Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Today's News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 28-05-2018, 10:15 AM   #41
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumbcritic View Post
That along with others have now been retracted https://retractionwatch.com/2018/05/...nes-retracted/
Does retracted mean it isn't true what he or she reported or is this as another example of censorship?


Quote:
Originally Posted by dumbcritic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy
On the contrary, the career of every single medical "scientist" that blows the whistle on the medical industry is destroyed (or worse).
Doctors that refuse to prescribe big pharma's products lose their medical license.
Do you have any links to some cases?
The previously mentioned Peter Duesberg;
Robert E. Willner got his his medical license suspended in 1990 and died very suddenly in 1995;
Philip Artz Kees;
Johan Van Dongen;
Etienne de Harven;
William R. Holub.
Edward J. Wawszkiewicz.

All in the following thread (on AIDS): https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1063024262

Suzanne Humhpries has reported about receiving death treaths for exposing vaccines. I’ll leave it up to you if you want to find more information...
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 28-05-2018 at 10:15 AM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-05-2018, 08:34 PM   #42
dumbcritic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 560 (294 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
Does retracted mean it isn't true what he or she reported or is this as another example of censorship?
The former. The rise in incidence mainly applies to the 25-40 age group and this is a result of more screening. None of those would have received the vaccine as the program wasn't fully rolled out until around 2010 in teen girls only (I think).

In this Cochrane review http://cochranelibrary-wiley.com/doi...9069.pub3/full (73,428 participants from 26 trials) they found that vaccinating girls before they become infected cut their chances of getting pre-cancerous cells (linked to the HPV16 and HPV18 strains) by 99%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy View Post
The previously mentioned Peter Duesberg;
Robert E. Willner got his his medical license suspended in 1990 and died very suddenly in 1995;
Philip Artz Kees;
Johan Van Dongen;
Etienne de Harven;
William R. Holub.
Edward J. Wawszkiewicz.

All in the following thread (on AIDS): https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1063024262

Suzanne Humhpries has reported about receiving death treaths for exposing vaccines. I’ll leave it up to you if you want to find more information...
I'll look into some of these.
__________________
''Chlorine is a deadly poison gas employed on European battlefields in World War I. Sodium is a corrosive metal which burns upon contact with water. Together they make a placid and unpoisonous material, table salt. Why each of these substances has the properties it does is a subject called chemistry'' - Carl Sagan

Why is it that the loudest critics of ''Big Pharma'' are Big Placebo?
dumbcritic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-05-2018, 09:52 AM   #43
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumbcritic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by st jimmy
Does retracted mean it isn't true what he or she reported or is this as another example of censorship?
The former. The rise in incidence mainly applies to the 25-40 age group and this is a result of more screening. None of those would have received the vaccine as the program wasn't fully rolled out until around 2010 in teen girls only (I think).
You're lying; in my opinion you have no credibility whatsoever.

It was retracted 26 May, after I posted about it on 20 May...
Quote:
On verification of his identity, the editor confirmed that (a) the author had the necessary qualifications, expertise and research experience on the subject of the article; and (b) the author did face a credible threat of harm, making it necessary not to be named publicly.
Further we reconfirmed the reviewers’ conclusions: that the article used publicly available data with a simple statistical method; made a fair attempt to report a possible association of the increased incidence of carcinoma cervix with HPV vaccination; and suggested more research. We felt that the data and analysis could be scientifically appreciated and critiqued without reference to the author.
(…)
While our assessment of the science of the article may be correct, we have concluded that tolerating the author’s deception and retaining the article was an error of judgment.
http://ijme.in/articles/increased-in...n/?galley=html


Here’s the archived version of the (anonymous, by now retracted) report: http://archive.is/C9tfJ
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 29-05-2018 at 09:53 AM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-06-2018, 05:02 PM   #44
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

The following article presents some questions on the controversial human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil - 27 “little secrets” not known about Gardasil.
Following is a list of some of the “secrets” not known about Gardasil.

1. Whether Gardasil prevents cancer
3. Whether Gardasil increases the risk of cancer.
Quote:
A May 2006 FDA VRBPAC document stated girls previously exposed to vaccine-relevant human papillomavirus and get inoculated with Gardasil have a 44.6% increase in getting cervical cancer in their life time.
5. Whether there is increased risk of autoimmune disorders due to the recombinant HPV DNA
6. If HPV is necessarily an infection transmitted by sexual intercourse
12. Long term serious side effects
13. What the results would be if a true placebo had been used in all the clinical trials
Quote:
The FDA allowed Merck to use a potentially reactive aluminum containing placebo as a control for most trial participants, rather than a non-reactive saline solution placebo. A reactive placebo can artificially increase the appearance of safety of an experimental drug or vaccine in a clinical trial.
http://offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/29...e-secrets.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/joMG6)

Instead of a placebo they allowed the use of a “reactive aluminum containing placebo”. That’s a “placebo” with adverse effects...
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
Likes: (1)
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2018, 04:18 PM   #45
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

I’ve found 2 literature reviews, with criticism on HPV-vaccines.


The incidence of cervical cancer in India is 27 per 100,000 women with a mortality of 15.2 per 100,000 women.
Cervical cancer has been rapidly declining in India over the past 2 to 3 decades, without screening or vaccination. A study from Mumbai showed an average annual decline in cervical cancer incidence of 1.8% between 1976 and 2005. The average annual decline was even steeper between 1991 and 2005 (2.8%).
The age standardized incidence rate of cervical cancer in Mumbai dropped from 41.1 in 1976 to 26.6 in 2005 (per 100,000 female population in age group 30-64 years).

Although both approved HPV-vaccines (Gardasil and Cervarix) are reported as safe, data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in the US suggests that the rate of Gardasil-associated adverse reactions is 4.3/100.000 - 2.5 times higher than the death rate from cervical cancer.
The adverse event rates in the VAERS database are probably highly underestimated.

According to the official statistics…
About 90% of HPV infections clear “naturally”.
Of the remaining 10% - 85-90% will take a little longer to clear “naturally” in time.
Of the remaining 1.0-1.5% - only 5% progress to “higher grade” cervical cancer (CIN II/III). CIN II/III can also “naturally” resolve in time.
Of those remaining 0.050-0.075%, about 40% will progress to cervical cancer in 20-30 years.
So about 0.02-0.03% of the women that get infected with HPV eventually get cervical cancer. Not all of those women die.

Because there have been no trials at all with cervical cancer as an end point, because sample size and trial duration would be impractical – there is no evidence that any vaccine prevents cervical cancer.
The trial size and duration would be impractical… because cervical cancer is a very rare outcome of HPV infection! If cancer is such a rare outcome of HPV; a “surrogate endpoint” like HPV infection isn’t very relevant.

The longest available follow-up data from phase II trials for Gardasil and Cervarix are 5 and 8.4 years, respectively.
If we suppose that immunity becomes less within 20 years after vaccination, it seems unlikely that HPV-vaccines could prevent cancer.
Data suggest “immunity” for up to 5-8 years after vaccination. Even if this is true this doesn’t show that cervical cancer could be prevented 2 to 3 decades after vaccination.

In “developed” countries on the other hand, with cervical cancer screening, vaccination programs would only be cost-effective if the vaccine provides complete and life-long efficacy and there is at least 75% coverage of the pre-adolescent population.
This makes the cost-effectiveness of these vaccines in “developed” countries also very doubtful.

Sudeep Gupta et al – Is human papillomavirus vaccination likely to be a useful strategy in India? (2013): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3889025/
(archived here: http://archive.is/rBod0)


In response to the many adverse events, Japan has suspended the HPV vaccination program in 2013.

Three different types of HPV-vaccines are currently sold: Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline); Gardasil or Silgard (Merck&Co); and the newest Gardasil 9.
Most HPV vaccine randomized trials didn’t use inert placebo in the control group, but aluminium.

Only one double blind trial with an inert placebo for the quadrivalent HPV-vaccine was done. In this trial, 842 boys and 939 girls from 9 to 15 years: 1184 were injected with the HPV-vaccine and 597 with saline placebo.
The efficacy outcomes described boys and girls separately. The adverse events were displayed in a single group. This could have been done to hide something...
46.4% in the vaccine group compared to 44.5% in the placebo group experienced adverse events. That is almost half (even for the placebo)!
Serious adverse events occurred in 5 (0.4%) of the vaccinated subjects and none in the placebo group. These serious events were considered to be caused by something else than the vaccine.

The 4-year follow-up VIVIANE study compared 2881 healthy women older than 25 years injected with the bivalent HPV-vaccine with 2871 women injected with aluminium “placebo”.
There were more “symptoms” in the week after vaccination in the HPV-vaccine group (65%) than in the control group (58%). In the HPV-vaccine group 41% and in the aluminium group 36% of the symptoms were reportedly caused by the injection.
There were 14 deaths (later corrected to 13 as 1 was caused by breast cancer) in the HPV-vaccine group compared to 3 in the aluminium group. None of the deaths were believed to be caused by the injections.
Again many “symptoms” (also in the aluminium group)...

In another large study 7078 women were injected with the 4-valent HPV vaccine, compared to 7071 young women with the (new) HPV 9-valent vaccine.
Vaccine-related events occurred more frequently in the 9-valent group in the 4-valent group - 2086 (29.5%) vs 1929 (27.3%).
The 9-valent group had more serious adverse events than the 4-valent group - 3.3% vs 2.6%. Only 2 serious adverse events in each group were considered to be “vaccine-related”.
Severe injection site swelling was also more frequent in the 9-valent group - 3.8 vs 1.5%.

Pooled analysis of all trials comparing 29,953 healthy girls and women poisoned with bivalent HPV vaccine vs. hepatitis A vaccine showed significantly more symptoms in the HPV vaccine group.

M. Martínez-Lavínand L. Amezcua-Guerra – Serious adverse events after HPV vaccination: a critical review of randomized trials and post-marketing case series (2017): http://www.autoimmunity-network.com/...tol%202017.pdf


These HPV-vaccines that cause so many adverse reactions have been approved!
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 10-07-2018 at 04:23 PM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2018, 01:55 PM   #46
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

It looks like French doctor Gerard Delepine was inspired by the report on the rising Swedish cervical cancer rates to do a similar study: https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...7&postcount=38

On 23 July, his analysis was published as an “Open letter to parliamentarians, and all citizens”.
Delépine explains that HPV vaccines increase cervical cancer rates or stop the decline: http://healthimpactnews.com/2018/fre...ination-rates/

Unfortunately the letter is in French (see some of the presented graphs below): https://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libr...inent-d-206314
(archived here: http://archive.is/pAkVv)

See rising cervical cancer rates since HPV vaccines were introduced in Norway.


See rising cervical cancer rates since HPV vaccines were introduced in Great Britain.



Even though there is no evidence that the human papillomavirus (HPV) causes any form of cancer, the government of Britain (a day after the French “open letter”) has recommended poisoning all British boys (age 12 and 13) with HPV vaccines too: https://www.theguardian.com/society/...cancer-england


If you still believe in cancer vaccines, maybe you reconsider when you learn that big pharma is working on tooth vaccines and fat vaccines (unfortunately I’m not kidding): https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1063034682
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-08-2018, 09:36 AM   #47
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

Even the state legislation proces on the HPV vaccine Gardasil was controversial...

In June 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV). Gardasil, of Merck & Co Inc, was licensed for vaccination of females 9 to 26 years.

Merck & Co Inc actively promoted (lobbied) mandatory, school-entry HPV vaccination in several states. Merck proactively contacted legislators to discuss strategies to maximise uptake of Gardasil by introducing legislation, often drafting the bills and searching for a sponsor.
Merck mobilised legislators primarily through Women in Government (WIG), a national, “non-profit” group of female state politicians. Merck contributed unrestricted educational grants to WIG, which covered the expenses of dozens of politicians to go to conferences on cervical cancer at nice destinations and attended by Merck representatives. Merck’s financial contributions to WIG and other interest groups were not publicly disclosed.
Members of WIG introduced many of the mandate bills considered across the country.

In 2007, shortly after Governor Perry of Texas issued an executive order mandating HPV vaccination for girls, a public outcry was sparked after it was reported that the governor’s former chief of staff had worked for years as a lobbyist for Merck and that Merck had contributed $5000 to the governor’s campaign fund.

A respondent from California compared what happened with Gardasil to what earlier happened with Merck’s Fosamax (to prevent osteoporotic fractures):
Quote:
They created this paranoia about fracture risk and applied it to a much bigger market. I think that they very successfully did the same thing with Gardasil.
Both Merck and GSK, manufacturer of another HPV vaccine, came forward with unrestricted donations for the first time after Gardasil was introduced.
Representatives for Merck were present at task force and committee meetings.
Merck also infiltrated the prescriber community, both directly and by training physicians.

In most states, the politicians preferred to work with the pharmaceutical over their state’s health department.

Mello et al - Pharmaceutical Companies’ Role in State Vaccination Policymaking: The Case of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination (2012): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483914/
(archived here: http://archive.is/FgDeQ)


Julie Gerberding, who headed the CDC from 2002 through 2009, was rewarded for her work with a handsome salary as president of the vaccine division at Merck: https://www.naturalnews.com/027789_D...ing_Merck.html
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2018, 10:09 AM   #48
st jimmy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 1,499 (899 Posts)
Default

The following “scientific” report from 2017 suggests that the controversial HPV vaccine causes lower birth rates. This study analysed information gathered in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, representing 8 million 25 to 29-year-old women in the US between 2007 and 2014.

Birth rates in the US have recently fallen to record lows from 118.1 in 2007 to 104.5 in 2015 per 1000 females aged 25–29.
See the birth rates in the US from 1995 to 2015: https://www.tandfonline.com/na101/ho..._f0001_oc.jpeg

One factor could be the vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV) that “coincidentally” was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 and recommended for females aged 11–26 (and since 2011 also for males of the same age group).

Adverse effects of the HPV vaccine include menstrual disturbances and mood swings. Shortly after the HPV vaccine was licensed, reports of women experiencing Primary Ovarian Failure (POF) emerged.
The estimated incidence of POF for females under the age of 40 is 1 in 100, but this could be considerably higher because it’s masked by the birth control pill. Between 10% and 30% of women with POF also have (other) autoimmune disorders.

Approximately 60% of women who had not been poisoned with the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once, compared to only 35% of women who were poisoned with the HPV vaccine. The difference was especially large for women that had been married. Of the married women 75% that didn’t get the vaccine gave birth, while only 50% who were poisoned with the HPV vaccine had been pregnant.
61.1% of the women not poisoned with HPV gave birth, compared to only 35.3% of the women poisoned with the HPV vaccine.
The pregnancy frequency decreased with increasing numbers of HPV vaccine shots.

See (part of) Table 3 - Ratios of having been pregnant for women who received an HPV shot versus women who did not.
See (part of) Table 5 - Births of females aged 25–29 in the US, by number of HPV shots.


This suggests that at least part of the reason for the recent decline in US birth rates is caused by the HPV vaccine. Why did it take so long before this link was found (some studies have even denied this link)?
If all married women had been vaccinated with the HPV vaccine, the number of married women having conceived could have fallen with another 1 million.

There are other (possible) causes for the lower birth rates...
Higher employment rates (of women) decreases birth rates.
No epidemiological study on the influence of Aluminium (a component of vaccines) on fertility exists but Karakis et al in 2014 found an association between prenatal exposure to Aluminium and death of the (unborn) baby.
There could also be a link between Aluminium exposure and POF.

Gayle DeLong – A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection (2017): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...4.2018.1477640


Big pharma trolls have been attacking the author of the report, Gayle DeLong. The frustrating thing is that while they don’t have any evidence to defend the genocidal HPV vaccine, their ad hominem attacks do succeed in discrediting the study.
In July I read the study for free. The study isn’t freely viewable anymore. It now costs 42 Euro for a single day and a whopping 284 Euro for 30 days. If anybody knows of a better word than “censorship” please let me know...

The big pharma trolls first quack that Gayle DeLong isn’t even a medical doctor but only an “economist”. DeLong did a statistical analysis of the data. If we take this kind of reasoning to the extreme only mathematicians should be allowed to do a statistical analysis.
I’ve regularly seen big pharma supporting “doctors” make the claim that after clean water vaccines are the cheapest health intervention. For evidence they regularly point to propaganda of the WHO, that isn’t backed up by any evidence. But we can’t really blame these doctors can we? They aren’t financial “experts” so wouldn’t know...

That the study contradicts all of the scientific studies on HPV vaccines that – supported and controlled by big pharma – concluded that HPV vaccines have no adverse effects at all.
So we can only conclude that these studies are biased, but instead they accuse DeLong.

No explanation on how HPV vaccines cause infertility.
Why would anybody doing a statistical analysis that shows that the HPV vaccine causes infertility, have to explain which poisons in the vaccines causes infertility? It is highly probable that when a vaccine has adverse health effects (the HPV vaccines have even more adverse effects than most other vaccines) this includes infertility.

Bizarrely that DeLong didn’t correct for contraception, with the addition of
Quote:
In fairness, if the correlation is not positive but negative (i.e., HPV vaccination is associated with less oral contraceptive use), the results could be more robust than what Gayle found.
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skep...aper-blogging/

Surprise, surprise, Gayle DeLong has provided data that shows that HPV vaccines is associated with less contraceptive use:
Quote:
I find 51.5% of married women who did not receive the shot and 36.6% of married women who received the shot were actively seeking to prevent pregnancy. The 14.9% difference is statistically significant at the 1% level.

This finding suggests that a greater percentage of married women who received the shot should be conceiving compared with married women who did not receive the shot. However, my original study finds that married women who received the shot are less likely to conceive than married women who did not receive the shot. The finding of my original study is not the result of married women who received the HPV vaccine actively avoiding pregnancy more than women who did not receive the HPV shot.
https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/06/...ccination.html
__________________
Do NOT ever read my posts.
Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...post1062977278

Last edited by st jimmy; 03-12-2018 at 10:11 AM.
st jimmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:34 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.