Personalised cancer vaccines
I already knew that “virus hunters” have been trying to prove “scientifically” that cancer is caused by a virus, but this is still not the official story on cancer.
I think I should add some arguments that the idea that vaccines can be used to fight cancer is ridiculous. But before I can, I have to figure out how anybody could believe such a thing in the first place.
I can find lots of alternative ideas on health care. I haven’t found anything to show that treatment of cancer victims with vaccines is ridiculous.
Furthermore the fact that this is customised (personalised) “treatment” means that it would be impossible to “scientifically” prove the efficacy.
It is not intended to become a mono-therapy but only in combination with the surgical removal of cancer, radiation and/or chemotherapy. I can imagine that the cancer vaccines have less adverse (“side”) effects than radiation and chemotherapy.
There have been earlier investigations into the possibility of cancer vaccines.
Earlier, unsuccessful cancer vaccines usually targeted a single distinctive cancer protein shared among patients, but these new ones are specific to an individual patient’s tumour.
For the last couple of months some articles have appeared about the revolutionary approach by the company BioNTech. This was based on a phase I trial of a total of 19 skin cancer victims of which 12 remained cancer free up to 32 months.
If I understand correctly, the theory is that by injecting the body with similar “neoantigens” that can be found in a tumour, which look foreign to the immune system, the immune system (T-cells) learns to attack the cancer cells. These “neoantigens” are specific to an individual patient’s tumour.
Similar results come from an international trial using a vaccine developed by Ugur Sahin of University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany.
They injected RNA coding for tumour “neoantigens” into the lymph nodes of 13 advanced melanoma patients whose tumours had been removed. Eleven remain cancer-free up to 26 months later, including two whose tumours reappeared, then shrank or were surgically removed: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/...p-cancer-check
Here’s another recent article.
The small Phase I trials need to be followed by larger studies, but the impressive results suggest the new approach work far better than earlier cancer vaccines.
These new cancer vaccines appears to have prevented early relapses in 12 people with skin cancer: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/201.../#.WWEhnRXyi9I
To make this treatment more convincing nice photos like the following are shown. This supposedly shows a T-cell attacking a cancer cell.
http://static1.persgroep.net/volkskr...664&height=374
Swedish rising cancer rates
When the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was introduced in 2006, cervical cancer rates had been steadily declining for several decades.
Sweden had relatively low levels of cervical cancer.
Since Sweden approved the Gardasil vaccine in 2006, Sweden’s cervical cancer rates stopped declining. In 2017, Sweden’s Center for Cervical Cancer Prevention reported that the incidence of cervical cancer is climbing in nearly all counties.
In the two-year period from 2013 to 2015, the cervical cancer rates in Sweden increased with 20%.
An (anonymous) Swedish researcher found that while the cervical cancer rates in younger women (ages 20-49) increased considerably, the cancer rates for older women (over age 50) didn’t increase.
http://ijme.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/fig-1.jpg
Sweden approved Gardasil in 2006.
By 2015, the oldest girls in the “catch-up” group (ages 15-18) that were vaccinated in Sweden had reached their early twenties and were within the 20-29-year range that displayed the greatest increase in cervical cancer incidence.
http://ijme.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/fig-2.jpg
If Gardasil causes cervical cancer - this is what you would expect…
While the dying rate from cervical cancer is only .23 per 10,000, the serious adverse event rate of Gardasil is 1 in 15 (7%) and a death rate among the vaccinated is 14 per 10,000: https://worldmercuryproject.org/news...rvical-cancer/
(archived here: http://archive.is/PI4OX)
HPV-vaccines – infertility
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.
https://archive.is/QVAfn/611149dcd85...b13b2c7deb.png
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
HPV vaccine – death and abortions
I don´t like watching videos of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (certainly not 50 minutes), but have enjoyed the following transcript of his video on the controversial HPV vaccine, Gardasil.
According to Merck, it has never been evaluated if Gardasil prevents or causes cervical cancer. Gardasil contains possible carcinogens (like human DNA).
According to Merck’s own trial, Gardasil has a negative efficacy of 44.6% for women who already were infected with HPV. This means that by being poisoned with Gardasil, their risk of getting precancerous lesions increases with 44.6%.
The risk of dying from cervical cancer is 1 in 43.5 thousand. The death rate in the Gardasil group was 8.5 per 10 thousand.
So according to Merck’s own studies, the risk of dying from Gardasil is 37 times higher than from cervical cancer.
An astonishing 10.9% of women reported reproductive disorders within 7 months of being poisoned with Gardasil (compared to 1.2% in the placebo group).
There are recent scientific studies that suggest “type replacement” by the the HPV vaccine — replacing 9 of the 200 different strands of HPV - some of these could be more cancerous.
In heavily vaccinated populations - in the UK, Sweden and Australia — the rate of cervical cancer has risen considerably (instead of going down, like Merck promised ).
In 2015, the Australian Department of Health reported that the adverse rates of Gardasil in girls is 17 times the cervical cancer rate. They only looked at a small part of adverse effects, so the actual number is even higher.
Japanese researchers found that the adverse event rate for Gardasil is 9% and that pregnant women injected with the vaccine aborted or miscarried in a whopping 30% of cases.
In Colombia in 2014, 800 girls in Carmen de Bolivar were injured by Gardasil. Protests erupted that forced the Supreme Court of Columbia to rule against mandatory HPV vaccination.
Corruption is systemic at the FDA, because 45% of their budget comes from big pharma. Pharmaceutical companies pay billions of dollars per year to FDA to fast track drugs.
In 2000-2010, pharmaceutical companies paid $3.4 billion dollars to FDA to get drugs approved: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/v...bout-gardasil/