I have been writing to you for many years now about the dangers of solely relying on prescription medications. Nearly all prescription medications work by poisoning enzymes and blocking receptors in the body. You can't poison a crucial enzyme or block an important receptor for the long-term and expect a good result. Health care providers should be searching for ways to make our patients healthier, not just treating symptoms with prescription drugs that provide no health benefits. Drugs do not make us healthier. And, keep in mind that many commonly prescribed drugs fail most who take them.
For example, the standard-of-care when treating a patient for heart disease is to use a statin drug. In fact, nearly one-third of adult Americans currently take a statin drug. A statin drug poisons an enzyme in the body-JMG C.A reductase. The best of statin studies show that it results in a 1% (primary prevention-preventing a first heart attack) reduction in non-fatal heart attacks if it is taken for at least three years. That means the drug fails 99%-they will not have any benefit from taking the drug. And, they are subjected to the myriad of side effects from taking a statin such as muscle pains, congestive heart failure, brain dysfunction and diabetes. How could one-third of Americans be taking a drug that fails 99% who take it?
Dr. Peter Gotzsche, director of the independent Nordic Cochrane Centre claims that taking too many ineffective and unsafe prescription drugs could be the biggest problem we are facing today. He said,
It is an enormous problem. It's one of the biggest problems we have in the world today, but people don't realize how terrible it is. I have estimated that our prescription drugs are the third major killer after heart disease and cancer. And I have recently looked at psychiatric drugs, and these drugs are so harmful that they alone are also your third major kiler after heart disease and cancer.
It is interesting to note that Dr. Gotzsche used to work for Big Pharma.
I could not agree with Dr. Gotzsche more. These drugs fail to work better than a placebo in most studies and they fail when compared to exercise in every study.
How did we get to this point? Why are doctors prescribing so many drugs that fail and seriously harm or kill so many?
We are at this point because most health care providers simply cannot understad how to critically read a study nor do they understand much about what is health and how to optimize it.
I do not take pleasure in writing this. I also feel that it is important to state that you must take control of you own health care decisions. You must educate yourself about any medication prescribed to you. If you don't do your own due diligence, you could experience serious adverse effects from commonly prescribed prescriptions.
Finally, it is also important to find a health care provider who is working for you, not working for Big Pharma or the insurance companies. If your health care provider does not think as you do, then I suggest it is time to find another one.
Check it out: A list of vaccine and vaccine-safety books on Amazon! “How Vaccines Wreck Human Immunity: A Forbidden Doctor Publication” by Dr. Jack Stockwell CGP and Mary Stockwell CGP “Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying” Here's the proof by Dr Vernon Coleman “Vaccine-nation: Poisoning the Population, One Shot at a Time” by Andreas Moritz “VACCINE: Last Man Standing Book 3” - Keith Taylor “Vaccines and Autoimmunity” - by Yehuda Shoenfeld “Vaccinations and Vaccine Myth Exposed: The reasons to be Afraid” by Daniel Birk “Truth Wrapped in Lies (Hidden Deception Book Book 2)” by E. A. Hargrave “Jabbed: How the Vaccine Industry, Medical Establishment and Government Stick It to You and Your Family” by Brett Wilcox “Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That's Killing Our Soldiers--and Why GI's Are Only the First VictimApr 29, 2009 | Kindle eBook” by Gary Matsumoto “The Solution: Homeoprophylaxis: The Vaccine Alternative” by Kate Birch and Cilla Whatcott “WHAT IF?: I Harmed My Children?” by Kelly CS Johnson “The Vaccinated Are Spreading Measles” by Eric Miller “Vaccine Injuries: Documented Adverse Reactions to Vaccines” by Lou Conte and Tony Lyons “The Vaccine Court: The Dark Truth of America's Vaccine Injury Compensation Program” by Wayne Rohde “Human Medical Experimentation: From Smallpox Vaccines to Secret Government Programs” by Frances Frankenburg “Vaccine Double Cross” by Dr A. J. Morris Jr. “Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm” by John P. Thomas “Dissolving Illusions” by Suzanne Humphries “Rising From The Dead” by Suzanne Humphries “Vaccine Illusion” by Tetyana Obukhanych“Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed, Biased Science, and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights, Our Health, and Our Children” by Louise Kuo Habakus “Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines: The Truth Behind a Tragedy” by Dr Andrew J. Wakefield “Vaccination Is Not Immunization 4th Ed. Fourth Edition” by Tim O’Shea “Vaccine Free: 111 Stories of Unvaccinated Children” by Andreas Bachmair “Vaccine Whistleblower: Exposing Autism Research Fraud at the CDC” by Kevin Barry “Vaccines and Vaccination: The Dangerous Truth behind the Vaccine Epidemic and why Vaccination is not Immunization” by Linda Keller “Inoculated: How Science Lost its Soul in Autism” by Kent Heckenlively “Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC” by James Ottar Grundvig “Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak: The Evidence Supporting the Immediate Removal of Mercury—a Known Neurotoxin—from Vaccines” - by Robert F. Kennedy “Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy” by David Kirby “Andrew Wakefield: Autism, and the Vaccine Debate” by Megan Groeneveld “The Global Elites Poisoning of the People” by Terence A. Smart “Bought: Your Health Now Brought to You by Wall Street - The hidden story behind vaccines, big pharma and your food” DVD “Against Compulsory Vaccination: Why HPV Vaccines Are Dangerous To The Lives Of Girls, Young Women And Everyone Else” by Kevin A. Muhammad
Compiled by a wonderful soul known as Pixie Seymour.
Past research has demonstrated that cancer drugs like chemotherapy are not always worth the effort, especially in the instance of palliative, end-of-life care for terminally ill patients. In 2016, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC) even made a list of drugs that were not beneficial to patients, and as one might expect, chemotherapy was one of the top contenders. Doctors from the AMRC explained that chemotherapy cannot cure terminal cancer, and may make the last months of life more uncomfortable than they need to be.
As reported, “The treatment is ‘by its very nature toxic’, the college said. Therefore, the combination of failing to achieve a response and causing toxicity can ‘do more harm than good.'” Studies have also shown that a majority of top doctors would refuse chemotherapyin a similar situation.
If chemotherapy, which is one of the most popular forms of cancer treatment, is of such little benefit, how are we supposed to have faith in any of the other drugs the industry is pushing?
In 2013, the Swiss Medical Board, an independent health technology assessment initiative, was requested to prepare a review of mammography screening. The team of medical professionals included a medical ethicist, a clinical epidemiologist, a pharmacologist, an oncologic surgeon, a nurse scientist, a lawyer, and a health economist. Two of those members, Nikola Biller-Andorno, M.D. Ph. D. and Peter Juni, M.D, opened up about the project in the New England Journal of Medicine.
They said: “As we embarked on the project, we were aware of the controversies that have surrounded mammography screening for the past 10-15 years. When we received the available evidence and contemplated its implications in detail, however, we became increasingly concerned.”
In 2016, it is estimated that approximately 246,660 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in women in the United States as well as 61,000 new cases of non-invasive breast cancer. Mammograms continue to be touted as the most effective screening tool we have today to find breast cancer.
However, these two doctors were shocked to discover that there is minimal evidence that actually indicates that the benefits of mammography screening outweigh the harms.
“The relative risk reduction of approximately 20 percent in breast-cancer mortality associated with mammography that is currently described by most expert panels came at the price of a considerable diagnostic cascade, with repeat mammography, subsequent biopsies, and over-diagnosis of breast cancers — cancers that would never have become clinically apparent.”
The Canadian National Breast Screening Study, which was conducted over the course of 25 years, concluded that 106 of 484 screen-detected cancers were over-diagnosed.
The doctors explained: “This means that 106 of the 44,925 healthy women in the screening group were diagnosed with and treated for breast cancer unnecessarily, which resulted in needless surgical interventions, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or some combination of these therapies.”
The fact that the benefits of this form of cancer screening are so overestimated seems worrisome for the medical community and patients at large. How, in this day and age, do we not have more awareness, more answers, and better technology?
Another review of 10 trials involving more than 600,000 women discovered no evidence that mammography screening was effective on overall mortality. This caused concern over the benefits of the medical practice. A survey of U.S. women’s views on the mammography screenings discovered that 71.5 percent of women think that it lessened risk of death from breast cancer by half, while 72.1 percent believed that 80 deaths could be avoided per each 1,000 women screened. Their perceptions were gravely over-calculated. In fact, when looking at the real numbers, mammography results in a risk reduction of 20 percent and only 1 death can be prevented per 1,000 women screened.
The Swiss Medical Board report became public in February 2014, provoking the board to advise that the quality of mammography screening ought to be evaluated and that women should be educated about both the benefits and the harms of the medical practice.
The report created controversy within the Swiss medical community, even though it supports a growing perspective around the world that mammography for breast cancer screening in asymptomatic populations is outdated and harmful at best.
When reviewing the data in regards to every breast cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year period of yearly screening starting at the age of 50, you will find that:
490-670 women usually have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination
70-100 women usually have an unnecessary biopsy
3-14 women were the victim of over-diagnosed breast cancer that would never reach clinical relevance
Furthermore, up to 50 percent of women have breast tissue that is dense. This makes it very hard to read mammograms correctly, as dense breast tissue and cancer both show up white on an X-ray.
Due to the lack of evidence in support of mammography and the clear potential risks involved with them, the board chose to recommend cancelling mammography-screening programs altogether. Although their recommendations are not legally binding, the report caused an uproar amongst Swiss cancer experts and organizations. The doctors on board reported:
“One of the main arguments used against it was that it contradicted the global consensus of leading experts in the field… Another argument was that the report unsettled women, but we wonder how to avoid unsettling women, given the available evidence.”
It’s clearly no mystery why the board become increasingly concerned about their researcher. The “evidence” simply does not back up the global consensus of other experiences in the field suggesting that mammograms were safe and capable of saving lives.
When it comes down to it, we are dealing with outdated clinical trials, the benefits do not clearly outweigh the harms, and women’s perceptions of mammography benefits do not match reality,
More Information On Breast Screenings
I believe that if you did have a tumor, the last thing you would want to do is crush that tumor between two plates, because that would spread it. – Dr. Sarah Mybill, General Practitioner (taken from the documentary trailer below)
I think if a woman from the age of 50 has a mammogram every year, or every two years, she’s going to get breast cancer as a direct result from that – Dr. Patrick Kingsley, Clinical Ecologist (take from the documentary trailer below)
In 2011, 220,097 women and 2,078 men in the United States were diagnosed with breast cancer, and 40,931 women and 443 men in the United States died from breast cancer. It has become the most common type of cancer among women.
Below is a trailer to a documentary entitled, “The Promise.” The film interviews various researchers, scientists, doctors (and more), all of whom are hoping to shed light on a practice which is turning out to be not only useless, but harmful to those taking part. There is more information below the video, but I highly recommend you watch the documentary.
There is a wealth of scientific data concluding that mammograms are not, as the CDC claims, the most effective way to detect breast cancer. In fact, having a mammogram is likely the last thing you want to do if you have breast cancer.
A study published in The European Journal of Public Healthtitled “Trends in breast cancer stage distribution before, during and after introduction of a screening programme in Norway” found that breast screenings actually increase the incidence of localized stage cancers without reducing the incidence of advanced cancers. (source)
The study, which used a huge population sample of 1.8 million Norwegian women diagnosed with breast cancer from 1987 – 2010, found that:
“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.”
This study outlines how Norway’s breast screening program has actually increased the chance of being diagnosed with early stage breast cancer by more than 200%, as well contributing to an increased chance of receiving advanced stage breast cancer diagnosis by 35%. This is the opposite of what mammograms are supposed to do; if they were useful then the incidence of cancers would be lower and not higher.
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.(source)
It’s important to note that, “although the study did measure the impact of Norway’s breast screening programme, a comparison of trends between participants and non-participants in the age group eligible for screening warrants further investigation. Also the causal link between stage distribution and mortality needs to be investigated in the context of screening.”
A paper published in 2011 in the British Medical Journal set out to prove that breast screening by mammography is associated with a steeper fall in mortality cancer compared to other countries who were not offering this service. They did not expect to find the complete opposite; they found a drop in breast cancer mortality among women who were not screened. They concluded that the recent downward trend in breast cancer mortality had nothing to do with screening and everything to do with improvements in treatment and service provision. (source)
The new data published in the BMJ now suggests that none of the gratifying falls in breast cancer can be attributed to screening and that the very existence of a NHSBSP (national breast screening programme) should be questioned. Unless there is public pressure for an independent inquiry to challenge the status quo, it will be business as usual for the screening programme. Furthermore, the Department of Health has painted itself into a corner and it is no longer a question of scientific debate – the subject has become too politicized by those who like to avoid U-turns at all costs. – Michael Baum, Professor Emeritus of Surgery and visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London, is a leading British surgical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer treatment (source)
This would be an asymptomatic woman walking along the high street, having a mammogram, and then two weeks later she’s told she has to have a mastectomy. This is so cruel that it should make you weep. (quote taken from the documentary trailer above)
As Sayer Ji, founder of Greenmedinfo.com points out, a National Cancer Institute commissioned expert panel concluded that “early stage cancers” are not cancer, they are benign or indolent growths. This means that millions of women were wrongly diagnosed with breast cancer over the past few decades and have been subjected to harmful treatment, when they would have been better off leaving it untreated or diagnosed; frighteningly, it is not uncommon for a breast cancer misdiagnosis to occur.
Another study that was recently published in the British Medical Journal concluded that regular mammogram screenings do not reduce breast cancer death rates. And they found no evidence to suggest that mammograms are more effective than personal breast exams at detecting cancer in the designated age group. The study involved 90, 000 Canadian women and compared breast cancer incidence and mortality up to 25 years in women aged 40-59.(source)
The study was conducted over a period of 25 years.
Many Studies Showing The Same Thing
The sheer number of studies that have been published on breast mammography examinations and their failure to produce a benefit in screened populations is overwhelming. What’s even more disturbing is the fact that these types of examinations have also been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer, and to have negative implications for both physical and mental health.
For a database of published studies on this topic, you can click HERE. You can also find access to more research here.
U-turns do not embarrass clinical scientists, unlike politicians: if the evidence changes then our minds must change. As the national programme began to run its course, two disturbing observations made me begin to question my original support. First, about 10 years after the initiation of the service, updated analyses of the original data set by independent groups in Europe and the US found that the initial estimate of benefit in the reduction of breast cancer mortality was grossly exaggerated. – Michael Baum, Professor Emeritus of Surgery and visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London, is a leading British surgical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer treatment (source)
Breast cancer diagnosis is a delicate path that nobody should walk alone nor in the dark. Here are some recommended reads to get support information, testimonies from survivors and more:
(Natural News) If you’ve ever wanted to read large collections of fake news, look no further than medical science journals such as The Lancet or the British Medical Journal. Almost everything they publish is “bogus,” explains science writer Richard Harris, who writes for NPR, and the result is billions of dollars in fraud, waste and unnecessary expenditures on Big Pharma drugs that simple don’t work.
The entire apparatus of Big Pharma and FDA approved drugs, in other words, is largely fraudulent. Most drugs simply don’t work on most people, which is exactly why people who take lots of prescription medications almost always see a decline in their health (they get sicker, not healthier).
The bogus nature of bad science is present across every realm of science, by the way: Pharmaceuticals, climate change, psychology, physics, chemistry and more. Climate change is probably the worst of all these, where scientists decide in advance what outcomes they want to see, then work diligently to shape the computer modeling or data sets to achieve the outcome they want. In fact, the entire industry of “climate change science” is rooted in total junk science fraud, buoyed by fabricated science and aggressive demands of social conformity (plus coordinated attempts to smear and discredit any scientists who don’t kowtow to the science totalitarians).
What’s especially notable in all this is that medical science studies are almost always given instant credibility of “real news” even when they are demonstrably fake. Thus, Google’s war on “fake news” will censor information that questions the legitimacy of the faked science studies because Google automatically assumes all medical journals are 100% real and correct at all times. The far more accurate answer is that they are probably only accurate about 1% of the time, which means they’re 99% fake news that Google scores as 100% real. (See more news about Google’s disinformation schemes at Disinfo.news.)
The New York Post has published an outstanding article summarizing the sad state of science today. Read the original article at the New York Post website:
Medical studies are almost always bogus
By Susannah Cahalan
How many times have you encountered a study — on, say, weight loss — that trumpeted one fad, only to see another study discrediting it a week later?
That’s because many medical studies are junk. It’s an open secret in the research community, and it even has a name: “the reproducibility crisis.”
For any study to have legitimacy, it must be replicated, yet only half of medical studies celebrated in newspapers hold water under serious follow-up scrutiny — and about two-thirds of the “sexiest” cutting-edge reports, including the discovery of new genes linked to obesity or mental illness, are later “disconfirmed.”
“When you read something, take it with a grain of salt,” Harris tells The Post. “Even the best science can be misleading, and often what you’re reading is not the best science.”
Take one particularly enraging example: For many years research on breast cancer was conducted on misidentified melanoma cells, which means that thousands of papers published in credible scientific journals were actually studying the wrong cancer. “It’s impossible to know how much this sloppy use of the wrong cells has set back research into breast cancer,” writes Harris.
Another study claimed to have invented a blood test that could detect ovarian cancer — which would mean much earlier diagnosis. The research was hailed as a major breakthrough on morning shows and in newspapers. Further scrutiny, though, revealed the only reason the blood test “worked” was because the researchers tested the two batches on two separate days — all the women with ovarian cancer on one day, and without the disease the next. Instead of measuring the differences in the cancer, the blood test had, in fact, measured the day-to-day differences in the machine.
So why are so many tests bogus? Harris has some thoughts.
For one, science is hard. Everything from unconscious bias — the way researchers see their data through the rosy lens of their own theses — to the types of beaker they use or the bedding that they keep mice in can cloud results and derail reproducibility.
Then there is the funding issue. During the heyday of the late ’90s and early aughts, research funding increased until Congress decided to hold funding flat for the next decade, creating an atmosphere of intense, some would say unhealthy, competition among research scientists. Now only 17 percent of grants get funded (compared to a third three decades ago). Add this to the truly terrible job market for post-docs — only 21 percent land tenure track jobs — and there is a greater incentive to publish splashy counterintuitive studies, which have a higher likelihood of being wrong, writes Harris.
One effect of this “pressure to publish” situation is intentional data manipulation, where scientists cherry-pick the information that supports a hypothesis while ignoring the data that doesn’t — an all too common problem in academic research, writes Harris.
“There’s a constant scramble for research dollars. Promotions and tenure depend on making splashy discoveries. There are big rewards for being first, even if the work ultimately fails the test of time,” writes Harris.
By prophylactic vaccination of adults and especially children against measles, the pharmaceutical industry has earned Billions over a 40-year period. The judges at the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) confirmed in a recent ruling that measles virus do not exist though. Furthermore: There is not a single scientific study in the world which could prove the existence of such virus so far. This raises the question of what was actually injected into millions of German citizens over the past decades. According to the judgment by the Supreme Court, it may not have been a vaccine against measles.
The Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has ruled in the measles virus trial. The First Civil Senate of the BGH has confirmed the judgment by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart (OLG) of the 16 February 2016. The sum of €100,000 which I had offered as a reward for scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus does not have to be paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff also was ordered to bear all procedural costs.
Five experts have been involved in the case and presented the results of scientific studies. All five experts, including Prof. Dr. Dr. Andreas Podbielski who had been appointed by the OLG Stuttgart as the preceding court, have consistently found that none of the six publications which have been introduced to the trial, contains scientific proof of the existence of the alleged measles virus.
Genetics falsifies thesis of existence
In the trial, the results of research into so-called genetic fingerprints of alleged measles virus have been introduced. Two recognised laboratories, including the world’s largest and leading genetic Institute, arrived at exactly the same results independently.The results prove that the authors of the six publications in the measles virus case were wrong, and as a direct result all measles virologists are still wrong today: They have misinterpreted ordinary constituents of cells as part of the suspected measles virus.
Because of this error, during decades of consensus building process, normal cell constituents were mentally assembled into a model of a measles virus. To this day, an actual structure that corresponds to this model has been found neither in a human, nor in an animal. With the results of the genetic tests, all thesis of existence of measles virus has been scientifically disproved.
The authors of the six publications and all other persons involved, did not realise the error because they violated the fundamental scientific duty, which is the need to work “lege artis”, i.e. in accordance with internationally defined rules and best practice of science. They did not carry out any control experiments. Control experiments would have protected authors and mankind from this momentous error. This error became the basis of belief in the existence of any disease-causing viruses. The expert appointed by the court, Prof. Dr. Dr. Podbielski, answering to the relevant question by the court, as per page 7 of the protocol explicitly confirmed that the authors did not conduct any control experiments.
The OLG Stuttgart on 16 February 2016 overturned the judgment of the court of first instance, dismissed the action and referred, inter alia, to the central message of Prof. Podbielski with respect to the six publications. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the OLG to the Supreme Court. As reason he stated his subjective, yet factually false perception of the trial sequence at the court in Stuttgart, and the assertion that our naming of facts about measles posed a threat to public health. The plaintiff’s position was rejected by the Supreme Court in plain words. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the OLG Stuttgart from 16 February 2016.
Conclusions
The six publications submitted in the trial are the main relevant publications on the subject of “measles virus.” Since further to these six publications there not any other publications which would attempt by scientific methods to prove the existence of the measles virus, the Supreme Court judgment in the measles virus trial and the results of the genetic tests have consequences: Any national and international statements on the alleged measles virus, the infectivity of measles, and on the benefit and safety of vaccination against measles, are since then of no scientific character and have thus been deprived of their legal basis.
Upon enquiries which had been triggered by the measles virus contest, the head of the National Reference Institute for Measles at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Prof. Dr. Annette Mankertz, admitted an important fact. This admission may explain the increased rate of vaccination-induced disabilities, namely of vaccination against measles, and why and how specifically this kind of vaccination seems to increasingly trigger autism.
Prof. Mankertz has admitted that the “measles virus” contains typical cell’s natural components (ribosomes, the protein factories of the cell). Since the vaccination against measles contains whole “whole measles virus”, this vaccine contains cell’s own structures. This explains why vaccination against measles causes frequent and more severe allergies and autoimmune reactions than other types of vaccination. The court expert Prof. Podbielski stated on several occasions that by the assertion of the RKI with regard to ribosomes in the measles virus, the thesis of existence of measles virus has been falsified.
In the trial it was also put on record that the highest German scientific authority in the field of infectious diseases, the RKI, contrary to its legal remit as per § 4 Infection Protection Act (IfSG), has failed to create tests for alleged measles virus and to publish these. The RKI claims that it made internal studies on measles virus, however refuses to hand over or publish the results.
Vaccines such as the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella), and especially the annual flu shot, are linked to a range of neuro-psychiatric conditions, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), ADHD, bipolar and major depression, a new study has discovered.
Although the researchers say they can't establish a direct cause-and-effect association, the problems are happening within days and weeks after vaccination.
The researchers tracked the vaccine history of children aged between six and 15 who had been diagnosed with a neuro-psychiatric condition. They were then matched against similar children who didn't have any of the problems.
The strongest link was found in cases of anorexia, where 21 per cent of cases had had a vaccination in the six months leading up to the diagnosis, followed by OCD and nervous tics, where 16 per cent of cases had recently been vaccinated.
Although the MMR was one of the vaccines the children had been given, the problems were more likely to occur after a flu shot, a vaccine that still uses thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative. The researchers from Pennsylvania State University college of medicine say their findings are in line with those from other countries that found that people given the H1N1 flu shot were more likely to develop narcolepsy, the sleeping disorder.
They suspect that vaccines, and flu shots in particular, are affecting the immune system, which influences brain development. All the problems they were witnessing could be categorised as auto-immune disorders, they say.
