Recently in Junk Science Category

PreventDisease.com

APRIL 14, 2015

by DAVE MIHALOVIC

What's the best way to attract new patients for a vaccine heavily marketed to only girls? Why open up the market to boys of course. The HPV vaccine is possibly the biggest vaccine hoax in the last century being nothing more than a worldwide exercise in profiteering at the expense of children's health. Another massively flawed study (basically routine for the HPV vaccine) will give Gardasil manufacturer, Merck & Co., the green light to once again create a vaccine awareness campaign on the pretext that it prevents mouth and throat cancers.

201504151525.jpg

There are truthfully no safe vaccines, however the HPV vaccine is one of the 5 vaccines I strongly recommend to avoid . It is perhaps the one vaccine based on the most misrepresented data and unproven assumptions.

In 2011, the Annals of Medicine exposed the fraudulent nature of Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines such as Gardasil and Cervarix. Key messages the researchers reported include a lack of evidence for any HPV vaccines in preventing cervical cancer and lack of evaluation of health risks.

  • Currently 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 0/5 (0 votes cast)

Sorry, Monsanto. The Science Is on Our Side, Not Yours

March 24, 2015
Organic Consumers Association
by Katherine Paul

not_a_science_experiment.jpg

A few weeks ago, I spoke by phone with Cathleen Enright, executive vice president of the Biotech Industry Organization (BIO). (Long story).

During the course of our conversation, when we touched on the subject of the science behind the debate over whether or not GMOs are “safe” (me arguing that there’s no scientific consensus) Enright said, “Then you must not believe in climate change, either.”

I glossed over that accusation, though it struck me as odd. And random. Until less than a week later, on March 9 (2015), an article appeared in the Guardian under this headline: “The anti-GM lobby appears to be taking a page out of the Climategate playbook.”

  • Currently 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 0/5 (0 votes cast)

Christina Sarich
April 1, 2015

(Natural Society) Ex-Monsanto employee Richard Goodman has been removed from the Editorial Board of the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology. Goodman was appointed Associate Editor shortly before the Seralini study was retracted by the journal. Former Editor-in-Chief, A. Wallace Hayes will be replaced by someone else as well.

  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (1 votes cast)

By David Gutierrez

Global Research, March 27, 2015

Natural News


201503301248.jpg

Recently, scientists took a huge leap forward in developing a radically new form of immunization. Researchers from the Scripps Research Institute reported in February that they had successfully used a new form of gene therapy to induce monkeys to produce an antibody that deactivates HIV.

This new therapy is fundamentally different from vaccination, which consists of introducing small amounts of infectious material into the body to induce it to produce its own antibodies. In immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer (IGT), scientists instead hope to modify the DNA of patients to enable them to produce entirely new antibodies.

“The reality is we are touching third rails, and so it’s going to take some explanation,” said David Baltimore of the California Institute of Technology, a Nobel Prize recipient, virologist and IGT researcher.

  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (2 votes cast)

A controversial lobbyist who claimed that the chemical in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer was safe for humans refused to drink his own words when a French television journalist offered him a glass.

In a preview of an upcoming documentary on French TV, Dr. Patrick Moore tells a Canal+ interviewer that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, was not increasing the rate of cancer in Argentina.

  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (1 votes cast)

GreenMedInfo

March 24th 2015

By: Sayer Ji, Founder

201503261144.jpg

Angelina Jolie has just announced she has removed her ovaries and fallopian tubes to "prevent cancer," following her decision last year to remove her breasts for the same reason. Is this medically justified, sane behavior?

With Angelina Jolie's recent announcement that she had her ovaries and fallopian tubes removed because of both a BRCA 'gene defect' and a history of breast and ovarian cancer in her family, the idea that genes play a dominant role in determining biological destiny and cancer risk is proliferating in the mainstream media and popular consciousness uncontrollably like a cancer.


Back in 2014, in a New York Times Op-Ed titled, "My Medical Choice," Angelina Jolie explained why she chose to have a double mastectomy, recounting what her doctors told her was the extreme health risk associated with her BRCA1 'gene mutation':

"My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each."

  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (3 votes cast)

Researchers: Delay Breastfeeding to "Improve" Vaccination?

Over the course of the past few years we have been gathering studies from the US National Library of Medicine on the adverse, unintended health effects of vaccination, in an attempt to offset the one-sided propaganda foisted upon the public, namely, that all vaccines are unequivocally "safe" and "effective" a priori.

  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (1 votes cast)

Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs

Donald W. Light

Rowan University, School of Osteopathic Medicine; Harvard University - Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics

Joel Lexchin


York University

Jonathan J. Darrow


Harvard Medical School

June 1, 2013

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 2013, Vol. 14, No. 3: 590-610

Abstract:     
Over the past 35 years, patients have suffered from a largely hidden epidemic of side effects from drugs that usually have few offsetting benefits. The pharmaceutical industry has corrupted the practice of medicine through its influence over what drugs are developed, how they are tested, and how medical knowledge is created. Since 1906, heavy commercial influence has compromised Congressional legislation to protect the public from unsafe drugs. The authorization of user fees in 1992 has turned drug companies into the FDA’s prime clients, deepening the regulatory and cultural capture of the agency. Industry has demanded shorter average review times and, with less time to thoroughly review evidence, increased hospitalizations and deaths have resulted. Meeting the needs of the drug companies has taken priority over meeting the needs of patients. Unless this corruption of regulatory intent is reversed, the situation will continue to deteriorate. We offer practical suggestions including: separating the funding of clinical trials from their conduct, analysis, and publication: independent FDA leadership; full public funding for all FDA activities; measures to discourage R&D on drugs with few if any new clinical benefits; and the creation of a National Drug Safety Board.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 11

Download This Paper

  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (1 votes cast)

Women In The Know Refuse Mammograms

| | Comments (0)

GreenMedInfo

March 9th 2015

By: Margie King, Health Coach

201503181727.jpg

New study: women with the real facts about mammograms are more likely to opt out of the test.

Despite the pink campaign for early breast cancer detection, a recent Canadian study confirms that mammograms don't save lives.

It's true that breast screening campaigns find more cancer. Since they were implemented in the UK, Europe, the U.S., Australia, and other countries, the incidence of breast cancer has increased by 2% to 10% per year.[i] But finding all of those extra cases of breast cancer earlier hasn't saved lives.

The 25-year Canadian National Breast Screening Study followed 89,835 women, aged 40 to 59, in a randomized controlled trial. About half of the women were given annual mammograms and the other half just visited their doctor without receiving the test.   

The researchers found that getting an annual mammogram does not reduce the mortality from breast cancer any more than getting a physical exam from a doctor.[ii]

  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (1 votes cast)

Herd Immunity: Myth or Reality?

| | Comments (0)

Tetyana Obukhanych (Ph.D. in immunology from Rockefeller University, New York, NY) is the author of Vaccine Illusion. The book is available in pdf e-book form for immediate download here.

Even though endemic outbreaks of common childhood diseases, such as measles, have been eliminated in some regions after prolonged mass-vaccination efforts, we are still being constantly reminded that reducing vaccination coverage of children in a community poses the risk of a reimported disease outbreak with potentially dire consequences to infants and immuno-compromised individuals. We are also being persuaded that implementing strict vaccination compliance will prevent an outbreak and protect vaccine-ineligible infants via the herd-immunity effect.

  • Currently 5/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 5/5 (2 votes cast)

Health Supreme News

Loading...
Powered by Movable Type 5.13-en

Receive updates

Subscribe to get updates of this site by email:

Enter your Email


Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Other sites of ours