Tag Archives: researchers

Barbarians At the Gates: The systematic looting of our galleries archives and libraries – (updated post)

Updated post from postmanproductions.wordpress.com

“As closed signs pop up collections are looted purged and or collections moved out of reach of public researchers. As developers and smart technology hyenas move in.”

READ THE ARTICLE:

https://postmanproductions.wordpress.com/2019/07/14/barbarians-at-the-gates-the-systematic-looting-of-our-galleries-archives-and-libraries/?fbclid=IwAR0lx0y2mFlo68a2wGFvPEPJUnoTKKPtAD_v3uixFPya2oGHYXvknFpZQhA

Image by Rafael Juárez from Pixabay

Measles Transmitted By The Vaccinated, Gov. Researchers Confirm

Here from greenmedinfo.com

Written By:

Sayer Ji, Founder


 

© [Oct 26, 2018] GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.


Research reveals that a vaccinated individual not only can become infected with measles, but can also spread it to others who are also vaccinated against it –doubly disproving that the administration of multiple doses of MMR vaccine is “97% effective,” as widely claimed. 

One of the fundamental errors in thinking about measles vaccine effectiveness is that receipt of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine equates to bona fide immunity against measles virus. Indeed, it is commonly claimed by health organizations like the CDC that receiving two doses of the MMR vaccine is “97 percent effective in preventing measles,” despite a voluminous body of contradictory evidence from epidemiology and clinical experience.

This erroneous thinking has led the public, media and government alike to attribute the origin of measles outbreaks, such as the one reported at Disney in 2015 (and which lead to the passing of SB277 that year, stripping vaccine exemptions for all but medical reasons in California), to the non-vaccinated, even though 18% of the measles cases occurred in those who had been vaccinated against it — hardly the vaccine’s two-dose claimed “97% effectiveness.” The vaccine’s obvious fallibility is also indicated by the fact that that the CDC now requires two doses.

But the problems surrounding the failing MMR vaccine go much deeper. First, they carry profound health risks (over 25 of which we have indexed here: MMR vaccine dangers), including increased autism risk, which a senior CDC scientist confessed his agency covered up, which do not justify the risk, given that measles is not only not deadly but confers significant health benefits that have been validated in the biomedical literatureSecond, not only does the MMR vaccine fail to consistently confer immunitybut those who have been “immunized” with two doses of MMR vaccine can still transmit the infection to others — a phenomena no one is reporting on in the rush to blame the non- or minimally-vaccinated for the outbreak.

READ MORE:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmedinfocom-re-post-guidelines

PHOTO: Greenmedinfo

 

So much for herd immunity that the nay sayers always spout when you caution them to read the research before offering their bodies for any vaccination.

Chemotherapy Losing (Lost?) Its Luster

Story at-a-glance

  • Research dating back over a decade suggests many women with breast cancer can opt for gentler versions of chemotherapy, or skip it altogether, without harming their chances of recovery
  • According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), many cancer patients are being overtreated to their detriment; an estimated 70 percent of women with early stage breast cancer probably do not need chemotherapy, and fare just as well without it
  • The Oncotype DX test can help determine whether a breast cancer patient might benefit from chemo by measuring the activity of 21 genes involved in cancer recurrence
  • According to ASCO’s findings, women with estrogen-sensitive breast cancer that test negative for HER2, and whose tumors are smaller than 5 centimeters, have not spread to the lymph nodes, and have an Oncotype DX score between 11 and 25, can forgo chemo
  • An increasing number of cancer patients are now electing not to use chemo. A recent survey found the overall use of chemo declined from 34.5 to 21.3 percent between 2013 and 2015

By Dr. Mercola

Surgery, drugs and radiation — aka the “cut, poison, burn” strategy — are typically the only solutions offered by most conventional oncologists to treat cancer, and upon receiving a cancer diagnosis most people are willing to do just about anything to get better. Unfortunately, the standard of care for cancer is not necessarily the most effective.

Research dating back over a decade suggests many women with breast cancer can opt for gentler versions of chemotherapy, or skip it altogether, without harming their chances of recovery. One 2007 study found some breast cancer patients had better outcomes when given Taxotere, a milder chemotherapy drug than Adriamycin, which had been the standard for decades.1

Another suggested the Oncotype DX test2,3 may be able to help determine whether a breast cancer patient might benefit from chemo by measuring the activity of 21 genes involved in cancer recurrence. At the time, Dr. Eric Winer of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston said,4 “We are backing off on chemotherapy and using chemotherapy more selectively.” Now, a number of additional studies have come to the same conclusion: Many breast cancer patients do not need chemotherapy, and have better outcomes without it.

Many Cancer Patients Fare Better Without Chemo

According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), many cancer patients are being overtreated to their detriment; an estimated 70 percent of women with early stage breast cancer probably do not need chemotherapy, and fare just as well without it.5 As reported by NPR:6

“One dramatic example revealed at the [2018 ASCO] meeting relates to the most common form of breast cancer, known as hormone-positive, HER-2 negative disease. For many women who have this diagnosis, but for whom the disease has not spread to lymph nodes, a new study7,8 finds that anti-hormone treatment after surgery is enough, and women won’t benefit from rounds of toxic and uncomfortable chemotherapy.

Treatment of breast cancer for this large group of women will become easier. And for the many women who already choose not to undertake chemotherapy, they can be reassured that it’s the right call. Likewise, researchers from France presented evidence that people with severe colon cancer don’t benefit from a common treatment, which involves heated chemotherapy administered at the time of surgery.

This treatment has been in use for 15 years, without good evidence that it actually works … The study9 of 265 patients found that it didn’t work … The study is ‘an excellent example of how less is more,’ when it comes to certain cancer treatments, says Dr. Andrew Epstein, an oncologist from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who spoke on behalf of ASCO.”

Bombshell: All tested vaccines reveal toxic substances linked to autoimmune disease

(Naturalhealth365) According to the National Institutes of Health, up to 23.5 million Americans suffer from autoimmune disease – and the number is increasing steadily. Unfortunately, Western medicine continues to ignore the impact of vaccines on this growing health crisis.

In addition, rates of cancer, diabetes, autism and other neurodevelopmental diseases continue to soar – a disease (and disability) epidemic that has researchers baffled. Yet, many integrative healthcare providers have warned the general public that vaccines – already known to contain neurotoxic metals like, lead and chromium – are a fundamental trigger for these so-called ‘mysterious’ health issues.

Now, a pair of Italian scientists are reporting unsafe levels of contaminants in human vaccines, further raising the concern over these negative (and avoidable) health outcomes.

READ MORE

https://www.naturalhealth365.com/vaccines-metals-2517.html

Scientists, Using Software to Fight Dubious Cancer Research

WHILE TRAWLING THROUGH scientific studies on cancer research in 2015, Jennifer Byrne noticed something strange. One after another, papers were describing strikingly similar experiments involving a particular gene associated with breast cancer and childhood leukemia. Byrne, a professor of molecular oncology at The University of Sydney, recognized the gene immediately because she was part of a team that cloned it two decades earlier.

The problem, she realized upon closer inspection, was that the papers, all of them from China, referred to the wrong nucleotide sequence — a unique series of letters that describes the makeup of a given piece of DNA — being used to deactivate the gene and observe the resulting effects in cancer cells. Either the experiments weren’t examining what they claimed, or they hadn’t been done as described.

“The sequence was being described as one thing, but was sometimes used as if it were something different,” Byrne says. “It’s a bit like applying the same barcode to different items in a supermarket, so you get charged for a pair of shoes when you are actually buying a bag of lettuce.”

What’s worse, each dubious paper contained the seeds of potentially more bad research.

READ MORE

https://undark.org/article/software-byrne-cancer-research-fraud/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SocialWarfareShares

Can we feed the world organically? With some changes to the system, researchers say yes

(Natural News) It’s hard to find fault with consuming organic food, but those who are against it for whatever reason – like synthetic pesticide manufacturers – often claim it is not sustainable and would require too much land to pull off. Now, new research shows just how flawed that particular argument is. Indeed, a worldwide conversion to organic farming could be remarkably sustainable as long as some changes to current food production and consumption habits are made at the same time.

There are a lot of ways that industrial agriculture has increased the availability of food, but this has come at a significant cost to our environment. For example, it has led to an oversupply of reactive nitrogen that pollutes our water and soil, losses in biodiversity, and greenhouse gas emissions. This is in addition to the effects that pesticides and herbicides have on human and animal health.

Organic agriculture, on the other hand, eschews the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. With its focus on crop rotations, closed nutrient cycles, and soil fertility, it is certainly a better choice for the environment, but it tends to have lower yields, thereby requiring more land in order to produce the same amount of food.

Now, researchers from the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, Alpen-Adria University in Austria, ETH Zurich in Switzerland and the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture have written an open-access article in Nature Communications that shows just how organic agriculture could feasibly feed the world after all.

They say that accomplishing this worthwhile endeavor requires just a few complementary changes in our global food system. For example, reducing the amount of arable land that is used to grow animal feed and the drop in livestock and animal-based products that goes along with it could help quite a bit as people consume less meat – something that would also have positive effects on human health.Reducing food waste could also help make this transition a reality. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, as much as 40 percent of the food that is produced is wasted around the planet. Taking measures to try to stem this problem could go a long way toward a more efficient use of resources.

READ MORE

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-11-25-can-we-feed-the-world-organically-with-some-changes-to-the-system-researchers-say-yes.html

1 in 3 FDA-approved Drugs May Lead to Death | AMA Journal

From myeclinik.com

A scathing post-market study on FDA-approved drugs conducted by some members of the American Medical Association has made it to the headlines. It concludes that almost “one-third of new drugs approved by U.S. regulators over a decade ended up years later with warnings about unexpected — sometimes life-threatening — side effects or complications.”

LATimes reports,

Researchers looked at potential problems that cropped up during the routine monitoring that’s done once a medicine has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is on the market. The results, published Tuesday, covered all 222 prescription drugs approved by the FDA from 2001 through 2010.

The 71 drugs that were flagged included top sellers for treating depression, arthritis, infections and blood clots. Safety issues included risks for serious skin reactions, liver damage, cancer and even death.

“The large percentage of problems was a surprise,” and they included side effects not seen during the review process, said senior author Dr. Joseph Ross, an associate professor of medicine and public health at Yale University.

While most safety concerns were not serious enough to prompt recalls, the findings raise questions about how thoroughly drugs are tested before approval, said drug safety expert Thomas Moore.

But Ross said the results suggest that the FDA “is kind of doing a great job” at scrutinizing drugs after approval.

New drugs are generally tested first in hundreds or even thousands of people for safety and effectiveness.

Surely, not one of those guinea pigs are their close relatives.

Among the drugs that were found to be life-threatening are Bextra, Raptiva, Zelnorm, and others:

… The study counted black-box warnings for dozens of drugs. These warnings involved serious problems including risk of death or life-threatening conditions linked with the drugs.

There were also alerts for less serious potential harms related to dozens of drugs. Among them: Humira, used for arthritis and some other illnesses; Abilify, used for depression and other mental illness; and Pradaxa, a blood thinner.

Three drugs were withdrawn because of the potential for death or other serious harm. They were Bextra, an anti-inflammatory medicine, because of incidence of heart problems; Raptiva, a psoriasis drug, which is linked to a rare nervous system illness; and Zelnorm, a bowel illness drug, which has been connected to heart problems. [1]

Source: 1 in 3 FDA-approved Drugs May Lead to Death | AMA Journal