paid by parents/lawyers.

Wakefield accused the test writers of making false claims about him and his research.

Back to vaccines. Vaccines have several components:

1. Micro-organisms, either bacteria or viruses, thought to be causing certain infectious diseases and which the vaccine is supposed to prevent. These are whole-cell proteins or just the broken-cell protein envelopes, and are called antigens.
2. Chemical substances which are supposed to enhance the immune response to the vaccine, called adjuvants
3. Chemical substances which act as preservatives and tissue fixatives, which are supposed to halt any further chemical reactions and putrefaction (decomposition or multiplication) of the live or attenuated (or killed) biological constituents of the vaccine.

Vaccine ingredients include mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium hydroxide, ammonium sulphate, monkey kidney tissue, canine kidney tissue, fetal bovine serum albumen, human aborted fetal cells, human diploid lung fibroblast cells, squalene, phenol, Tween 80, MSG, hydrolysed porcine gelatin, peanut oil, alcohols, etc, etc, etc.

If a “dirty bomb” exposed a large segment of US citizens simultaneously to Hepatitis B, Hepatitis A, tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenza B, three strains of polio viruses, 3 strains of influenza viruses, measles, mumps, and rubella viruses, the chickenpox virus, and 7 strains of Streptococcus bacteria, we would declare a national emergency. We would call it an “extreme act of BIOTERRORISM”. The public outcry would be immense and our government would act accordingly.

And yet, those are the very organisms that we inject through vaccines into our babies and our small children, with immature, underdeveloped immune systems. Many are given all at the same time. But instead of bioterrorism, we call it “protection.” Reflect a moment on that irony. (Sherri J. Tenpenny)

Do an Internet search on the chemicals listed above, if you want to shock yourself and really test your faith in the medical industry. Tween 80, for instance, is a chemical compound used in formulating the pesticide DDT.

Tween 80  can:

* Be used in pharmaceuticals to deliver nano-particles to the brain because they cross or disrupt the Blood Brain Barrier – which protects the brain.

* Suppress the immune system

* Promote epileptic seizures in rats

* Accelerate the development of female organs in rats

* Trigger cell death or ‘suicide’ called apoptosis

* Cause cancer in rats at the injection site

* Damage and promote intestinal damage in rats

* Cause bleeding disorders, kidney failure, liver failure, and death in infants who received a vitamin E product combined with Tween 80

* Possibly promote viral or bacterial infections

* Break down Red Blood Cells

* Cause damage to the heart when injected into rats

Tween 80 can be found in

* DtaP (Infanrix, Tripedia)

* DtaP-HebB-IPV (Pediarix)

* DtaP-Hib (TriHIBit)

* Human Papillomavirus (Gardasil)

* Influenza (Fluarix)

* Rotavirus (RotaTeq)

* Tdap (Adacel, Boostrix)

And then there’s the vaccination concept itself. The Government’s chief scientific adviser would have shown more medical understanding and professional integrity had he more fittingly described the concept itself as the ‘piece of extremely bad science. The subject can’t be summarised or paraphrased, so those who want to further their understanding of the concept and history of vaccinations will find links below that are good places to begin your own research, and there’s plenty of it to trawl through.

For now, I leave you with the wisdom of one Dr Richard Moskowitz who explains in plain terms Genuine Immunity vs Vaccine Immunity, an extract from his book Dissent in Medicine. He says,

Childhood illnesses like measles, mumps and chicken pox produce symptoms which reflect the efforts of the immune system to clear the virus from the blood, which it does by sending it out exactly the same way it came in. When a child recovers from measles, you have true immunity. That child will never, never again get the measles no matter how many epidemics he is exposed to. Furthermore, he will respond vigorously and dramatically to whatever infectious agents he is exposed to. The side benefit of that disease is a nonspecific immunity that charges or primes his immune system so that it can better respond to the subsequent challenges that it is going to meet in the future.

Now, by contrast, when you take an artificially attenuated measles vaccine and introduce it directly into the blood and bypass the portal of entry, there is no period of sensitization of the portal of entry tissues. There is no silent period of incubation in the lymph nodes. Furthermore, the virus itself has been artificially weakened in such a way that there is no generalized inflammatory response. By tricking the body in this way, we have done what the entire evolution of the immune system seems to be designed to prevent. We have placed the virus directly and immediately into the blood and given it free and immediate access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it.

The result of this, indeed, is the production of circulating antibodies, which can be measured in the blood. But that antibody response occurs purely as an isolated technical feat, without any generalized inflammatory response or any noticeable improvement in the general health of the organism. Quite the contrary, in fact. I believe that the price we pay for those antibodies is the persistence of virus elements in the blood for long periods of time, perhaps permanently, which in turn presupposes a systematic weakening of our ability to mount an effective response not only to measles but also to other infections. So far from producing a genuine immunity, the vaccine may act by interfering with or suppressing the immune response as a whole in much the same way as radiation and chemotherapy, corticosteroids and other anti-inflammatory drugs do.

Chronic long-term persistence of viruses and other proteins within cells of the immune system produce chronic disease. We know that live viruses are capable of surviving or remaining latent within host cells for years without continually provoking acute disease. They do this by attaching their own genetic material to the cell, and replicate along with the cell. That allows the host cell to continue its normal functioning but continuing to synthesize the viral protein.

Latent viruses produce various kinds of diseases. Because the virus is now permanently incorporated within the genetic material of the cell, the only appropriate immunological response is to make antibodies against the cell, no longer against the virus. So, immunizations promote certain types of chronic diseases. And far from providing a genuine immunity, the vaccines are actually a form of immunosuppression.

Knowledge is Power. Your ignorance is their bliss.

The Flawed Theory Behind Vaccinations, and Why MMR Jabs Endanger Your Child’s Health

Important Information regarding Cervical Cancer, HPV, and Vaccines

Scientists Sue Merck: allege fraud, mislabeling, and false certification of MMR vaccine

What are the consequences of injecting aluminium?

International Medical Council on Vaccinations

Dr. James Howenstine — Why You Should Avoid Taking Vaccines

Transcript: Statement from Andrew Wakefield

Genuine Immunity vs Vaccine Immunity

Vaccine-autism studies quotes

MMR vaccine information

Vaccine Ingredients

The Vaccine Website

Vaccine Liberation

Safe Minds

The following sites provide information and links that can be utilised by anyone to protect and maintain their own health and that of their family and friends.

Natural News

greenmedinfo.com

What Doctors Don’t Tell You

Off The Radar (New Zealand-based information “one stop shop”)

Important Information regarding Cervical Cancer, HPV, and Vaccines

This post, like other posts on this blog, has been written with the intention of connecting readers with as much data on the subject as possible. The information in it has been collated from a variety of credentialed sources to facilitate as deep a comprehension of the subject as possible. For that reason, and because of the importance of the subject and the data, I would recommend that after reading it you save it as a PDF and return to it for at least  another once over, including following the links, which connect to both specific information and to valuable suppressed information sources. A PDF is also a more constructive way to share the information, and this is information that needs to be shared.

Cervical Cancer

Last week in the UK was Cervical Cancer Prevention week. Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, one of the leading voices in the campaign, is the UK’s only charity dedicated to providing support and information services for people affected by cervical abnormalities and cervical cancer. The following are statements from their website:

Cervical cancer forms in tissues of the cervix (the organ connecting the uterus and vagina). It is usually a slow-growing cancer that may or may not have symptoms but can be prevented through regular screening (a procedure in which cells are taken from the cervix and looked at under a microscope).Cervical cancer is not thought to be hereditary.

Cervical cancer kills 3 women a day in the UK whilst every 3 hours a woman is diagnosed. Cervical cancer is the most common cancer in women under the age of 29 and the second most common cancer in women under 35.

99.7% of cervical cancers are caused by persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection which causes changes to the cervical cells. HPV is an extremely common virus; around four out of five people be exposed to the virus. Anyone who is sexually active can be infected with HPV at some time and the body’s immune system will usually clear it up.

Cervical abnormalities are caused by persistant HPV infection. These abnormal cells found through cervical screening are not cancerous but given time (often years) they may go on to develop into cancer. However, often the cells return to normal by themselves. Information from the NHS National Screening Programmes 2010-11 showed that 7-9% of women will have abnormal cells of which only a small percentage will go on to have cancer.

The most effective method of preventing cervical cancer is through regular cervical screening which allows detection of any early changes of the cervix and for younger women the HPV vaccination can help prevent 70% of cervical cancers.

Cervical cancer is a preventable disease. Despite this in the UK in 2010, 20% of women did not take up their invitation for cervical screening and only 50% of girls offered the HPV vaccine in the catch-up programme have elected to have this potentially life saving jab. Raising public awareness of cervical cancer prevention is more necessary than ever.

The strategy recommended by this and other UK cancer charities consists of regular smear test screening for early detection and treatment with HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix. The Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust states,

Gardasil can be prescribed for women between the ages of 9 and 26. Cervarix can be given to women over the age of 10. The vaccines work best if given before women come into contact with the virus. As the virus is transmitted by skin to skin contact, usually by sexual activity, this age will vary. In practical terms, the most effective and easiest way to reach everybody is for girls to be vaccinated before they are sexually active. In the UK, the HPV vaccination programme is offered to girls from the age of 12 to 18. HPV vaccination has been shown to prevent infection and abnormal cells changes to the cervix for at least 9 years but it is expected to last longer. Ongoing studies will show how much longer you will be protected for and whether booster shots will be required.

Both Gardasil and Cervarix, will protect against the two highest risk HPV types. But unfortunately women can be infected with more than one type of HPV. Having the vaccine will provide protection against 70% of all cervical cancers and it will also prevent most of the more serious precancerous changes (CIN 2 and 3) 

Both the vaccines have shown evidence for providing cross protection for other strains of HPV which may mean that it has a much higher protection level than first thought

On the issue of side effects, it says,

Thousands of girls and women of different ages took part in the clinical trials for the HPV vaccines. These trials found that the vaccine offers 99% protection against infection with the high-risk types of HPV in girls who haven’t previously been infected with the virus. Side effects from both vaccines are usually mild. 

Side effects for the Gardasil HPV vaccine include:

Very common side effects (side effects which may occur in more than 1 per 10 doses of vaccine) reported by girls who have received the vaccine are:

injection site problems such as redness, bruising, itching, swelling, pain or cellulitis

headaches

Common (side effects which may occur in less than 1 per 10 but more than 1 per 100 doses of vaccine):

fever

nausea (feeling sick)

painful arms, hands, legs or feet

Rare (side effects which may occur in less than 1 per 100 but more than 1 per 1,000 doses of vaccine):

More than 1 in 10,000 people who have the Gardasil HPV vaccine experience:

An itchy red rash (urticaria)

Fewer than 1 in 10,000 people who have the Gardasil HPV vaccine experience:

Restriction of the airways and difficult breathing (brochospasm)

The above vaccine information is from that provided by the NHS.

Parallels with breast cancer campaigns and treatment

Now at this point  it would be useful to consider an historical precedent with many almost carbon copy aspects, namely, breast cancer. The past years have seen an increase in breast cancer and as a result an increase in awareness campaigns like last week’s Cervical Cancer Prevention Week. Pink ribbons, are displayed on TV, poster and magazine advertisements as well as proudly adorn women’s lapels, and charity events are run, which generate millions of pounds/dollars.

These campaigns also, as it happens, recommend early detection and treatment with a pharmaceutical drug. As with smear tests the ever-widening target age group among women are encouraged to have regular mammograms.

Dr. Sherrill Sellman N.D., is an international author, passionate advocate for women’s health care issues and psychotherapist.  She has extensively researched the most vital and up to-date information necessary for hormonal health and well being, which is in her best selling books “Hormone Heresy: What Women MUST Know About Their Hormones” and “What Women MUST Know To Protect Their Daughters From Breast Cancer”, and as she says, there is something you must know.

As with most campaigns, breast cancer and indeed cervical cancer campaigns receive sponsor funding. As is often the case corporate sponsor funding is often present, particularly from companies that have something to gain from the hoped-for effects of the campaign.

In the article Seeing Deception is Your Only Protection by Dr Sellman, she points out a Breast Cancer Awareness month campaign whose primary sponsor of the event was Zeneca Pharmaceutical’s, now known as AstraZeneca. Zeneca is the company that manufactures the controversial and widely prescribed breast cancer drug, TAMOXIFEN. All TV, radio and print media were paid for and had to be approved by Zeneca.

It is less known that Zeneca also makes herbicides and fungicides.  One of their products, the organochlorine pesticide, acetochlor is implicated as a causal factor in breast cancer.  Zeneca’s Perry, Ohio chemical plant was the third largest source of potential cancer-causing pollution in the US, spewing 53,000 pounds of recognised carcinogens into the air in 1996.

Perhaps we can forgive Zeneca’s involvement with carcinogenic chemicals, since it researched and patented the most popular breast cancer treatment, tamoxifen, grossing 500 million dollars annually. Perhaps not. On May 16, 2000 the New York Times reported that the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences listed substances that are known to cause cancer.

Tamoxifen was included in that list!!

It is known that tamoxifen causes uterine cancer, liver cancer and gastrointestinal cancer.  After just two to three years of use, tamoxifen will increase the incidence of uterine cancer by two – three times. The treatment for uterine cancer is an hysterectomy.  In addition, tamoxifen increases the risk of strokes, blood clots, eye damage, menopausal symptoms, and depression.

The biggest shock of all is the fact that tamoxifen will increase the risk of breast cancer!  The journal Science published a study from Duke University Medical Center in 1999 showing that after 2-5 years, tamoxifen actually initiated the growth of breast cancer!

So, Zeneca, the originator of Breast Cancer Awareness month is the manufacturer of carcinogenic petrochemicals, carcinogenic pollutants and a breast cancer drug that causes at least four different types of cancer in women, including breast cancer.  Is something wrong with this picture?

It gets worse!

Since the Breast Cancer Awareness Month spin doctors claimed that breast cancer is “simply not a preventable disease”, the focus shifted to the theme of early detection.  Women are now encouraged to get their early mammogram. At one time, only women 50 years or older were told to get this screening.  Now the campaign is targeting 40 year old and even women as young as 25. However, detecting breast cancer with mammography is not the same as protection from breast cancer.  Questions are being raised about the validity of mammograms. A mammogram is an x-ray.  The only acknowledged cause of cancer by the American Cancer Society is from radiation.  When it comes to radiation, there is no safe level of exposure.

“There is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of up to one percent for every RAD (radiation absorbed dose) unit of x-ray exposure.  Even for low dosage exposure of two RADs or less, this exposure can add up quickly for women having an annual mammography,” notes Samuel Epstein, M.D., Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health.

In addition, mammography provides false tumour reports between 5 and 15 percent of the time. False positive results cause women to be re-exposed to additional X rays and create an environment of further stress, even possibly leading  to unneeded surgery.  “Mammograms increase the risk for developing breast cancer and raise the risk of spreading or metastasising an existing growth,” says Dr. Charles B. Simone, a former clinical associate in immunology and pharmacology at the National Cancer Institute.  Safer and even more effective diagnostic techniques like infrared thermography, have been vigorously attacked by the Breast Cancer Awareness organisations

Dr Sellman provides straightforward, practical advice on real prevention strategies in Seeing Deception is Your Only Protection,available in downloadable pdf at the bottom of the page.

Back to Cervical Cancer Prevention Week.

In 2009 after formally reviewing the evidence relating to risks and benefits of cervical screening in women under 25 years, including evidence regarding incidence and mortality in young women, the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening agreed unanimously there should be no change in the screening age as evidence showed that earlier screening could do more harm than good,citing evidence that treatment following screening in that age group can lead to an increased risk of subsequent premature births, increasing the risk of babies dying or having severe disabilities.

Six years later and the target focus age has dropped to between 12 and 18 years old, with suggestions that that be lowered to 9 years old. Maybe the risks seen by the committee have been eliminated. One would hope so.

A glance at Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust sponsor list sees the names GlaxoSmithKline and Merck & Co. These giant pharmaceutical companies are the manufacturers of Cervarix and Gardasil, the two government-mandated vaccines for HPV.

A quick look at Merck’s history reveals that in April 2012, Merck was ordered to pay $321m for criminal activities regarding their painkiller drug, Vioxx. In addition to that, Merck paid more than $600 million to the federal government, 43 states and the District of Columbia for a wider range of improprieties. Vioxx was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after it was found to cause heart attacks, strokes and death. Estimates (from the complicit FDA and from independent sources) put the death toll due to Vioxx between 1999 and 2003 to between 27,785 and 55,000. Dr David Graham, the FDA scientist who blew the whistle on Merck and the FDA also revealed that the expensive painkiller had caused 88,000 to 139,000 heart attacks – 30-40% of which were fatal.

$1 billion dollars in fines and compensation sounds like a lot of money, until compared with the fact that Vioxx generated nearly $2.5 billion dollars in sales per year during the time it was on the market.

Last year also saw GlaxoSmithKline paying out $3 billion after being found guilty of criminal fraud. A nine year investigation revealed GSK illegally marketing drugs, forging drug safety data, bribing doctors to promote dangerous and expensive drugs, ripping off Medicare and Medicaid, and lying about the effectiveness and safety of drugs.

The above examples are not isolated cases, merely the latest in a history of criminal practices. In fact, as has been pointed out, it seems standard business practice for big pharmaceutical companies to produce, market and sell dangerous drugs, with legal settlements being factored into the plans, settlements that invariably turn out to be thin slices of massive profits reaped at the cost of peoples health and lives.

For a number of years both Cervarix and Gardasil have come under intense criticism from independent scientists and researchers, due to an ever-increasing catalogue of adverse effects associated with the drugs, such as the young girl left unable to talk or walk after getting the Cervarix vaccine 

In August, 2011, in 49 Dead, Others Hospitalized After Gardasil HPV Vaccine, Anthony Gucciardi reported that

“Following controversy over U.S. state legislatures requiring young girls to take Gardasil, Merck’s vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), a number of severe side effects have been observed along with the recent deaths of 3 young girls. Gardasil is now marketed towards men and women up to age 26 as a “preventative” tool against anal cancer. As of January 2010, Gardasil has been linked to 49 deaths and countless side-effects, while cancer associated with HPV is only responsible for 1% of all cancer deaths. Why then, is it being recommended to millions worldwide?

As of June 2009, 15 million girls have been injected with the Gardasil vaccine. Out of 15 million people, 49 deaths may not seem like a lot. Unfortunately, however, there are many more cases of extreme side effects from the vaccination. In fact, the amount of adverse reactions was so high that Judicial Watch, a group that claims to expose government corruption, was forced to step in. Between May 2009 and September 2010 alone, Gardasil was linked to 3,589 harmful reactions and 16 deaths. Of the 3,589 adverse reactions, many were debilitating. Permanent disability was the result of 213 cases; 25 resulted in the diagnosis of Guillain-Barre Syndrome; and there were 789 other “serious” reports according to FDA documents

In seeking answers to why adolescent girls are suffering devastating health damage after being injected with HPV vaccines, SANE Vax, Inc, a vaccination research and watchdog group, decided to have vials of Gardasil tested in a laboratory. As SANE Vax explained in its announcement, these tests were conducted after an adolescent girl experienced “acute onset Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis within 24 hours” of being injected with an HPV vaccine. They found over a dozen Gardasil vaccine vials to be contaminated with rDNA of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). The vials were purchased in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Poland and France, indicating Gardasil contamination is a global phenomenon.

This means that adolescents who are injected with these vials are being contaminated with a biohazard – the rDNA of HPV. As if that wasn’t bad enough, not only is the rDNA found in Gardasil genetically engineered, the rDNA from both HPV-11 and HPV-18, were described as “firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant.”

That aluminum is also found in vaccines should be frightening all by itself, given that aluminum should never be injected into the human body (it’s toxic when ingested, and it specifically damages the nervous system). With the added discovery that the aluminum adjuvant also carries rDNA fragments of two different strains of Human Papillomavirus, this now reaches the level of a dangerous biohazard – something more like a biological weapon rather than anything resembling medicine.

As Dr. Lee, the pathologist who ran the laboratory tests identifying the biohazard contamination of Gardasil said:

“Natural HPV DNA does not remain in the bloodstream for very long. However, the HPV DNA in Gardasil is not ‘natural’ DNA. It is a recombinant HPV DNA (rDNA) – genetically engineered – to be inserted into yeast cells for VLP (virus-like-particle) protein production. rDNA is known to behave differently from natural DNA. It may enter a human cell, especially in an inflammatory lesion caused by the effects of the aluminum adjuvant, via poorly understood mechanisms. Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA.”

Anyone wanting to know more about the subject should read the special NaturalNews report The Great HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed (link at the foot of the page).

NaturalNews has obtained documents from the FDA and other sources, which reveal that the FDA has been well aware for several years that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) has no direct link to cervical cancer.

NaturalNews has also learned that HPV vaccines have been proven to be flatly worthless in clearing the HPV virus from women who have already been exposed to HPV (which includes most sexually active women), calling into question the scientific justification of mandatory “vaccinate everyone” policies.

Furthermore, this story reveals evidence that the vaccine currently being administered for HPV — Gardasil — may increase the risk of precancerous cervical lesions by an alarming 44.6 percent in some women. The vaccine, it turns out, may be far more dangerous to the health of women than doing nothing at all.

If true, this information reveals details of an enormous public health fraud being perpetrated on  people. The health and safety of tens of millions of young girls is at stake here, and what this NaturalNews investigative report reveals is that HPV vaccinations may not only be medically useless; they may also be harmful to the health of the young girls receiving them.

Incidentally, it’s not only girls that are being targeted. Gardasil is now marketed towards men and women up to age 26 as a “preventative” tool against anal cancer, and it has been recommended for pre-sexually active boys.

Experts have spoken out, and the documents have been released. Gardasil is a deadly injection that claims to treat an infection that has a 90% chance to resolve itself within two years.

The Vaccination Concept Itself

Although what’s been discussed so far are specific vaccines, many of their aspects, and worse, are replicated by other vaccines. Given the toxic cocktail of vaccine ingredients, it’s not surprising.Vaccines have several components: 1. Micro-organisms, either bacteria or viruses, thought to be causing certain infectious diseases and which the vaccine is supposed to prevent. These are whole-cell proteins or just the broken-cell protein envelopes, and are called antigens. 2. Chemical substances which are supposed to enhance the immune response to the vaccine, called adjuvants. 3. Chemical substances which act as preservatives and tissue fixatives, which are supposed to halt any further chemical reactions and putrefaction (decomposition or multiplication) of the live or attenuated (or killed) biological constituents of the vaccine. Vaccine ingredients include mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium hydroxide, ammonium sulphate, monkey kidney tissue, canine kidney tissue, fetal bovine serum albumen, human aborted fetal cells, human diploid lung fibroblast cells, squalene, phenol, Tween 80, MSG, hydrolysed porcine gelatin, peanut oil, alcohols, etc, etc, etc.

But it’s not just the ingredients, the concept itself is fundamentally flawed, as Dr Richard Moskowitz describes in plain terms in Genuine Immunity vs Vaccine Immunity, an extract from his book Dissent in Medicine. Using the example of an infant vaccine he says,

Childhood illnesses like measles, mumps and chicken pox produce symptoms which reflect the efforts of the immune system to clear the virus from the blood, which it does by sending it out exactly the same way it came in. When a child recovers from measles, you have true immunity. That child will never, never again get the measles no matter how many epidemics he is exposed to. Furthermore, he will respond vigorously and dramatically to whatever infectious agents he is exposed to. The side benefit of that disease is a nonspecific immunity that charges or primes his immune system so that it can better respond to the subsequent challenges that it is going to meet in the future.

Now, by contrast, when you take an artificially attenuated measles vaccine and introduce it directly into the blood and bypass the portal of entry, there is no period of sensitization of the portal of entry tissues. There is no silent period of incubation in the lymph nodes. Furthermore, the virus itself has been artificially weakened in such a way that there is no generalized inflammatory response. By tricking the body in this way, we have done what the entire evolution of the immune system seems to be designed to prevent. We have placed the virus directly and immediately into the blood and given it free and immediate access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it.

The result of this, indeed, is the production of circulating antibodies, which can be measured in the blood. But that antibody response occurs purely as an isolated technical feat, without any generalized inflammatory response or any noticeable improvement in the general health of the organism. Quite the contrary, in fact. I believe that the price we pay for those antibodies is the persistence of virus elements in the blood for long periods of time, perhaps permanently, which in turn presupposes a systematic weakening of our ability to mount an effective response not only to measles but also to other infections. So far from producing a genuine immunity, the vaccine may act by interfering with or suppressing the immune response as a whole in much the same way as radiation and chemotherapy, corticosteroids and other anti-inflammatory drugs do.

Chronic long-term persistence of viruses and other proteins within cells of the immune system produce chronic disease. We know that live viruses are capable of surviving or remaining latent within host cells for years without continually provoking acute disease. They do this by attaching their own genetic material to the cell, and replicate along with the cell. That allows the host cell to continue its normal functioning but continuing to synthesize the viral protein.

Latent viruses produce various kinds of diseases. Because the virus is now permanently incorporated within the genetic material of the cell, the only appropriate immunological response is to make antibodies against the cell, no longer against the virus. So, immunizations promote certain types of chronic diseases. And far from providing a genuine immunity, the vaccines are actually a form of immunosuppression.

 __________

The vaccine industry, of course, has a long and dark history of its vaccines being contaminated with cancer-causing viruses and other frightening contaminants. The following video is an interview in which Merck scientist Dr. Hillerman openly admits that polio vaccines were widely contaminated with SV40 viruses that cause cancer.

The politics and profits involved in the medical industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the media industry become more obvious and prevalent every day. Before taking any pharmaceutical product, you should take ownership of your own health. Conduct your own research on the ingredients and side-effects. Find out where your doctor gets his information. Many of them are paid to promote specific pharmaceutical products. Others (like, I presume, Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust) simply get their information from sources they trust such as drug companies and other organisations. Still, others are told by their legal departments not to speak out.

 

Some general information

The following is allegedly from the John Hopkins Establishment, a world-renowned, well-respected medical establishment, although some including, allegedly again, the JHE refute any connection. It’s included here because of the nature of the information and advice. Saying that though, I would point out that some of the terminology has been changed, as I felt it was misleading. The original reference to ‘cancer cells’ has been changed to read ‘cancerous cells’. There is no such thing as a cancer cell, cells can become cancerous. The distinction is important.

1. Every person has cancerous cells in the body. These cancerous cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion.. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancerous cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancerous cells because they have not reached the detectable size.

2. Cancerous cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person’s lifetime.

3. When the person’s immune system is strong the cancerous cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.

4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.

5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancerous cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastrointestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.

7. Radiation while destroying cancerous cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.

9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancerous cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancerous cells to spread to other sites.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancerous cells by not feeding them with the foods they needs to multiply..

*Cancerous CELLS FEED ON:

a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancerous cells. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses, but only in very small amounts.

Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in color. Better alternative is Bragg’s aminos or sea salt.

b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer cells are being starved.

c. cancerous cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.

d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment.. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines becomes putrefied and leads to more toxic buildup.

13. Cancerous cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancerous cells and allows the body’s killer cells to destroy the cancerous cells.

14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the bodies own killer cells to destroy cancer cells.. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body’s normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.

16. Cancerous cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancerous cells.

Fortunately there is a wealth of accessible information online about the various types of treatment available for cancer, both conventional and alternative. A following post will provide a catalogue of recommended links.

Knowledge is power. Your ignorance is their bliss.

The following are links to source and additional material.

Seeing Deception is Your Only Protection

Mammograms cause breast cancer

Tamoxifen

Dr. David Graham’s Vioxx testimony

GlaxoSmithKline pleads guilty to criminal fraud charges, pays massive $3 billion in fines

GlaxoSmithKline information

The Great HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

Vaccine Ingredients

HPV vaccine researcher blasts marketing

Cervarix Vaccine Programme to Cost UK Government £5.5 Billion

Gardasil Contains HPV DNA Bound to Insoluble Aluminum Adjuvant a New Chemical With Untested Toxicity

Gardasil page of Vaccination Liberation – Huge information resource

Gardasil

Vioxx

The Secret Origin of AIDS and HIV: How scientists produced the most horrifying plague of all time – and then covered it up.

The following sites provide information and links that can be utilised by anyone to protect and maintain their own health and that of their family and friends.

Natural News

greenmedinfo.com

What Doctors Don’t Tell You

What Women Must Know

Off The Radar (New Zealand-based information “one stop shop”)

Natural Cures ‘They’ Don’t Want you to Know About (Much recommended exposé of health industry practice)

Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You To Know About

Medical science has absolutely, 100 percent, failed in the curing and
prevention of illness, sickness, and disease.

Don’t agree with that statement? Consider the following:

• More people get colds and flus than ever before.
• More people get cancer than ever before.
• More people have diabetes than ever before.
• More people have heart disease than ever before.
• More people have multiple sclerosis, lupus, muscular dystrophy,
asthma, migraine headaches, joint, neck, and back pain than ever
before.
• More people have acid reflux, ulcers, and stomach problems than
ever before.
• More women have menopause problems than ever before.
• More women have more frequent PMS and more severe PMS than
ever before.
• More kids have attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity than
ever before.
• More people have chronic fatigue than ever before.
• More people have insomnia than ever before.
• More people have bad skin, acne, and dandruff than ever before.
• More people suffer from depression, stress, and anxiety
• More men and women suffer from sexual dysfunction and infertility
than ever before.
• More people suffer from allergies, arthritis, constipation, fibromyal-
gia, cold sores, and herpetic breakouts than ever before.
• More men suffer from prostate problems than ever before.
• More women suffer from yeast infections than ever before.

Yet surprisingly enough…

• There are more people going to visit doctors than ever before.
• There are more people getting diagnostic testing, such as blood
tests and X-rays, than ever before.
• More people are taking nonprescription and prescription drugs
than ever before.
• Not only are more people taking drugs, but each person is taking
more drugs than ever before.
• There are more surgeries performed than ever before.

What conclusion do the above facts logically lead to? Standard medical science is failing. More people are getting medical treatment, taking more drugs, having more diagnostic testing and having more surgeries than ever before in history. Yet more people are getting sick than ever before in history. Medical science is failing in the curing and prevention of illness, sickness, and disease.

Why?

As George Carlin once said, there’s a reason, there’s a reason, there’s a reason…

The reason is connected with another fact: The only winners in the cure and prevention of disease are the drug companies and the health-care companies themselves. The drug companies’ profits are at an all-time high.

A healthy person never has to take a drug. A healthy person never has to have surgeries. A healthy person has no cancer, diabetes, or heart disease. A healthy person lives without illness, sickness, or disease. Most people have no idea how good their body is designed to feel. We have been brainwashed into believing that it is natural for a human being to get colds and flus, have aches and pains, and have major medical problems like cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. We are also brainwashed into believing that it’s “natural” to take drugs. We are programmed to believe that it is normal and natural to take drugs and that we “need” drugs in order to be healthy.

But there are all-natural cures for virtually every disease and ailment. But if trillions of dollars in scientific research has failed in producing ways to prevent and cure illness and disease, and all-natural inexpensive prevention methods and cures do exist, why aren’t we hearing about them? The answer may surprise you.

Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You To Know About (Free ebook – right click to download the PDF)

Vaccine Information for Muslims, (and Jews, Hindus, Vegetarians and Vegans)

Islam, Vaccines and Health

A. Majid Katme, MBBCh, DPM (medical doctor)
Spokesman, Islamic Medical Association (UK)

We are giving our innocent children haraam (forbidden) substances and harmful chemicals that destroy their natural immune systems, causing disease, suffering and death.  All Muslim doctors and parents should be aware of vaccine ingredients, and of the failed efficacy of vaccines.  The harm is clearly greater than the benefit.  The time has come to take a stand for truth.

Vaccine Ingredients

Vaccine ingredients include heavy metals, pus from sores of diseased animals, horse serum, calf serum, faecal matter, foetal cells, urine, macerated cancer cells, sweepings from diseased children, formaldehyde (a carcinogen used in embalming fluid), phenol (a carcinogen capable of causing paralysis, convulsions, coma, necrosis and gangrene), lactalbumin hydrolysate (an emulsifier), aluminium phosphate (an aluminium salt that is corrosive to tissues), retro-virus SV-40 (a contaminant virus in some polio vaccines), antibiotics (e.g., neomycin tm) that lead to antibiotic resistance, chick embryo (as a growth medium for the virus), sodium phosphate (a buffering salt), and foreign animal tissues containing genetic material (DNA/RNA) from the growth medium.  Vaccines are also contaminated with mycoplasma, bacteria, monkey viruses and various adjuvants.  Heavy metals include thiomersal (mercury) as a preservative and aluminium as an adjuvant.  Mercury and aluminium have each been proved to damage the brain and nervous system.  In some cases, thiomersal has been replaced by another neurotoxin known as 2PE.  Vaccines also contain monosodium glutamate (MSG), sorbitol, and gelatine.  Many of these ingredients are not allowed for Muslims, Jews, Hindus or vegetarians.

A Fatally-flawed System of Intervention

Vaccination is based on the long-discredited theory that stimulation of antibodies in the human body equals protection from disease.  This theory has not only failed to be proved, but has been repeatedly disproved.  Stimulation of antibodies does not equal immunity and certainly does not equal permanent immunity.  The presence of antibodies is merely a sign of exposure to a disease, which is just one small aspect of what makes up the immune system.  Children, with underdeveloped and immature immune systems, receive today about 25 separate vaccines by the age of 13 months.  There is no doubt this irresponsible system disrupts and can even destroy the development of their immune systems forever.

Vaccines commonly given to children in the United Kingdom today include – TWO MONTHS: diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, HIB meningitis and polio + pneumococcal (six components, two needles); THREE MONTHS: diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, HIB meningitis and polio + meningitis C (six components, two needles); FOUR MONTHS: diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, HIB meningitis and polio + pneumococcal + meningitis C (seven components, three needles); 12 MONTHS: HIB meningitis and meningitis C (two components, two needles); 13 MONTHS: measles, mumps, rubella + pneumococcal vaccine (four components, two needles).  This reflects a grave medical assault inflicted on the small, weak, defenceless bodies of our innocent children.

Just a Few of the Monstrous Problems

Unthinkably, vaccine studies do not include placebo groups.  Instead, they use other vaccines in “control” groups, making it impossible to properly note actual rates of adverse events between a test group and real control group.  No research has been done on the long-term effects of vaccines.  Post-marketing data of reactions, injury and death go ignored.  Moreover, the system lacks individualization.  Apparently, one size fits all.  There is no pre-screening for immune problems and allergies.  Overloading the human body with infections and sub-infections will irreparably disrupt and destroy the immune system.  Chemicals in vaccines induce allergies, asthma, and autoimmune disease, including autism.  By the way, don’t let any indoctrinated doctor tell you vaccines do not cause autism.  Do your own research. Sexual immorality and adultery are stirred by offering our daughters HPV vaccination against cervical cancer.  Notably and incredibly, the HPV vaccine is shown to make some recipients even more susceptible to cervical cancer.  According to many scientific reports, there is additional concern that some vaccines cause infertility and are used for clandestine population control.  The proper role of medicine is to work to find and prevent the root cause of disease, not treat symptoms or fill the body with chemicals and vaccines.

Islam and Medical Science Must Oppose Vaccination

The case against vaccination is first an Islamic one, based on Islamic ethos regarding the perfection of the natural human body’s immune defence system, empowered by great and prophetic guidance to avoid most infections.  The case against vaccination is also a medical and health-related one.  Incredible evidence, unbeknownst to most, has emerged in the West regarding the many serious health hazards that affect those who have been vaccinated.

Islam and the Immune System

Colostrum in breast milk, a rich source of myriad antibodies, is extraordinarily important in conveying immunity to the child during the first few days after birth.  Breastfeeding up to two years gives incredible immunity into the future.  Medical studies evidence the amazing protection of breastfeeding against infections, even including poliomyelitis. The first two years of life are a crucial time during which the child’s body will develop a natural and mature immune system.  Vaccination disrupts and damages the natural process of human development.  God (Allah), the Creator, the Designer, has organised for the destruction of most germs and viruses through the natural process of entry-and-defence via skin, mucous, and the stomach. This process is very different from injection of a vaccine directly into the body without crossing natural defence barriers.  Twenty-five weakened diseases are destructively pushed by needlepoint into the bodies of our fragile children at a stage when they are developing their own natural defence systems.Infection and disease are medically proven to regularly succumb to spontaneous, self-remitting recovery.  Childhood bouts with infectious disease help build the immune system against future attacks.  As our beloved physician and prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, has told us, for every disease there is a cure.  The final holy book, Al Qur’an, is an awesome medical source for both prevention and cure of disease.  To best prepare the body, the Muslim should use natural and permissible nutrition from Yayyib (natural) food and drink.  Of further importance, we need to address the root causes of morbidity and mortality: poverty, malnutrition, lack of clean drinking water, lack of a healthy and natural foods, lack of proper sewage, and toxins in the environment and body.The Islamic behaviour of seeking halal (lawful) and avoiding harram has been linked to health throughout time by many Muslim doctors and scientists, especially in the field of preventative medicine.  Great care should be given to personal hygiene, including hand washing at about 25 times per day (15 times before the five daily prayers during wudu [absolution]).  Properly practising daily personal hygiene will avoid many infections.  Many fruits and other healthy foods prescribed in Islam have been found to prevent disease and strengthen the immune system, including olive and olive oil, ginger, grapes, pomegranate, vinegar, rosemary and figs.  Islamic-prescribed complementary medicine protects us from disease and strengthens our natural immune system, including honey, fasting, prayer (meditation), Du’A (special prayer) for the sick, black seed, Hijama (blood cupping), holy fruits and foods, breastfeeding, aromatherapy, Zam Zam (drinking holy water at Makkah, Saudi Arabia at the time of pilgrimage), and laying on of hands with a special prayer.  Frequent exposure to the sun for vitamin D and a diet rich in vitamin D prevents many diseases.  Islam prohibits Muslims from taking any harmful medicine or substance.  Even where there is doubt or controversy, Islam orders us to leave it completely.  This applies to vaccines.

The Truth Be Told

Harram in many vaccines include human foetuses, gelatine from pork, alcohol, and human and animal parts. These najis (unclean), haraam ingredients are not given in a state of emergency to save life at present. It is ridiculous to introduce myriad infective agents into millions of people as a “just in case” prevention of future infection. It is very wrong that Muslim doctors have adopted a medical intervention that contains so many haraams and harmful chemicals.
In Islam, the human body is holy.  We should protect and keep it natural, pure, healthy and safe.  As vaccines are neither pure nor natural, it is no wonder that science and medicine have found them to be so incredibly dangerous. A well-orchestrated pharmaceutical industry plan of scaremongering exists to create fear in parents who do not vaccinate their children.  Doctors and governments have been indoctrinated and corrupted by a gigantic and incredibly powerful industry into advocating obligatory vaccination, contrary to health and human and religious rights. This has happened not to advance health, but for profit.  Vaccines should not be pushed or forced on anyone.

The Case for Opposing Vaccination

• It disrupts and destroys the natural immune systems of our innocent children
• It produces many physical and medical problems
• It increases antibiotic resistance among many patients
• It can make many people sterile or infertile
• It contains many harmful chemicals like mercury and aluminium
• It lacks scientific, independent evidence of efficacy and safety
• It contains many haraam substances for the 1600 million Muslims in the world (the latest of which is the vaccine for Meningitis for the Muslim Pilgrims who are going to Hajj was found to contain pork, which is harram.)
• It also contains substances which are prohibited for Jews, Hindus and vegetariansIt is unhygienic and full of filth
• It wastes trillions of dollars and is making the people and governments in poor third world countries poorer and more in debt, and the drug companies filthy rich
• It is medically unethical, as it took us away from dealing with the causes of the diseases and work on prevention.  It is a very wrong medical practice to use a vaccine against every ill
• It lacks transparency and informed consent.  Most parents, the public, and even doctors are not aware of its harms, ingredients and cost
• A rising number of doctors, health professionals and parents are joining the campaign against vaccination (websites below)
• We have many natural ways to build a natural strong immune system to fight most infections
• We have many natural, safe alternatives
• Incredibly, the Big Pharma producers of vaccines are exempt from any liability or prosecution, regardless of the number of people who die or are injured
• Our innocent children are suffering and they gave no consent at all for the vaccines forced on them.  This constitutes a medical assault

Web Resources

• Muslim site containing a wealth of health and vaccine information http://www.missionislam.com/health
• HeathyMuslim.com http://www.healthymuslim.com
• International Medical Council on Vaccination www.vaccinationcouncil.org

Additional Web Resources:

http://avn.org.au	http://www.mercola.com
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com	http://www.naturalnews.com
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk	http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://inquirer.gn.apc.org/vaccio.html	http://www.novaccine.com
http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com	http://www.philipincao.com
http://vran.org	http://www.themothermagazine.co.uk
http://www.arnica.org.uk/resources.html	http://www.thenhf.com/page.php?id=9
http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/sites-of-interest	http://www.thinktwice.com
http://www.cryshame.com	http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com
http://www.drtenpenny.com	http://www.vaccine-side-effects.com
http://www.fourteenstudies.org	http://www.vacinfo.org
http://www.informedparent.co.uk	http://www.vaclib.org
http://www.jabs.org.uk	http://www.vactruth.com
http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk	http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html

________________

Dr. A. Majid Katme challenges the use of vaccination both within the religion of Islam and within medicine. Dr. Katme was born in Lebanon and resides in the United Kingdom, where is spokesman for the Islamic Medical Association UK. A campaigner for natural and Islamic medicine, Dr. Katme presents each week on a weekly health show on IQRA (Sky 826) in the United Kingdom, and is additionally a radio broadcaster on three Muslim radio programs each week.

Every Cloud Has a Silver Lining

There comes a time in our lives or those of our family or friends when we have to deal with an infection. For most people this usually means taking a course, or several courses, of antibiotics. Over 7 million pounds of antibiotics are sold for human use each year in the UK and US, while over 29 million pounds are sold for use in animals, mostly food animals. Unfortunately, as is the case with the majority of pharmaceutical drugs, drug company chemicals have more than one known effect, the unwanted ones of which are euphemistically called ‘side effects’,  (a character in Psyclone points out there are no such things as side effects, there are only effects.)

The list of  effects commonly includes nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, muscle weakness, burning/itching/tingling skin and/or difficulty breathing. But reactions aren’t limited to gastrointestinal disorders or cutaneous reactions. The following is a list of reactions attributed to the fluoroquinolone group of antibiotics:

Central Nervous System:
– toxic psychosis
– panic/anxiety
– insomnia
– seizures
– tremours
– dizziness
– confusion
– depression

Peripheral Nervous System:
– numbness
– pain
– burning
– tingling
– stinging
– weakness

Musculoskeletal System:
– joint pain
– tendon pain
– tendon rupture
– muscle pain (rhabdomyolysis -a potentially fatal, rapid muscle wasting ADR which may include dark or pink urine)

Cardiovascular System:
– torsedes de pointes (a fatal arrhythmia)
– heart attack
– palpitations (irregular heartbeat)
– bradycardia (slow heartbeat)
– tachycardia (rapid heartbeat)

Immune System:
– anaphylactic reaction (potentially fatal allergic reaction)
– Stevens-Johnson syndrome (potentially fatal autoimmune reaction where the immune system attacks the skin)                                                         – renal  (kidney) failure (potentially fatal)

As if that wasn’t bad enough, today about 70 percent of bacteria that cause infections in hospitals are resistant to at least one common antibiotic. MRSA is believed to be killing more than 7,000 people a year, with the most likely place to catch it being an NHS hospital. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) is a type of staph bacteria resistant to many antibiotics and causes the deaths of about 19,000 Americans each year.

But, as the title of this post states, there is a silver lining to this cloud, literally.

The following is an entry in the appendix of Psyclone:

Silver is a natural antibiotic and one of the oldest remedies in the world. It is non-toxic, non-addictive, free of ‘side effects’, and doesn’t damage the immune system. In its colloidal form (micro particles held in suspension by electrostatic charge in purified water) it kills over 600 organisms as compared to the 6 or 7 of conventional antibiotics. In addition to that, bacteria are unable to develop a resistance to it, unlike conventional antibiotics. As well as dealing with infection, silver helps human tissue regrow when used in burn therapy. It also stimulates bone-forming cells. Colloidal silver is not a controlled drug and is classified as a food supplement, and is therefore not part of Big Pharma’s monopoly. Indeed, it poses a threat to their lucrative trade. Unsurprisingly then, it’s generally labelled a poison by mainstream medicine and demonised whenever possible, as are most other effective alternative medicines and therapies.

The history of silver use in this context is fascinating and stretches back a long way. The Silver Edge,  one of the most comprehensive databases of information about silver, lists 109 pathogens and conditions successfully treated with colloidal silver, as documented in medical texts prior to the advent of prescription antibiotic drugs in the 1940’s. As Steve Barwick, President of Silver Edge comments, “The more I discover different ways colloidal silver was successfully used before the advent of prescription antibiotics, the more convinced I am that the only reason it is denigrated by medical bureaucrats now is to protect pharmaceutical company profits from competition by effective natural supplements.

After all, if people discover the fact that in many cases they can cure their own infections and diseases with a few dollars worth of safe, natural colloidal silver, they will abandon Big Pharma and their toxic prescription medicines in droves.”

US-based Silver Edge also produces and sells devices with which anyone can easily and cheaply make silver colloid at home.

UK Colloidal Silver is a UK-based manufacturer and retailer of colloidal silver, and, in my opinion, produce the highest quality and best value for money product on the UK market

 

Something for my Sisters II

Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew)

by Dawn Prate

Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 44 and 55. Dr. Gofinan, in his book, Preventing Breast Cancer, cites this startling statistic along with an in-depth look at mammographic screening, an early-detection practice that agencies like the American Cancer Society recommend to women of all age groups. According to most health experts, catching a tumor in its early stages increases a woman’s chances of survival by at least 17 percent.

The most common method for early detection is mammography. A mammogram is an X-ray picture of your breast that can reveal tumor growths otherwise undetectable in a physical exam. Like all x-rays, mammograms use doses of ionizing radiation to create this image. Radiologists then analyze the image for any abnormal growths. Despite continuous improvements and innovations, mammography has garnered a sizable opposition in the medical community because of an error rate that is still high and the amount of harmful radiation used in the procedure.

Effectiveness of Mammography

Is mammography an effective tool for detecting tumors? Some critics say no. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren’t tumors at all. These “false positives” aren’t just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.

At the same time, mammograms also have a high rate of missed tumors, or “false negatives.” Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, in his book, The Politics Of Cancer, claims that in women ages 40 to 49, one in four instances of cancer is missed at each mammography. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) puts the false negative rate even higher at 40 percent among women ages 40-49. National Institutes of Health spokespeople also admit that mammograms miss 10 percent of malignant tumors in women over 50. Researchers have found that breast tissue is denser among younger women, making it difficult to detect tumors. For this reason, false negatives are twice as likely to occur in premenopausal mammograms.

Radiation Risks

Many critics of mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation. In 1976, the controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation point. At that time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads (radiation-absorbed doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current screening methods. In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.

 

(NaturalNews) A new report released by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement reveals that Americans’ exposure to radiation has increased more than 600 percent over the last three decades. Most of that increase has come from patients’ exposure to radiation through medical imaging scans such as CT scans and mammograms.

According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from exposure. In the midst of the 1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic.

Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources.

Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman’s breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.

Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.

The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms. Dr. Samuel Epstein also claims that pregnant women exposed to radiation could endanger their fetus. He advises against mammography during pregnancy because “the future risks of leukemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.” Similarly, studies reveal that children exposed to radiation are more likely to develop breast cancer as adults.

Navigating the Statistics

While the number of deaths caused by breast cancer has decreased, the incidence of breast cancer is still rising. Since 1940, the incidence of breast cancer has risen by one to two percent every year. Between 1973 and 1991, the incidence of breast cancer in females over 65 rose nearly 40 percent in the United States.

Some researchers attribute this increase to better detection technologies; i.e., as the number of women screened for breast cancer rises, so does the number of reported cases. Other analysts say the correlation between mammographic screening and increases in breast cancer is much more ominous, suggesting radiation exposure is responsible for the growing number of cases. While the matter is still being debated, Professor Sandra Steingraber offers ways to navigate these statistics. According to Steingraber, the rise in breast cancer predates the introduction of mammograms as a common diagnostic tool. In addition, the groups of women in whom breast cancer incidence is ascending most swiftly – blacks and the elderly – are also least likely to get regular mammograms.

The majority of health experts agree that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure. Similarly, the risk of breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of mammograms. The statistics about mammography and women between the ages of 40 and 55 are the most contentious. A 1992 Canadian National Breast Cancer Study showed that mammography had no positive effect on mortality for women between the ages of 40 and 50. In fact, the study seemed to suggest that women in that age group are more likely to die of breast cancer when screened regularly.

Burton Goldberg, in his book, Alternative Medicine, recommends that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society encourages mammograms every two years for women ages 40 to 49. Trying to settle this debate, a 1997 consensus panel appointed by the NIH ruled that there was no evidence that mammograms for this age group save lives; they may even do more harm than good. The panel advises women to weigh the risks with their doctors and decide for themselves.

New Screening Technologies

While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.

Some doctors are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in, magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue without having to take an additional image.

The experts speak on mammograms and breast cancer:

Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

In his book, “Preventing Breast Cancer,” Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman’s genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23

“The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination,” the panel explained. “Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of breast cancer of up to 1% for every rad (radiation absorbed dose) unit of X-ray exposure. This projects up to a 20% increased cancer risk for a woman who, in the 1970s, received 10 annual mammograms of an average two rads each. In spite of this, up to 40% of women over 40 have had mammograms since the mid-1960s, some annually and some with exposures of 5 to 10 rads in a single screening from older, high-dose equipment.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 537

No less questionable—or controversial—has been the use of X rays to detect breast cancer: mammography. The American Cancer Society initially promoted the procedure as a safe and simple way to detect breast tumors early and thus allow women to undergo mastectomies before their cancers had metastasized.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 23

The American Cancer Society, together with the American College of Radiologists, has insisted on pursuing largescale mammography screening programs for breast cancer, including its use in younger women, even though the NCI and other experts are now agreed that these are likely to cause more cancers than could possibly be detected.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 291

A number of “cancer societies” argued, saying the tests — which cost between $50-200 each – – are a necessity for all women over 40, despite the fact that radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women.
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 21

Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman’s breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages. Factors involved include: the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast to the cumulative carcinogenic effects of mammographic X-radiation; the still higher sensitivity to radiation of women who carry the A-T gene; and the danger that forceful and often painful compression of the breast during mammography may rupture small blood vessels and encourage distant spread of undetected cancers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 540

Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammogams correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent.
The Hope of Living Cancer Free by Francisco Contreras MD, page 104

Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer.
Eat To Beat Cancer by J Robert Hatherill, page 132

The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premeno-pausal women, despite NCI’s assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women. Of related concern is the NCI’s continuing insistence on premeno-pausal mammography, in spite of contrary warnings by the American College of Physicians and the Canadian Breast Cancer Task Force and in spite of persisting questions about hazards even at current low-dose exposures. These problems are compounded by the NCI’s failure to explore safe alternatives, especially transillumination with infrared light scanning.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 544

High Rate of False Positives—mammography’s high rate of false-positive test results wastes money and creates unnecessary emotional trauma. A Swedish study of 60,000 women, aged 40-64, who were screened for breast cancer revealed that of the 726 actually referred to oncologists for treatment, 70% were found to be cancer free. According to The Lancet, of the 5% of mammograms that suggest further testing, up to 93% are false positives. The Lancet report further noted that because the great majority of positive screenings are false positives, these inaccurate results lead to many unnecessary biopsies and other invasive surgical procedures. In fact, 70% to 80% of all positive mammograms do not, on biopsy, show any presence of cancer.71 According to some estimates, 90% of these “callbacks” result from unclear readings due to dense overlying breast tissue.72
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 588

“Radiation-related breast cancers occur at least 10 years after exposure,” continued the panel. “Radiation from yearly mammograms during ages 40-49 has been estimated to cause one additional breast cancer death per 10,000 women.”
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 122

According to the National Cancer Institute, there is a high rate of missed tumors in women ages 40-49 which results in 40% false negative test results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumours, so tumours grow more quickly in younger women, and tumours may develop between screenings. Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammogram, it is recommended that women under fifty avoid screening mammograms although the American Cancer Society still recommends a mammogram every two years for women age 40-49. Dr. Love states, “We know that mammography works and will be a lifesaving tool for at least 30%.”
Treating Cancer With Herbs by Michael Tierra ND, page 467

Equivocal mammogram results lead to unnecessary surgery, and the accuracy rate of mammograms is poor. According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in women ages 40-49, there is a high rate of “missed tumors,” resulting in 40% false-negative mammogram results. Breast tissue in younger women is denser, which makes it more difficult to detect tumors, and tumors grow more quickly in younger women, so cancer may develop between screenings.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

Even worse, spokespeople for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) admit that mammograms miss 25 percent of malignant tumors in women in their 40s (and 10 percent in older women). In fact, one Australian study found that more than half of the breast cancers in younger women are not detectable by mammograms.
Underground Cures by Health Sciences Institute, page 42

Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms to detect early breast cancer, especially if you are premenopausal. The X-rays may actually increase your chances of getting cancer. If you are older, and there are strong reasons to suspect that you may have breast cancer, the risks may be worthwhile. Very few circumstances, if any, should persuade you to have X-rays taken if you are pregnant. The future risks of leukaemia to your unborn child, not to mention birth defects, are just not worth it.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 305

Other medical research has shown that the incidence of a form of breast cancer known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which accounts for 12% of all breast cancer cases, increased by 328% — and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography!
Under The Influence Modern Medicine by Terry A Rondberg DC, page 123

As the controversy heated up in 1976, it was revealed that the hundreds of thousands of women enrolled in the program were never told the risk they faced from the procedure (ibid.). Young women faced the greatest danger. In the thirty-five- to fifty-year-old age group, each mammogram increased the subject’s chance of contracting breast cancer by 1 percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then director of the National Cancer Institute (New York Times, August 23, 1976).
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

Because there is no reduction in mortality from breast cancer as a direct result of early mammograms, it is recommended that women under 50 avoid screening mammograms, although the American Cancer Society is still recommending a mammogram every two years for women ages 40-49. The NCI recommends that, after age 35, women perform monthly breast self-exams. For women over 50, many doctors still advocate mammograms. However, breast self-exams and safer, more accurate technologies such as thermography should be strongly considered as options to mammography.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 973

In the midst of the debate, Kodak took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled “About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic” (see Science, July 2, 1976). Kodak is a major manufacturer of mammography film.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 24

The largest and most credible study ever done to evaluate the impact of routine mammography on survival has concluded that routine mammograms do significantly reduce deaths from breast cancer. Scientists in the United States, Sweden, Britain, and Taiwan compared the number of deaths from breast cancer diagnosed in the 20 years before mammogram screening became available with the number in the 20 years after its introduction. The research was based on the histories and treatment of 210,000 Swedish women ages 20 to 69. The researchers found that death from breast cancer dropped 44 percent in women who had routine mammography. Among those who refused mammograms during this time period there was only a 16 percent reduction in death from this disease (presumably the decrease was due to better treatment of the malignancy).
Dr Isadore Rosenfeld’s Breakthrough Health By Isadore Rosenfeld MD, page 47

In 1993—seventeen years after the first pilot study—the biochemist Mary Wolff and her colleagues conducted the first carefully designed, major study on this issue. They analyzed DDE and PCB levels in the stored blood specimens of 14,290 New York City women who had attended a mammography screening clinic. Within six months, fifty-eight of these women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Wolff matched each of these fifty-eight women to control subjects—women without cancer but of the same age, same menstrual status, and so on—who had also visited the clinic. The blood samples of the women with breast cancer were then compared to their cancer-free counterparts.
Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber PhD, page 12

One reason may be that mammograms actually increase mortality. In fact numerous studies to date have shown that among the under-50s, more women die from breast cancer among screened groups than among those not given mammograms. The results of the Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Trial published in 1993, after a screen of 50,000 women between 40-49, showed that more tumors were detected in the screened group, but not only were no lives saved but 36 percent more women died from
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 57

One Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms, a procedure whose stated purpose is to prevent cancer. Despite evidence of the link between cancer and radiation exposure to women from mammography, the American Cancer Society has promoted the practice without reservation. Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents.53
When Healing Becomes A Crime by Kenny Ausubel, page 233

Premenopausal women carrying the A-T gene, about 1.5 percent of women, are more radiation sensitive and at higher cancer risk from mammography. It has been estimated that up to 10,000 breast cancer cases each year are due to mammography of A-T carriers.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539

A study reported that mammography combined with physical exams found 3,500 cancers, 42 percent of which could not be detected by physical exam. However, 31 percent of the tumors were noninfiltrating cancer. Since the course of breast cancer is long, the time difference in cancer detected through mammography may not be a benefit in terms of survival.
Woman’s Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Dr Gary Null, page 86

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has called for more mammograms among women over 50. However, constant screening still can miss breast cancer. mammograms are at their poorest in detecting breast cancer when the woman is under 50.
The Cancer Handbook by Lynne McTaggart, page 53

Despite its shortcomings, every woman between the ages of fifty and sixty-nine should have one every year. I also recommend them annually for women over seventy, even though early detection isn’t as important for the slow-growing form of breast cancer they tend to get. One mammogram should probably be taken at age forty to establish a baseline, but how often women should have them after that is debatable. Some authorities favor annual screening. Others feel there’s not enough evidence to support screening at all before fifty. Still others believe that every two years is sufficient. I lean toward having individual women and their doctors go over the pros and cons and make their own decisions. Finally, a mammogram is appropriate at any age if a lump has been detected.
The Longevity Code By Zorba Paster MD, page 234 For breast cancer, thermography offers a very early warning system, often able to pinpoint a cancer process five years before it would be detectable by mammography. Most breast tumors have been growing slowly for up to 20 years before they are found by typical diagnostic techniques. Thermography can detect cancers when they are at a minute physical stage of development, when it is still relatively easy to halt and reverse the progression of the cancer. No rays of any kind enter the patient’s body; there is no pain or compressing of the breasts as in a mammogram. While mammography tends to lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, thermography is not dependent upon tissue densities.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 587