Categories
CANCER CURE NEWS

FDA Announces That DTap Vaccine Can Cause Autism

The FDA has published conclusive proof on their website that the DTap vaccine can cause autism. According to the FDA’s online Biologics Blood Vaccines document, a vaccine manufacturer admits on its package insert that their vaccination can cause autism as one of many adverse reactions.

[click-to-summary_shortcode][/click-to-summary_shortcode]

These adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine.

FDA: Vaccines can cause autism
The FDA’s online Biologics Blood Vaccines document admits on its package insert that their vaccination can cause autism as one of many adverse reactions.

In this sense, it should be noted that:

Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Concentrates (For Further Manufacturing Use) are produced by The Research Foundation for Microbial Diseases of Osaka University (BIKEN), Osaka, Japan, under United States (US) license, and are combined with diphtheria and tetanus toxoids manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur Inc. Tripedia vaccine is filled, labeled, packaged, and released by Sanofi Pasteur Inc.

 

What’s in Tripedia that probably can interfere with brain chemistry and neurology?

According to the Tripedia’s package insert, some ingredients include: Bovine extract, formaldehyde used to inactivate microorganisms a couple of times, ammonium sulfate, aluminum potassium sulfate and two growth mediums: modified Mueller and Miller is one; the other is Stainer-Scholte medium.

 

What is the content of these two growth mediums?

dtap-vaccine-autism
Tripedia’s ingredients include: Bovine extract, formaldehyde, ammonium sulfate, aluminum potassium sulfate, modified Mueller and Miller and Stainer-Scholte medium.

Mueller and Miller medium, contains:

Glucose, sodium chloride, sodium phosphate dibasic, monopotassium, phosphate, magnesium sulfate hydrate, ferrous sulfate heptahydrate, cysteine hydrochloride, tyrosine hydrochloride, uracil hydrochloride, Ca-pantothenate in ethanol, thiamine in ethanol, pyridoxine-hydrochloride in ethanol, riboflavin in ethanol, biotin in ethanol, sodium hydroxide, beef heart infusion (de- fatted beef heart and distilled water), casein [milk protein] solution. Basically a mixture of sugar, salt, amino acids, vitamins, and minerals.

While Stainer-Scholte medium has the following ingredients:

Tris hydrochloride, tris base, glutamate (monosodium salt) [MSG], proline, salt, monopotassium phosphate, potassium chloride, magnesium chloride, calcium chloride, ferrous sulfate, ascorbic acid, niacin, glutathione.

The vaccine is formulated without preservatives, but contains a trace amount of thimerosal [(mercury derivative), (≤0.3 μg mercury/dose)] from the manufacturing process. Each 0.5 mL dose also contains, by assay, not more than 0.170 mg of aluminum and not more than 100 μg(0.02%) of residual formaldehyde. The vaccine contains gelatin and polysorbate 80 (Tween-80), which are used in the production of the pertussis concentrate.

“Probable cause” ingredients for adverse reactions include: casein, to which some children are allergic; MSG—an excitotoxin; thimerosal-ethyl mercury; aluminum; formaldehyde; gelatin; and polysorbate 80.

 

You might be wondering:

 

Why the doctors don’t say anything about the risk of DTaP Vaccine?

That is a question that many of us, still wondering! Maybe they just is just not convenient for them that we know about the risk of these vaccine

To take the vaccine debacle further, most of the mandated vaccines for infants and children, contain many of the above ingredients, which must be stopped from being injected into infants, toddlers, teens and even adults!

efficacy-of-dtap
Most of the mandated vaccines for infants and children, contain many of the above ingredients

It’s time for Congress to rescind the “Get out of Jail Free” card for vaccine makers and stop the aggressive onslaught of the Autism Spectrum Disorder that is depriving children of a fulfilling life and ruining families emotionally, financially, and physically to the point of parents divorcing because of the stresses of ASD in a family.

It’s about time vaccines are publicly acknowledged by the feds and the media for all the health damages they have caused. Just check out the CDC’s VAERS reports and the vaccine damage payouts by the HHS/HRSA. According to a new report published on March 1, 2017, by the department of health and human services of the United States, about $ 3,363,282,409.21 have been paid for vaccine adverse reactions and deaths from 1989 to 2017 so far.

Finally, as another recommendation to get the whole and real picture of the vaccines (from both the anti and pro vaccination sides), you must check out: “The Truth About Vaccines”.

 

To conclude, what do you think about this? Tell us in the comment section below. Also, if you think this information should be known by more people, please share it with all your friends and help spread the word.

[summary][/summary]

Key Takeaways

  • The FDA has published conclusive proof on their website that the DTap vaccine can cause autism. This adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea.

Click here to download report.

  • What’s in Tripedia that probably can interfere with brain chemistry and neurology?

According to the Tripedia’s package insert, some ingredients include: Bovine extract, formaldehyde used to inactivate microorganisms a couple of times, ammonium sulfate, aluminum potassium sulfate and two growth mediums: modified Mueller and Miller is one; the other is Stainer-Scholte medium.

  • Why the doctors don’t say anything about the risk of DTaP Vaccine?

That is a question that many of us, are still wondering! Maybe it is just not convenient for them that we know about the risk of this vaccine.

Article Source

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/04/vaccine-maker-admits-on-fda-website-dtap-vaccine-causes-autism.html

Special Thanks to Savannah from ramblingsmom.com for bringing the FDA’s document back into life.

Categories
CANCER CURE NEWS CAUSES

Switzerland Completely Abolished Mammography Screenings: Here’s Why You Should Probably Never Get One

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

 

[click-to-summary_shortcode][/click-to-summary_shortcode]

mammogram-xray-test
Mammograms continue to be touted as the most effective screening tool we have today to find breast cancer.

In 2016, it was estimated that approximately 246,660 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in women in the United States as well as 61,000 new cases of non-invasive breast cancer. Mammograms continue to be touted as the most effective screening tool we have today to find breast cancer.
However, these two doctors were shocked to discover that there is minimal evidence that actually indicates that the benefits of mammography screening outweigh the harms.

 

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

 

The Canadian National Breast Screening Study, which was conducted over the course of 25 years, concluded that 106 of 484 screen-detected cancers were overdiagnosed.
The fact that the benefits of this form of cancer screening are so overestimated seems worrisome for the medical community and patients at large.

 

How, in this day and age, do we not have more awareness, more answers, and better technology?

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

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

The report created controversy within the Swiss medical community, even though it supports a growing perspective around the world that mammography for breast cancer screening in asymptomatic populations is outdated and harmful at best.
Per each prevented dead by mammograms, there are 3-14 women over-diagnosed with breast cancer Click To Tweet
When reviewing the data in regards to every breast cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year period of yearly screening starting at the age of 50, you will find that:

  • 490-670 women usually have a false positive mammogram with repeated examination.
  • 70-100 women usually have an unnecessary biopsy.
  • 3-14 women were the victim of over-diagnosed breast cancer that would never reach clinical relevance.
The fact that the benefits of this form of cancer screening are so overestimated seems worrisome for the medical community and patients at large. /photo credit: Pinterest

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

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

 

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

It’s clearly no mystery why the board become increasingly concerned about their researcher. The “evidence” simply does not back up the global consensus of other experiences in the field suggesting that mammograms were safe and capable of saving lives.
When it comes down to it, we are dealing with outdated clinical trials, the benefits do not clearly outweigh the harms, and women’s perceptions of mammography benefits do not match reality.

 

More Information On Breast Screenings

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

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

 

What’s the bottom line?

Mammograms are not the most effective way to detect breast cancer!
In fact, having a mammogram is likely the last thing you want to do if you have breast cancer.

A study published in The European Journal of Public Health Titled “Trends in breast cancer stage distribution before, during and after introduction of a screening programme in Norway” found that breast screenings actually increase the incidence of localized stage cancers without reducing the incidence of advanced cancers.
The study, which used a huge population sample of 1.8 million Norwegian women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1987 – 2010, found that:

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

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

The study concluded that:

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

photo credit: Pinterest

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

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

The new data published in the BMJ now suggests that none of the gratifying falls in breast cancer can be attributed to screening and that the very existence of a NHSBSP (National Health Service Breast Screening Programme) should be questioned.
A study published in the British Medical Journal concluded that regular mammogram screenings do not reduce breast cancer death rates Click To Tweet
Unless there is public pressure for an independent inquiry to challenge the status quo, it will be business as usual for the screening programme. Furthermore, the Department of Health has painted itself into a corner and it is no longer a question of scientific debate – the subject has become too politicized by those who like to avoid U-turns at all costs. –  Michael Baum, Professor Emeritus of Surgery and visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London, is a leading British surgical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer treatment.

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

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

The study was conducted over a period of 25 years.
Many Studies Showing The Same Thing

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

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

To finish, watch Dr. Ben Johnson explaining to Ty Bollinger in the docu-series “The Truth about Cancer“, how mammograms can actually produce cancer.


[summary][/summary]

Key Takeaways

  • In 2011, 220,097 women and 2,078 men in the United States were diagnosed with breast cancer, and 40,931 women and 443 men in the United States died from breast cancer.
  • A paper published in 2011 in the British Medical Journal  set out to prove that breast screening by mammography is associated with a steeper fall in mortality cancer compared to other countries who were not offering this service (read the full paper here)
  • In 2016, it was  estimated that approximately 246,660 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in women in the United States as well as 61,000 new cases of non-invasive breast cancer. (source)
  • Incidence of localized breast cancer increased significantly among women aged 50–69 years old after introduction of screening.
  • A study that was recently published in the British Medical Journal concluded that regular mammogram screenings do not reduce breast cancer death rates. And they found no evidence to suggest that mammograms are more effective than personal breast exams at detecting cancer in the designated age group. (see the full study here)
  • Another study that was recently published in the British Medical Journal concluded that regular mammogram screenings do not reduce breast cancer death rates. (see the full study here)
  • A review of 10 trials involving more than 600,000 women discovered no evidence that mammography screening was effective on overall mortality. (source)

Sources

This article was originally published in: Collective Evolution