The Alliance For Natural Health
  • Mankind had better start thinking more about others, other than their wallets or purses. Trying to push things like this on people is wrong. The oath, “Do no harm, ” was put there for a reason. How about the medical world start obeying it?

  • Rene

    New study: Vaccine Manufacturers and FDA Regulators Used Statistical Gimmicks to Hide Risks of HPV Vaccines.

    A new study published in Clinical Rheumatology exposes how
    vaccine manufacturers used phony placebos in clinical trials to conceal a
    wide range of devastating risks associated with HPV vaccines. Instead
    of using genuine inert placebos and comparing health impacts over a
    number of years, as is required for most new drug approvals, Merck and
    GlaxoSmithKline spiked their placebos with a neurotoxic aluminum
    adjuvant and cut observation periods to a matter of months.

    from Mexico’s National Institute of Cardiology pored over 28 studies
    published through January 2017—16 randomized trials and 12
    post-marketing case series—pertaining to the three human papillomavirus
    (HPV) vaccines currently on the market globally. In their July 2017
    peer-reviewed report, the authors, Manuel Martínez-Lavin and Luis Amezcua-Guerra, uncovered
    evidence of numerous adverse events, including life-threatening
    injuries, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths, reported
    after vaccination with GlaxoSmithKline’s bivalent Cervarix vaccine and
    Merck’s quadrivalent or nine-valent HPV vaccines (Gardasil and Gardasil
    9). Pharmaceutical company scientists routinely dismissed, minimized or
    concealed those injuries using statistical gimmicks and invalid comparisons designed to diminish their relative significance.

    Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used an inert saline
    placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine against a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison.

    Scientific researchers view double-blind placebo trials as the gold standard
    for testing new drugs. To minimize bias, investigators randomly assign
    patients to either a “treatment” group or a “control” (placebo) group
    and then compare health outcomes. The standard practice is to compare a
    new drug against a “pharmacologically inert”
    placebo. To minimize opportunities for bias, neither patients nor
    researchers know which individuals received the drug and which the
    placebo. However, in clinical trials of the various HPV vaccines,
    pharmaceutical researchers avoided this kind of rigor and instead
    employed sleight-of-hand flimflams to mask the seriousness of vaccine

    Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used
    an inert saline placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine
    against a neurotoxic
    aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved
    aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison. One does not have to be a
    scientist to understand that using aluminum-containing placebos is
    likely to muddy the comparison between the treatment and control groups.
    Critics of the HPV vaccine have pointed to the aluminum adjuvant as the
    most likely cause of adverse reactions, and some researchers have questioned the safety of using aluminum adjuvants in vaccines at all, due to their probable role
    as a contributor to chronic illness. The aluminum-containing placebos
    appeared to provoke numerous adverse reactions among the presumably
    unwitting patients who received them, allowing the pharma researchers to
    mask the cascade of similar adverse reactions among the groups that
    received the vaccines. Although both placebo and study groups suffered
    numerous adverse events in these studies, there were minimal differences
    between the two groups. The similar adverse outcomes in both groups
    allowed industry researchers and government regulators
    to claim that the vaccines were perfectly safe, despite manifold
    disturbing reactions. The Mexican researchers’ meta-review confirms the
    difficulty of ascertaining vaccine-attributable differences from this
    mess; the researchers identified only a few indications of
    “significantly increased systemic adverse events in the HPV vaccine
    group vs. the control group” across the 16 pre-licensure trials.

    The HPV promoters found it more difficult to employ deceptive devices in
    the 12 post-marketing safety reviews, and the Mexican authors summarize
    some of the more noteworthy findings. In Spain,
    they found a ten-fold higher incidence of vaccine-related adverse
    events following HPV vaccination compared to “other types of vaccines.”
    In Canada, they found an astonishing one in ten rate of hospital emergency
    department visits among HPV-vaccinated individuals “within 42 days after
    immunization.” Still, the industry researchers did what they could to
    minimize these injuries. The Mexican reviewers criticize the authors of
    the various post-marketing studies for failing to ask essential
    questions, to evaluate the many serious adverse events, or to elaborate
    on their often-troubling findings.

  • ProudAmerican9

    There is NO safe or necessary vaccine. ALL vaccines cause brain inflammation, immune system dysfunction/suppression, DNA/Epigenetics alteration and other harms. Forced vaccination is against the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I pray Pres. Trump stops them all and thoroughly investigates corrupt pharma.