Shocker: Study Unwittingly Links Vaccines To Autism

TruthFact
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 14, 2017

Start with this:

A new study links fever in pregnant women to an increased risk of autism in their babies.

MedicalNewsToday (6/13/17): “A study of a large group of children found a link between raised risk of autism spectrum disorder and their mothers reporting fever during pregnancy. The link was strongest with fevers reported during the second trimester.”

“The study – led by the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University in New York City, NY – also found that the risk of autism increased in line with the number of fevers reported after 12 weeks of gestation – rising to 300 percent higher risk [of autism] with reports of three or more fevers.”

Next, here is a one-word item from the World Health Organization web page, Vaccine Safety Basics. The item comes under the heading of “minor vaccine reactions,” and applies to every vaccine: the reaction is FEVER.

Pregnant woman gets vaccines. Vaccines cause fevers. Fevers are linked to autistic babies.

Here is a CDC list of vaccines given to pregnant women, under various conditions: HepA, HepB, Flu, Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis), meningococcal, polio, Rabies. Fever, as a typical and minor adverse effect, would be expected and ignored for ANY AND ALL of these vaccines.

Accepting the finding of the new study, cited above—routine vaccination for pregnant women is linked to an increased risk of autism in their babies.

That’s it in a nutshell.

No doubt if you pointed out the inevitable conclusion to a doctor or a researcher, they would try to worm out of it. They would say, “Well, we’re not talking about fever resulting from vaccines. We’re talking about fever coming from an infection in the pregnant woman.” Really? Why don’t you think the vaccine is producing fever? It’s causing an infection, and the immune system is reacting. Fever is an entirely expected consequence.

Note: I’m not saying the creation of fever is the only reason vaccines cause autism and various types of neurological damage. I’m saying here is a new connection.

And mainstream medicine and the mainstream press will ignore it completely.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Advertisements

SSRI Antidepressants Increase Risk Of Intracranial Hemorrhage

FakeNews
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
April 30, 2017

From healthline.com: “Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) refers to acute bleeding inside your skull or brain. It’s a life-threatening emergency. You should go to the emergency room right away or call 911 if you think you or someone you know is experiencing ICH.”

The public has learned about the increased risk of suicide and violent behavior (including murder) stemming from the use of SSRI antidepressants. Now there is more:

Psychiatric News reports (4/7/17): “A study published in February in JAMA Neurology has found that patients taking antidepressants that are strong inhibitors of serotonin reuptake (SSRIs) may be at an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage, particularly during the first month of use…”

“The results showed that compared with patients taking [the older] tricyclic antidepressants, patients being treated with SSRIs had a 17 percent increased risk of experiencing an intracranial hemorrhage. The risk was highest during the first 30 days the patients were taking the medications.”

SSRIs include: Celexa; Prozac; Paxil; Zoloft; Lexapro; Luvox.

Here are quotes from other Psychiatric News articles about SSRI use and bleeding:

“Physicians prescribing selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) should make patients aware of the possibility of gastrointestinal bleeding, especially if they have pre-existing risk factors or are taking other drugs that increase risk, said a University of Pennsylvania psychiatrist.”

From a January 2014 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry—“Short-term SSRI use—even as little as 7 days—elevated the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, especially in male patients. Just as with NSAIDs and aspirin, physicians should carefully monitor for this side effect.”

Note: Suddenly withdrawing from these drugs can be very dangerous. Psychiatrist Peter Breggin publishes this warning: “Most psychiatric drugs can cause withdrawal reactions, sometimes including life-threatening emotional and physical withdrawal problems. In short, it is not only dangerous to start taking psychiatric drugs, it can also be dangerous to stop them. Withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done carefully under experienced clinical supervision. Methods for safely withdrawing from psychiatric drugs are discussed in Dr. Breggin’s new book, Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families.”

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Retractions & Errors Driving Loss of Faith in the Peer Review Process

MedicalStudies
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Jeffrey Jaxen
April 26, 2017

Establishment medical professionals are quick to hold up peer-reviewed studies as the gold standard, argument-ending proof in an attempt to shut down valid discussions around ‘alternative’ health and healing.

Major medical and science journals have long-been considered the sacred cows from which information gets disseminated down through the roots of mainstream medicine with unquestioning adherence mirroring religious dogma. What if this peer-reviewed research was flawed? What if major medical journals acted as gatekeepers long-crafting a health paradigm that favored only limited and dangerous pharmaceutical interventions?

It was recently reported that the journal Tumor Biology is retracting 107 research papers after discovering that the authors faked the peer review process. The same journal pulled 25 research papers the previous year for the same reason. On April 20 Springer, who publishes Tumor Biology, released this statement:

The current retractions are not a new case of integrity breach but are the result of a deeper manual investigation which became necessary after our previous retractions from Tumor Biology in 2016. The extent of the current retractions was not obvious from the earlier investigations in 2015. We are retracting these published papers because the peer review process required for publication in our journals had been deliberately compromised by fabricated peer reviewer reports.

Springer added that since the screening and investigations are still ongoing they cannot give further details at this point. Since the journal recently discovered the “deliberately compromised” [research fraud], what is the medical community and public to make of the accuracy of all the journal’s publications before 2015?

Unfortunately, Springer’s Tumor Biology fiasco is yet another black-eye for a medical community that refuses to clean up its own backyard as it constantly throws stones from its glass house.

Widely reported in May of 2015, Richard Smith, who edited the British Medical Journal for more than a decade, said there was no evidence that peer review was a good method of detecting errors and claimed that “most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense”. Smith went further to say “If peer review was a drug it would never get on the market because we have lots of evidence of its adverse effects and don’t have evidence of its benefit…It’s time to slaughter the sacred cow.” The public appears to be witnessing a slow motion admittance of continuous criminal research fraud.

Is the research fraud limited to a few bad apples? In 2015 the journal Science published a paper titled ‘Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science’ in which 270 researchers attempted the first-ever large-scale effort to reproduce 100 previously published psychological science findings. The researchers discovered they could replicate less than half of the original findings concluded by Psychological Science, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. These findings harken back to the words of Dr. Russell Barkley, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, when speaking about the mental health profession as a whole he stated, “A disorder doesn’t have to have a blood test to be valid. If that were the case, all mental disorders would be invalid…There is no lab test for any mental disorder right now in our science.”

In 2015 Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet, attended a London symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research. Those in attendance were asked not to take photographs of the slides while those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments remain unquoted. Weeks later Horton published a shocking paper in the Lancet titled ‘What is medicine’s 5 sigma?’ Horton writes:

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue….We aid and abet the worst behaviors. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals…The apparent endemicity of bad research behavior is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world.

Former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine Marcia Angell published a research article in 2009 titled ‘Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption.’ In the piece Angell states, among other damning claims, the following:

In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results.”

Research having industry ties in which regulatory approval relies on has shown to be no different. The highly publicized 2015 reanalysis [iii of SmithKline Beecham’s 2001 Study 329 illustrates the necessity of making primary trial data and protocols available. Study 329s objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of paroxetine and imipramine with a placebo in the treatment of adolescents with major depression. The reanalysis, under the restoring invisible and abandoned trials (RIAT) initiative, found that neither drug showed efficacy. In addition, both drugs displayed an increase in harm. Far from an isolated incident, Study 329 was corroborated a year later in 2016 by the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology which looked at 185 meta-analyses of antidepressant studies with industry involvement. The researchers found that one-third of the studies were written by pharmaceutical industry employees and concluded:

There is a massive production of meta-analyses of antidepressants for depression authored by or linked to the industry, and they almost never report any caveats about antidepressants in their abstracts.

13 months after the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest and six other organizations, 62 scientists and physicians, and five United States Senators asked the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health to publish the disclosures, PubMed announced in March it will include conflict-of-interest statements with study abstracts. Will these seemingly mild efforts be enough to thwart the temptation of research fraud when careers and billions of industry dollars hang in the balance? How can science be settled if there is, and has been, corruption in the peer review process?”

Read More at: GreenMedInfo.com
________________________________________________________________________

References:

Torgny Stigbrand. Retraction Note to multiple articles in Tumor Biology. Tumor Biol. (2017). doi:10.1007/s13277-017-5487-6

Le Noury, John M Nardo, David Healy, Jon Jureidini, Melissa Raven, Catalin Tufanaru, Elia Abi-Jaoude. Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence BMJ 2015; 351 doi:10.1136/bmj.h4320

Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 28 Aug 2015:Vol. 349, Issue 6251, aac4716 DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716

Peter Doshi, Kay Dickersin, David Healy, S Swaroop Vedula, Tom Jefferson. Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings BMJ 2013; 346 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2865

Richard Horton. What is medicine’s 5 sigma? the Lancet.Volume 385, No. 9976, p1380, 11 April 2015. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60696-1

Shanil Ebrahim, Sheena Bance, Abha Athale, Cindy Malachowski, John P.A. Ioannidis. Meta-analyses with industry involvement are massively published and report no caveats for antidepressants. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Feb 16 Volume 70, Pages 155–163 doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.021

Collins M. PubMed Conflicts of Interest Statements Updates March 2017. NLM Tech Bull. 2017 Mar­Apr;(415):e2.

Boom: Thousands Of Medical Studies Found To Be Useless

fakenews

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 14, 2017

I’m talking about little defenders of consensus science, bloggers who love and adore every official pronouncement that comes down the pipeline from medical journals and illustrious doctors.

Dear Bloggers: Thousands of published studies you cite and praise are wrong, useless, irrelevant, deceptive—and the medical journals know it, and they’re doing nothing useful about it.

The issue? Cell lines. These cells are crucial for lab research on the toxicity of medical drugs, and the production of proteins. Knowing exactly which cell lines are being studied is absolutely necessary.

And therein lies the gigantic problem.

Statnews.com has the bombshell story (July 21, 2016):

“Recent estimates suggest that between 20 percent and 36 percent of cell lines scientists use are contaminated or misidentified — passing off as human tissue cells that in fact come from pigs, rats, or mice, or in which the desired human cell is tainted with unknown others. But despite knowing about the issue for at least 35 years, the vast majority of journals have yet to put any kind of disclaimer on the thousands of studies affected.”

“One cell line involved are the so-called HeLa cells. These cancerous cervical cells — named for Henrietta Lacks, from whom they were first cultured in the early 1950s — are ubiquitous in labs, proliferate wildly — and, it turns out, contaminate all manner of cells with which they come into contact. Two other lines in particular, HEp-2 and INT 407, are now known to have been contaminated with HeLa cells, meaning scientists who thought they were working on HEp-2 and INT 407 were in fact likely experimenting on HeLa cells.”

“Christopher Korch, a geneticist at the University of Colorado, has studied the issue. According to Korch, nearly 5,800 articles in 1,182 journals may have confused HeLa for HEp-2; another 1,336 articles in 271 journals may have mixed up HeLa with INT 407. Together, the 7,000-plus papers have been cited roughly 214,000 times, Science reported last year.”

“And that’s just two cell lines. All told, more than 400 cell lines either lack evidence of origin or have become cross-contaminated with human or other animal cells at some point in their laboratory lineage. Cell lines are often chosen for their ability to reproduce and be bred for long periods of time, so they’re hardy buggers that can move around a lab if they end up on a researcher’s gloves, for example. ‘It’s astonishingly easy for cell lines to become contaminated,’ wrote Amanda Capes-Davis, chair of the International Cell Line Authentication Committee, in a guest post for Retraction Watch. ‘When cells are first placed into culture, they usually pass through a period of time when there is little or no growth, before a cell line emerges. A single cell introduced from elsewhere during that time can outgrow the original culture without anyone being aware of the change in identity’.”

Getting the picture?

HUGE numbers of published studies are based on knowing which cells are being used and tested. And much of the time, the researchers don’t know. They pretend they do, but they don’t.

Their work is completely unreliable.

Everyone involved (for decades) looks the other way.

It’s the secret no one wants to talk about.

Thousands and thousands and thousands of medical studies are useless, and their conclusions are unfounded, and turn out to be random.

This is like saying, “Well, we built all those buildings in the city, but the concrete we used was probably cardboard. Let’s not talk about it. Let’s just wait and see what happens.”

Millions of patients who are taking drugs are guinea pigs. Researchers originally tested the toxicity of drugs on cells they assumed were relevant, but they were wrong. They said the drugs were safe, but they were working with cells that had no bearing on safety.

This is one reason why, on July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, a highly respected public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, could conclude, in the Journal of the American Association, that FDA approved medical drugs kill 106,000 Americans every year—which becomes a MILLION deaths per decade.

The original researchers on those drugs pretended they knew what they were doing.

Pretended.

Everything I’m describing and citing in this article?

The FDA knows about it.

The CDC knows about it.

The World Health Organization knows.

National health departments all over the world know.

Medical schools know.

Many doctors know.

Many, many researchers know.

Many hospital executives know.

All pharmaceutical executives know.

Many mainstream medical reporters know.

All medical journals know.

But they continue to promote life-destroying fake news.

Blog that.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.