Thread: AUTISM
View Single Post
  #104  
Old 03-18-2014, 01:51 PM
redrat11 redrat11 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,227
Default Re: AUTISM

42% of Drug Reactions Are Vaccine Related, Groundbreaking Chinese Study Finds







by Sayer JiA -groundbreaking new drug safety study published in the open access journal*PLoS*and titled, "Adverse Drug Reactions of Spontaneous Reports in Shanghai Pediatric Population," has revealed for the first that that 42.5% of all reported adverse drug reactions occurring in 2009 in a Chinese pediatric population (Shanghai, pop of 17 mil) were caused by vaccines, with reactions as severe as anaphylaxis and death.The report carries unique gravitas insofar as the data was gathered through spontaneous reports of physicians (52.03%), pharmacists (24.27%) and other health care practitioners (15.46%), with only 2.52% coming from 'consumers.' Presumably, the clinical training of those reporting gives the study additional credibility.According to the study, which is one of the first ever conducted on the topic in China, "Knowledge of drug safety in the pediatric population of China is limited. This study was designed to evaluate ADRs in children reported to the spontaneous reporting system (SRS) of Shanghai in 2009."

The results of the study were reported as follows:

Quote:
A male overrepresentation was observed regarding the total number of reports. The most frequently reported group of drugs were vaccines (42.15%). Skin rash and fever were the commonest symptoms reported in the total pediatric dataset. The proportion of children that suffered from a serious ADR was 2.16% and that for drug related deaths was 0.34%. And we found that the multiple drug exposure experienced a high proportion of serious ADRs compared with the single drug use (χ215.99, P<0.0001). Sixty-five percent of ADRs were for children less than 6 years of age. And more than half of reports were from doctors.
According to the study, the World Health Organization defines adverse drug reaction (ADRs) "...as events related to a medication that are noxious, unintended and occur at normal doses used in humans for prophylaxis, diagnosis or therapy of disease, or for modification of physiological function."* Their definition excludes accidental or deliberate excessive dosage or maladministration. The global problem with ADRs is so serious that, according to the study, "ADRs are one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in many countries*[2],*[3]." *Indeed, a 1998 report*published in*JAMAfound that 106,000 Americans die every year from*correctlyprescribed medications.The study results showed concerning patterns, across both age and gender.

Quote:
The Younger The More Susceptible To Harm:"When the data were assessed in terms of age groups, almost two thirds of ADRs were reported for children from birth to 5 years of age (65.01%) and 39.46% concerned children aging 2 months-2 years." Furthermore, "The highest proportion (6.58%) of serious reports was reported for newborn (0–1 month)."The Males Were More Susceptible Than Females:*In general, a total of 1790 ADRs (40.41%) and 2640 ADRs (59.59%) were reported for female and male patients, respectively.
In interpreting the results, one explanation offered by the authors for the fact that 50% of the ADRs were reported for children from birth to 5 years of age, with close to 40% affecting children between 2 months and 2 years of age, was "Children under 5 were the most common age group for vaccination."

They expanded on this explanation further:

Quote:
The ADR rate causes by vaccine is much higher than other drugs, and this may be related to the types and number of vaccination being used in China, as the types of routine immunization vaccines in China reach up to 15 kinds, which is much higher than 7 kinds in India and Vietnam, 9 kinds in Thailand and 11 kinds in America, and most of the vaccines in China are attenuated live vaccines, which may bring greater potential safety hazard.
The Chinese vaccination schedule, including over a dozen different vaccines, illustrates a common problem surrounding multiple exposures associated with 'polypharmacy,' where it is nearly impossible to ascertain the synergistic toxicities and adverse interactions occurring as a result of simultaneous exposures to multiple vaccines or pharmaceutical agents.They expand on this point further:

Quote:
With the seemingly constant flow of new therapeutic agents and new treatment indications for existing medications, polypharmacy is increasingly common[34],*[35]. Drug-drug interactions (DDI) occur when two or more drugs are taken in combination and one drug influences the effects of another drug. This may subsequently cause a change in the pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic parameters which may lead to lack of efficacy, or to an increase in the number of reported adverse drug reactions. The association between multiple drug exposure and the incidence of ADRs has been studied, consistently showing an exponentially increased risk with the increase of the number of drugs taken*[36],*[37]. When assessing the severity of the reported ADRs, our study confirmed that multiple drug exposure experienced a high proportion compared with the single drug use. This finding indicate that in order to minimize the risk of serious ADRs, HCPs should pay particular attention to children who are prescribed two drugs or more.
Recently,*Dr. Kelly Brogan, MD, commented on one of the fundamental flaws of present day vaccination schedules, namely, multiple vaccine safety has never been studied, nor proven:***

Quote:
The current schedule has never been studied – not one vaccine in a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated design, let alone multiple delivered at once, or the entire long-term effects of 49 doses of 14 vaccines by age 6.
What we do know is that countries like the U.S. have one of the highest infant mortality rates (IMRs) in the developed world (33 nations have lower IMRs), while at the same time having the most infant vaccines in the world (26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year).* This can no longer be written off as 'coincidental.' [see SAGE study on the topic]We believe this latest Chinese study represents one of the first signs of an awakening within the Chinese research and medical community to the fact that despite being promoted as a medical 'holy water,' the very heart of the miracle of modern medicine, vaccines – especially in the very young – are causing severe adverse health effects, many of which outweigh their purported benefits.Moreover, considering that this report (like most adverse vaccine events) only looked at acute adverse health effects, as we learn more about theautoimmunity generating properties of vaccines, and other chronic health issues associated with the presence of*'hidden' pathogenic viruses*in the live and attenuated vaccines most commonly used in China and the underdeveloped or developing world, we believe this latest study represents the tip of the iceberg as far as the real adverse health effects associated with the increasingly doubtful 'preventive' measure of vaccination.To learn more about the fatal flaws in the science of vaccinology, read our recent article on the topic:http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/why...rent-paleoThis article first appeared atGreenMedInfo.* Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health.*

http://www.naturalblaze.com/2014/03/...ccine.html?m=1

Ingredients in common Vaccines



-------



Study of 1.8 Million: Breast Screening Increases 'Lethal' Breast Cancer Incidence-

* Posted on:*Friday, March 7th 2014 at 6:30 amWritten By:*Sayer Ji, Founder


http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/stu...ncer-incidence


powerful new study on the failure of mammograms to protect women against breast cancer, curiously absent from mainstream news health reporting, was published this month in*The European Journal of Public Health, and is forcing the scientific and medical community, policy makers and the public at large to ask the question: can the now worldwide practice of mass breast screenings in healthy (asymptomatic) populations be justified when they*increase the incidence of localized stage 'cancers' without reducing the incidence of advanced cancers?Titled, "Trends in breast cancer stage distribution before, during and after introduction of a screening programme in Norway," the study found that based on a population sample of 1.8 million Norwegian women, diagnosed with breast cancer 1987-2010,

Quote:
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." [emphasis added]
In other words, enrollment in Norway's breast screening program increased the chance of being diagnosed with an early-stage breast 'cancer' diagnoses by 221%, and more disturbingly, increased the chance of being diagnosed with an advanced (lethal) breast cancer by 35% -- exactly opposite what would be expected if the mammograms were actually catching malignant tumors early, which would imply the incidence of the more lethal, late stage cancers*would be lower and not higher. (see: see scientist's description of how breast cancer overdiagnosis occurs onGreenMedTV.com)The study concluded with the following summarization:

Quote:
Conclusion:*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."
While not discussed in depth within the article, their results indicate that breast screening causes profound numbers of overdiagnosis, and because of the 'overtreatment' (and mistreatment) that results from this, produces excess morbidity and mortality in screened women as a result. Indeed, one of the most dramatic revelations of our time occurred last year when a*National Cancer Institute commissioned expert panel*concluded that so-called 'early stage cancers' such as*Ductal Carcinoma In Situ*(DCIS) are not cancer at all, but benign or indolent growths. This implies that millions of women were wrongly diagnosed with 'breast cancer' over the past 30 years who would have been better off left undiagnosed and untreated.


Does Breast Screening Really 'Save Lives'? If So, Prove It





The oft-touted belief that 'breast screening saves lives,' or that the best form of 'prevention is through early detection,' has increasingly been challenged by the very peer-reviewed and published research – the "scientific evidence" -- that forms the only real justification for foisting them upon women.* These viral memes, now driving millions of women to subject themselves to*breast cancer causing diagnostic radiation*(see:*dangers of x-ray mammography*on our database), are no longer founded in anything more than the marketing copy of the industries that stand to profit greatly from the process of screening and treating breast 'cancers,' regardless of whether they are benign and indolent (like DCIS), or actually a cause for concern. (see:*The Dark Side of Breast Cancer Awareness Month)Only last month, we reported on the latest*British Medical Journal*study,[i]*involving 90,000 Canadian women, which compared breast cancer incidence and mortality up to 25 years in women aged 40-59 who did or did not undergo mammography screening.* The clear conclusion of the*25-year follow up study*was that regular mammogram screenings do not reduce breast cancer death rates, i.e. taken as a whole,*they don't save lives.This new study, therefore, is actually only confirming what a growing body of virtually unassailable evidence is telling us, and which our contributing writer Rolf Hefti, author of*The Mammogram Myth*(non-affiliate link), summarizes as follows:


Quote:
The findings of this study corroborate copious previous research data I had documented in The Mammogram Myth that screening with mammography detects mostly indolent, low-grade "cancers" and misses much of the progressive fatal cancers, contradicting a main claim of benefit heavily disseminated by the medical-mammogram industry.In addition, the study's results suggest, again, that screening with mammography will lead to a lot of unnecessary invasive cancer treatments in women with innocuous, early-stage breast "cancer" due to overdiagnosis, while many women with aggressive advanced cancers, who presumably have the most need for these treatments, don't get them."



Like*so many other studies*that have been released on the topic of mammography's failure to produce a net benefit in screened populations, there are far deeper implications to women's physical and psychospiritual health that should be addressed. These include the following, excerpted from our article:*Fail: Another Mammography Study Finds They Don't Save Lives: *

Last edited by redrat11 : 03-18-2014 at 02:38 PM.
Reply With Quote