Tag: profit

  • HPV Cancer: Vaccine and Profit

    Not as effective as they make it out to be.

    • HPV vaccine is injecting 1,500 mcg of aluminum over a period of less than a year via 3 doses of Gardasil 9. 
    • The trials statistics reflect there is the potential of 2,300 serious adverse events to try and prevent 7.9 cases of cervical cancer. Adverse event reports show this vaccine is devastating. 61,552 cases of vaccine injury from the HPV vaccine. That’s more than the total number of cervical cancer in the United States in any given year.

    The Risk of Cancer has been low and not decreased significantly after vaccine marketing

    The proven way to prevent cancer is early detection. Because precancerous lesions found by Pap smears can be treated and cured before they develop into cancer, and because cervical cancer is often detected before it becomes advanced, the incidence and death rates for this disease are relatively low. 

    *According to data for the period from 2003 through 2007, the incidence rate for cervical cancer was 8.1 cases per 100,000 women per year in the United States. 10 years later, after the advent of the vax the rate averages at 7.8 per 100,000.  

    The mortality rate 10 years ago was 2.4 deaths per 100,000 women per year. In 2010, an estimated 12,200 women in the United States will be diagnosed with cervical cancer, and an estimated 4,210 will die of the disease. 

    In 2016, the death rate averages 2.3. 

    This chart created by the CDC does NOT show a significant decline in cancer deaths even though vaccines were introduced in 2004, 2009 and 2014 with that implied they would reduce the risk. 

    Notice the above rates have not decreased with any great significance even though the CDC reports that 6 in 10 girls and 5 in 10 boys are getting the vaccine series.

    The Risk of the new vaccine.

    For the first time, Merck has disclosed what may indeed be close to the true rate of serious adverse events people are suffering after the use of Gardasil and will probably continue to suffer if they consent to using Gardasil 9. The only difference would be that the rates may be higher when used in the general population because certain at-risk groups are excluded from clinical trial participation but not from vaccination programs.

    2.3-2.5% doesn’t sound that bad until you compare apples to apples. Cervical cancer rates are always quoted as # per 100,000. Given the above information, for every 100,000 people using Gardasil 9 there would be 2,300 serious adverse events. The cervical cancer diagnosis rate in the United States is 7.9/100,000.

    What health official in their right mind is willing to anticipate 2,300 serious adverse events to try and prevent 7.9 cases of cervical cancer?

    Keep in mind that the cost of vaccinating 100,000 people is around $30 million ($100 per injection, 3 injections). This doesn’t even begin to address the cost of treating 2,300 serious adverse events, the emotional, physical and financial expense to families and the cost to society via the lost productivity of the injured.

    *Men do not get cervical cancer – the vac is recommended for boys 9 years old. Could that be because it’s one of the most profitable products for manufacturers?

    All About Profit

    The rise in the number of mergers and acquisitions and strategic collaborations are estimated to offer lucrative opportunities for the market players in the next few years. Some of the key players operating in the vaccines market across the globe are Merck & Co., Inc., CSL Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Janssen Pharmaceutical Company, Pfizer, Inc., Sanofi Pasteur SA, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Serum Institute of India Ltd, Emergent BioSolutions Inc.,And Novavax AB.

    https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/global-vaccine-market.html

    Additional Articles:

    Gardasil 9 – Important information

    Gardasil 9 increases aluminum content There is absolutely no excuse for exposing young women and men to this level of risk for a vaccine that provides nothing other than promises of results far down the road.

    Oncology Dietitian Exposes Fraud in CDC’s HPV Vaccine Effectiveness Study

    Recent reductions in HPV infection prevalence among young women in the US cannot be said to be due to introduction of Gardasil vaccine in 2006 and use of HPV vaccines by pre-teen and teenage girls since then; the data clearly shows that unvaccinated girls had the best outcome https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/07/16/hpv-vaccine-effectiveness.aspx

    Developer of Vaccine says its ALL RISK no benefit

    The HPV vaccine was NEVER developed to prevent cancer, it was developed and approved to prevent WARTS. Warts are not a public health threat.

  • Not Settled Nor Trustworthy?

    Science.

    by Ashley Cates.

    When you have studies on one side stating that vaccines do not cause autism, and studies on the other side stating there is a link, which scientific conclusion do you trust?

    In a 2009 meta-analysis of survey data on how many scientists fabricate and falsify research, it was found that almost 2% of scientists admitted to personally fabricating, falsifying, or modifying data or results at least once and almost 34% admitted other questionable research practices. In addition, 14% of scientists surveyed admitted that their colleagues falsified research and 72% admitted their colleagues participated in other questionable practices.

    The authors state:

    “…Misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others. Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.”

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article…

    __________________________________________

    But, scientific research is peer-reviewed prior to acceptance and publication in prestigious medical journals. How can this be?

    “At the BMJ we did several studies where we inserted major errors into papers that we then sent to many reviewers. Nobody ever spotted all of the errors. Some reviewers did not spot any, and most reviewers spotted only about a quarter. Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance, but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud because it works on trust.”

    – Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

    __________________________________________

    Unfortunately, it’s more than just flawed, the entire system is corrupt:

    Nobel Prize winner Sydney Brenner (for Physiology or Medicine in 2002) spoke of the peer review system in an interview in 2014:

    “It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists… it puts the judgment in the hands of people who really have no reason to exercise judgment at all. And that’s all been done in the aid of commerce, because they are now giant organizations making money out of it.”

    http://kingsreview.co.uk/…/how-academia-and-publishing-are…/

    __________________________________________

    Sadly, science is wrought with conflicts of interest.

    “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

    – Dr. Richard Horton, editor in chief of the Lancet, regarding a symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research held by the Academy of Medical Sciences.

    http://www.thelancet.com/…/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%296069…

    __________________________________________

    Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, etc. are all making recommendations and decisions based on this corrupt science:

    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”

    – Dr. Marcia Angell, physician and editor in chief of the New England Medical Journal.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337/

    __________________________________________

    In the end, always consider the source.
    Yes, it matters. No, it’s not a conspiracy theory.

    Ask the question: Who benefits from this research, and who funded it?

    The pharmaceutical industry maintains major influence over our most prized institution – unbiased discovery, education, and advancement, for the benefit of all.

    For the industry, science has become a business tool for increasing profit, rather than an unbiased exploratory process. We need REAL science. Unbiased science. Science that doesn’t seek to profit from the results.

    Do you put your faith in an industry which only profits when you are sick?

    #marchforscience #exvaxxer

    Original Article/Note found on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/ashleynelsoncates/posts/1371432082878424
    Post Script:
    Ashley Cates “My point has never been that we can’t trust science. It’s that we can’t trust industry-funded science. Anyone who seeks to profit off of the scientific results should not be funding any science whatsoever. Independent scientific research is usually pretty informative and I think much more trustworthy – there’s no financial incentive or pressure for a desired result. And this is the science I usually share.”