Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Jimmy Dore: Groundbreaking South Korean Study Reveals Alarming Link Between COVID Vaccines and Cancer A massive new study from South Korea, utilizing the national health insurance database of over 8.4 million people, has uncovered a deeply disturbing trend. The research, which tracked patients from 2021-2023, found a statistically significant...

newstart_2024's profile picture

Camus

452,105 subscribers

68,017 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Gesundheit & WellnessNachrichten & Politik
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

COVID vaccines linked to a 27% INCREASE in overall cancer risk, South Korean study finds. “There’s a one in a thousand chance that this result arose by chance,” Dr. John Campbell noted. Children’s Health Defense reports: The study used data from 2021-2023 for over 8.4 million people in South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service database. The sample was split into two groups based on vaccination status. The vaccinated sample was further split into booster and non-booster groups. Researchers tracked the patients for one year. The vaccinated group was tracked following vaccination. The results showed a statistically significant higher risk of cancer in the vaccinated group, including: Overall cancer: 27% higher risk Breast cancer: 20% higher risk Colorectal cancer: 28% higher risk Gastric cancer: 34% higher risk Lung cancer: 53% higher risk Prostate cancer: 69% higher risk Thyroid cancer: 35% higher risk
1:19

COVID vaccines linked to a 27% INCREASE in overall cancer risk, South Korean study finds. “There’s a one in a thousand chance that this result arose by chance,” Dr. John Campbell noted. Children’s Health Defense reports: The study used data from 2021-2023 for over 8.4 million people in South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service database. The sample was split into two groups based on vaccination status. The vaccinated sample was further split into booster and non-booster groups. Researchers tracked the patients for one year. The vaccinated group was tracked following vaccination. The results showed a statistically significant higher risk of cancer in the vaccinated group, including: Overall cancer: 27% higher risk Breast cancer: 20% higher risk Colorectal cancer: 28% higher risk Gastric cancer: 34% higher risk Lung cancer: 53% higher risk Prostate cancer: 69% higher risk Thyroid cancer: 35% higher risk

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

934,237 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Nicolas Hulscher says new population data shows the Covid vaccine is driving sharp increases in cancer. “The first two population studies that looked at Covid-19 vaccines and cancer risk both found massive increases in multiple cancers.” “One of them followed 300,000 Italians for about 30 months… about a 23% increased risk of overall cancer hospitalizations.” “They also found 40%-60% increases in breast cancer hospitalizations and colorectal cancer, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia and lymphoma.” “Now we have this new study out of South Korea… over eight million Koreans.” “They corroborated the Italian data… about a 26% increase in overall cancer.” “This is an absolute disaster.” “It’s now confirmed that these shots have unleashed a turbo-cancer epidemic.” Nicolas Hulscher, MPH
2:03

Nicolas Hulscher says new population data shows the Covid vaccine is driving sharp increases in cancer. “The first two population studies that looked at Covid-19 vaccines and cancer risk both found massive increases in multiple cancers.” “One of them followed 300,000 Italians for about 30 months… about a 23% increased risk of overall cancer hospitalizations.” “They also found 40%-60% increases in breast cancer hospitalizations and colorectal cancer, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia and lymphoma.” “Now we have this new study out of South Korea… over eight million Koreans.” “They corroborated the Italian data… about a 26% increase in overall cancer.” “This is an absolute disaster.” “It’s now confirmed that these shots have unleashed a turbo-cancer epidemic.” Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Children’s Health Defense

15,164 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Peer-Reviewed Study Reveals Alarming Cancer Link to COVID Vaccines A landmark study from Italy, published in the peer-reviewed Experimental and Clinical Sciences Journal, has uncovered disturbing data on cancer risks following COVID-19 vaccination. While public health authorities in many countries, like the UK, have failed to provide transparent vaccinated vs. unvaccinated data, this independent research fills a critical gap. The findings, based on a 6-month follow-up, show a significant increase in cancer incidence among those who received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine: • Colorectal Cancer: 34% increased risk (Hazard Ratio: 1.34) • Breast Cancer: 54% increased risk (Hazard Ratio: 1.54) • Bladder Cancer: 62% increased risk (Hazard Ratio: 1.62) These hazard ratios point to a stark reality that can no longer be ignored. The study suggests the risk is not isolated but potentially affects "many types of cancers." The full paper is publicly available for scrutiny. This is no longer a "conspiracy theory" but a peer-reviewed finding demanding immediate investigation and accountability. Where is the urgent response from global health agencies?
1:26

Peer-Reviewed Study Reveals Alarming Cancer Link to COVID Vaccines A landmark study from Italy, published in the peer-reviewed Experimental and Clinical Sciences Journal, has uncovered disturbing data on cancer risks following COVID-19 vaccination. While public health authorities in many countries, like the UK, have failed to provide transparent vaccinated vs. unvaccinated data, this independent research fills a critical gap. The findings, based on a 6-month follow-up, show a significant increase in cancer incidence among those who received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine: • Colorectal Cancer: 34% increased risk (Hazard Ratio: 1.34) • Breast Cancer: 54% increased risk (Hazard Ratio: 1.54) • Bladder Cancer: 62% increased risk (Hazard Ratio: 1.62) These hazard ratios point to a stark reality that can no longer be ignored. The study suggests the risk is not isolated but potentially affects "many types of cancers." The full paper is publicly available for scrutiny. This is no longer a "conspiracy theory" but a peer-reviewed finding demanding immediate investigation and accountability. Where is the urgent response from global health agencies?

Camus

57,873 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Turbo cancer? Official Italian gov’t data from the first-ever population study of 300,000+ shows a 20%+ increased cancer risk after mRNA shots, with up to 70% higher risk for breast cancer and more. Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher explains:
1:04

Turbo cancer? Official Italian gov’t data from the first-ever population study of 300,000+ shows a 20%+ increased cancer risk after mRNA shots, with up to 70% higher risk for breast cancer and more. Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher explains:

Catturd ™

214,732 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Bryan Johnson explains how lack of sleep can increase the risk of cancer ''When you get 4 hours of sleep per night or less for a few days, your NK cells, which are the cells that survey your body for cancer, go down in activity by roughly 70%. So a way to increase the risk of cancer is low sleep'' ''You can increase the risk of cancer when your body is in poor health. When you are older and when your immune system is not as strong, you have a higher chance of getting cancer''
0:32

Bryan Johnson explains how lack of sleep can increase the risk of cancer ''When you get 4 hours of sleep per night or less for a few days, your NK cells, which are the cells that survey your body for cancer, go down in activity by roughly 70%. So a way to increase the risk of cancer is low sleep'' ''You can increase the risk of cancer when your body is in poor health. When you are older and when your immune system is not as strong, you have a higher chance of getting cancer''

Mikli

53,527 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

ALARMING: Cancer Rates Skyrocket Among Young Adults—What’s Really Going On? A shocking trend is unfolding in America’s heartland: young adults in the Corn Belt are facing a cancer epidemic. New reports from the Washington Post and New York Times reveal that cancer rates among those under 50 have surged over the past decade—with Iowans facing some of the highest risks in the nation. For those born in 1990, the risk of rectal cancer is four times higher than for those born in 1950, while colon cancer risk has more than doubled. In Iowa alone, young men face a 35% higher risk of skin cancer, and young women a 66% greater risk compared to peers elsewhere. The state now ranks fifth in cancer incidence for adults under 50, with kidney, blood, and skin cancers leading the surge. What’s causing this crisis? The evidence points to a toxic combination of factors: - Pesticides & Herbicides: Iowa, the farming capital of America, is drenched in chemicals like glyphosate (found in Roundup), which studies link to endocrine disruption, autism, and multiple cancers, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. These chemicals don’t just stay in the fields—they’re in our food, water, and even organic products. As cancer survivor Kenzie Dryden shared, she grew up running barefoot through fields sprayed with these toxins. Now, Iowa’s Senate has passed a bill—dubbed the "Cancer Gag Act"—to shield pesticide companies from lawsuits, even as victims like Dryden fight for accountability. - COVID-19 Vaccines: A peer-reviewed South Korean study found that vaccinated individuals under 65 had a 27% higher risk of developing cancer within a year, with elevated risks for thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancers. The study controlled for age, sex, and comorbidities, raising urgent questions about long-term effects. This isn’t a conspiracy—it’s a public health emergency. While Big Pharma and agribusiness lobby to protect profits, young people are paying the price. The data is clear: cancer rates are climbing, and the causes demand investigation—not silence. Kim Iversen breaks down the connections between pesticides, vaccines, and the alarming rise in cancer among young adults. Awareness is the first step. Share this, demand answers, and protect your health.
11:49

ALARMING: Cancer Rates Skyrocket Among Young Adults—What’s Really Going On? A shocking trend is unfolding in America’s heartland: young adults in the Corn Belt are facing a cancer epidemic. New reports from the Washington Post and New York Times reveal that cancer rates among those under 50 have surged over the past decade—with Iowans facing some of the highest risks in the nation. For those born in 1990, the risk of rectal cancer is four times higher than for those born in 1950, while colon cancer risk has more than doubled. In Iowa alone, young men face a 35% higher risk of skin cancer, and young women a 66% greater risk compared to peers elsewhere. The state now ranks fifth in cancer incidence for adults under 50, with kidney, blood, and skin cancers leading the surge. What’s causing this crisis? The evidence points to a toxic combination of factors: - Pesticides & Herbicides: Iowa, the farming capital of America, is drenched in chemicals like glyphosate (found in Roundup), which studies link to endocrine disruption, autism, and multiple cancers, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. These chemicals don’t just stay in the fields—they’re in our food, water, and even organic products. As cancer survivor Kenzie Dryden shared, she grew up running barefoot through fields sprayed with these toxins. Now, Iowa’s Senate has passed a bill—dubbed the "Cancer Gag Act"—to shield pesticide companies from lawsuits, even as victims like Dryden fight for accountability. - COVID-19 Vaccines: A peer-reviewed South Korean study found that vaccinated individuals under 65 had a 27% higher risk of developing cancer within a year, with elevated risks for thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast, and prostate cancers. The study controlled for age, sex, and comorbidities, raising urgent questions about long-term effects. This isn’t a conspiracy—it’s a public health emergency. While Big Pharma and agribusiness lobby to protect profits, young people are paying the price. The data is clear: cancer rates are climbing, and the causes demand investigation—not silence. Kim Iversen breaks down the connections between pesticides, vaccines, and the alarming rise in cancer among young adults. Awareness is the first step. Share this, demand answers, and protect your health.

Camus

32,637 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

Researchers find that consuming preservatives used in foods in America increases risk of cancer “A new study warning of a potential link between common food preservatives used to extend the shelf life of deli meats and some cereals and cancer. Researchers found consuming the preservatives used in foods like deli meats, bacon, breakfast cereal is associated with a higher risk of developing cancer. They say the study shows an association with developing cancer, but not proof that preservatives directly cause cancer.”
0:22

Researchers find that consuming preservatives used in foods in America increases risk of cancer “A new study warning of a potential link between common food preservatives used to extend the shelf life of deli meats and some cereals and cancer. Researchers found consuming the preservatives used in foods like deli meats, bacon, breakfast cereal is associated with a higher risk of developing cancer. They say the study shows an association with developing cancer, but not proof that preservatives directly cause cancer.”

Wall Street Apes

52,750 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

This Zimbabwean member of parliament whose parliamentary submission has gone viral is making a valid point based on peer-reviewed research. She is essentially saying that men who have regular sex are also reducing their risk of prostate cancer. Medical studies suggest a link between frequent ejaculation and a reduced risk of prostate cancer. However, the exact number of times a man should ejaculate per month to maintain optimal prostate health has not been definitively established. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that men who reported ejaculating at least 21 times a month had a lower risk of developing prostate cancer compared to those who ejaculated less frequently. The study, which followed over 31,000 men for several years, suggested a correlation between frequent ejaculation and a lower risk of prostate cancer. A study conducted by Australian researchers and published in the journal British Journal of Urology (BJU) in 2003 found that men who ejaculated more than five times per week in their 20s had a reduced risk of prostate cancer compared to those who ejaculated less frequently. A 2008 study in the British Journal of Urology International examined over 30,000 men and found that those who reported higher ejaculation frequency showed a lower risk of prostate cancer. A 2016 study published in the journal European Urology investigated the association between ejaculation frequency and the risk of prostate cancer. The study found that men with a higher ejaculation frequency had a lower risk of developing prostate cancer, particularly in their 40s. Men over 40 should have regular medical check-ups and discuss any concerns about their prostate health with healthcare providers such as nurses and doctors. While this data is available for us to engage with, we cannot return to the old tradition she mentions in her presentation of passing on young women from the wife’s family to older men. The JAMA study's findings do not justify the revival of the outdated and exploitative traditional practice of passing young women from the wife's family to older men. Read more here; More👇🏿
1:58

This Zimbabwean member of parliament whose parliamentary submission has gone viral is making a valid point based on peer-reviewed research. She is essentially saying that men who have regular sex are also reducing their risk of prostate cancer. Medical studies suggest a link between frequent ejaculation and a reduced risk of prostate cancer. However, the exact number of times a man should ejaculate per month to maintain optimal prostate health has not been definitively established. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that men who reported ejaculating at least 21 times a month had a lower risk of developing prostate cancer compared to those who ejaculated less frequently. The study, which followed over 31,000 men for several years, suggested a correlation between frequent ejaculation and a lower risk of prostate cancer. A study conducted by Australian researchers and published in the journal British Journal of Urology (BJU) in 2003 found that men who ejaculated more than five times per week in their 20s had a reduced risk of prostate cancer compared to those who ejaculated less frequently. A 2008 study in the British Journal of Urology International examined over 30,000 men and found that those who reported higher ejaculation frequency showed a lower risk of prostate cancer. A 2016 study published in the journal European Urology investigated the association between ejaculation frequency and the risk of prostate cancer. The study found that men with a higher ejaculation frequency had a lower risk of developing prostate cancer, particularly in their 40s. Men over 40 should have regular medical check-ups and discuss any concerns about their prostate health with healthcare providers such as nurses and doctors. While this data is available for us to engage with, we cannot return to the old tradition she mentions in her presentation of passing on young women from the wife’s family to older men. The JAMA study's findings do not justify the revival of the outdated and exploitative traditional practice of passing young women from the wife's family to older men. Read more here; More👇🏿

Hopewell Chin’ono

127,956 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Dear Vaccine Fanatics, If the experimental Covid vaccines aren’t responsible for the huge increase in cancer across all age groups…. Then why does this Korean peer reviewed study of 8.4 million people, comparing cancer rates in unvaccinated persons versus vaccinated persons - show the vaccinated have much higher rate of cancer? Serious question. Isn’t this the science you guys used to love so much? This is just one study of many different studies showing exactly the same thing. Probably time to admit you were scammed…..
1:52

Dear Vaccine Fanatics, If the experimental Covid vaccines aren’t responsible for the huge increase in cancer across all age groups…. Then why does this Korean peer reviewed study of 8.4 million people, comparing cancer rates in unvaccinated persons versus vaccinated persons - show the vaccinated have much higher rate of cancer? Serious question. Isn’t this the science you guys used to love so much? This is just one study of many different studies showing exactly the same thing. Probably time to admit you were scammed…..

Concerned Citizen

198,406 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Dr. Paul Marik exposes the alarming reality: We are facing a cancer epidemic. The claim that rising cancer rates are merely due to increased diagnosis is false. The data is clear: - 1 in 2 people will develop cancer—a staggering statistic. - Over the last decade, cancer incidence rose by 17%, with mortality up 5%—this is not overdiagnosis, but a real crisis. - Studies in JAMA Open Network and The Lancet already showed a pre-2020 increase in cancer risk among young people. But here’s the chilling twist: Since the rollout of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, the risk of cancer has nearly doubled. Four epidemiological studies and countless oncologist reports confirm this terrifying shift. The evidence is undeniable. The world must wake up—we are in the midst of a cancer pandemic.
3:02

Dr. Paul Marik exposes the alarming reality: We are facing a cancer epidemic. The claim that rising cancer rates are merely due to increased diagnosis is false. The data is clear: - 1 in 2 people will develop cancer—a staggering statistic. - Over the last decade, cancer incidence rose by 17%, with mortality up 5%—this is not overdiagnosis, but a real crisis. - Studies in JAMA Open Network and The Lancet already showed a pre-2020 increase in cancer risk among young people. But here’s the chilling twist: Since the rollout of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, the risk of cancer has nearly doubled. Four epidemiological studies and countless oncologist reports confirm this terrifying shift. The evidence is undeniable. The world must wake up—we are in the midst of a cancer pandemic.

Camus

71,908 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

DISTURBING: A hidden Pfizer report reveals heart problems in the vaccinated are getting WORSE over time. Journalist Nick Hunt managed to obtain a copy of the damning report, and the results are jaw-dropping. Compared to the unvaccinated, vaxxed individuals face: - A 23% higher risk of acute cardiovascular injury, with the gap worsening over time. - A 27% higher risk of arrhythmia. - A 2% higher risk of heart failure, though not yet statistically significant. - A 30% higher risk of stress cardiomyopathy. - A 40% higher risk of coronary artery disease, with risks increasing over time. - A 130% higher risk of myocarditis (within 21 days). With results like this, it’s no wonder why they’re desperately trying to keep this information hidden from the public.
4:45

DISTURBING: A hidden Pfizer report reveals heart problems in the vaccinated are getting WORSE over time. Journalist Nick Hunt managed to obtain a copy of the damning report, and the results are jaw-dropping. Compared to the unvaccinated, vaxxed individuals face: - A 23% higher risk of acute cardiovascular injury, with the gap worsening over time. - A 27% higher risk of arrhythmia. - A 2% higher risk of heart failure, though not yet statistically significant. - A 30% higher risk of stress cardiomyopathy. - A 40% higher risk of coronary artery disease, with risks increasing over time. - A 130% higher risk of myocarditis (within 21 days). With results like this, it’s no wonder why they’re desperately trying to keep this information hidden from the public.

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

247,530 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

New study shows Ozempic is causing cancer “New research reveals the long-term health problems linked to weight loss drugs. Now the study has found medications like Ozempic are potentially putting people at higher risk of heart issues, chronic disease and some cancers.”
3:08

New study shows Ozempic is causing cancer “New research reveals the long-term health problems linked to weight loss drugs. Now the study has found medications like Ozempic are potentially putting people at higher risk of heart issues, chronic disease and some cancers.”

Wall Street Apes

114,706 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

New research confirms that physical activity plays a critical role in protecting brain health, reducing the risk of dementia, stroke, anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders. In contrast, prolonged sitting is linked to a significantly higher risk of these conditions. This study, based on data from over 73,000 participants, highlights the importance of movement as a modifiable factor for brain health.
2:01

New research confirms that physical activity plays a critical role in protecting brain health, reducing the risk of dementia, stroke, anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders. In contrast, prolonged sitting is linked to a significantly higher risk of these conditions. This study, based on data from over 73,000 participants, highlights the importance of movement as a modifiable factor for brain health.

Neuroscience News

30,492 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

It’s been more than 20 years since media headlines about the Women’s Health Initiative study incorrectly linked HRT to an increased risk of breast cancer, but even today many women still avoid HRT because of perceived breast cancer fears. This misinformation is really damaging to women’s health, so on my podcast this week I invited Dr Avrum Bluming to join me. Avrum is a leading US oncologist and has spent 25 years studying the benefits and risks of HRT in breast cancer survivors. As you’ll hear in the episode, Avrum tells me about more recent studies that have shown that oestrogen alone decreases the risk of breast cancer development by 23% and the risk of death from breast cancer by 40%. Yet many people still do not realise this. It is so important that everyone knows the real story about the WHI study and the misreporting of the data so I really would recommend listening to the full episode:
0:52

It’s been more than 20 years since media headlines about the Women’s Health Initiative study incorrectly linked HRT to an increased risk of breast cancer, but even today many women still avoid HRT because of perceived breast cancer fears. This misinformation is really damaging to women’s health, so on my podcast this week I invited Dr Avrum Bluming to join me. Avrum is a leading US oncologist and has spent 25 years studying the benefits and risks of HRT in breast cancer survivors. As you’ll hear in the episode, Avrum tells me about more recent studies that have shown that oestrogen alone decreases the risk of breast cancer development by 23% and the risk of death from breast cancer by 40%. Yet many people still do not realise this. It is so important that everyone knows the real story about the WHI study and the misreporting of the data so I really would recommend listening to the full episode:

Dr Louise Newson

40,558 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

DISTURBING: A massive study of over 8 million people has rocked the medical world—concluding that ALL COVID VACCINES are tied to a higher risk of cancer. Yet just yesterday, the CDC and Deputy HHS Secretary Jim O’Neill celebrated a “return to informed consent,” keeping these same shots on the market. Researchers found alarming increases across major cancers: breast (20%), colorectal (28%), gastric (34%), lung (53%), prostate (69%), and thyroid (35%). Experts now warn that the spike protein may be directly carcinogenic—a finding dismissed by the mainstream but confirmed by top oncologists and epidemiologists. Still, U.S. officials recommend the shots for anyone with “risk factors” like obesity, heart disease, neurological issues, and even “physical inactivity.” That’s nearly the entire population. If this is what they call informed consent, why are Americans still being kept in the dark about shedding—and the truth behind these cancer risks? exposes what they never wanted you to see. Watch the full episode:👇
11:03

DISTURBING: A massive study of over 8 million people has rocked the medical world—concluding that ALL COVID VACCINES are tied to a higher risk of cancer. Yet just yesterday, the CDC and Deputy HHS Secretary Jim O’Neill celebrated a “return to informed consent,” keeping these same shots on the market. Researchers found alarming increases across major cancers: breast (20%), colorectal (28%), gastric (34%), lung (53%), prostate (69%), and thyroid (35%). Experts now warn that the spike protein may be directly carcinogenic—a finding dismissed by the mainstream but confirmed by top oncologists and epidemiologists. Still, U.S. officials recommend the shots for anyone with “risk factors” like obesity, heart disease, neurological issues, and even “physical inactivity.” That’s nearly the entire population. If this is what they call informed consent, why are Americans still being kept in the dark about shedding—and the truth behind these cancer risks? exposes what they never wanted you to see. Watch the full episode:👇

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

135,499 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

A landmark study from the Cleveland Clinic—a mainstream, pro-vaccine institution—has revealed alarming data about this year's flu shot. The research, tracking over 53,000 clinic employees during the 2024-25 respiratory virus season, found a shocking negative vaccine effectiveness of -26.9%. This isn't just low effectiveness; it's NEGATIVE efficacy. Key Findings: • The cumulative incidence of influenza increased more rapidly among the VACCINATED than the unvaccinated. • After adjusting for variables, those who received the flu shot had a 26.9% HIGHER risk of contracting influenza. The Conclusion: Influenza vaccination was associated with a significantly higher risk of influenza. This isn't a fringe report. It's a peer-reviewed study from a top medical center, forcing a critical question: Why are health officials still aggressively promoting an intervention that the data shows can increase your risk of illness? The era of blind trust is over. It's time for informed consent.
4:51

A landmark study from the Cleveland Clinic—a mainstream, pro-vaccine institution—has revealed alarming data about this year's flu shot. The research, tracking over 53,000 clinic employees during the 2024-25 respiratory virus season, found a shocking negative vaccine effectiveness of -26.9%. This isn't just low effectiveness; it's NEGATIVE efficacy. Key Findings: • The cumulative incidence of influenza increased more rapidly among the VACCINATED than the unvaccinated. • After adjusting for variables, those who received the flu shot had a 26.9% HIGHER risk of contracting influenza. The Conclusion: Influenza vaccination was associated with a significantly higher risk of influenza. This isn't a fringe report. It's a peer-reviewed study from a top medical center, forcing a critical question: Why are health officials still aggressively promoting an intervention that the data shows can increase your risk of illness? The era of blind trust is over. It's time for informed consent.

Camus

272,083 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

I am sorry but Dr Pal Manickam, the Gastroenterologist from California, is becoming not just a health misinformation menace, but also a subtle "hate-monger" with his divisive attitude towards dietary choices in India, also known as Bharat, a Union of States and marriage of [dietary] cultures and traditions. Claims: 1. Eating red meat (beef and pork) causes colon cancer 2. Nitrosamines (from nitrites/nitrates) in red meat causes colon cancer 3. Cancer screening in USA above age of 50, but not in India 4. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers in India 5. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers because Malayalees eat a lot of beef. A lot. Response: 1. Eating red meat does not cause colon cancer Higher red meat consumption was shown to have a correlation with increased risk for colon cancer, but the evidence for independent association was weak and remains weak Eating red meat does not increase risk of colon cancer. Excessive consumption of red meat/ processed meat (excessive not yet fully defined across populations) was confusingly correlated with increased risk of colon cancer 2. Studies have only looked at nitrites and nitrates [and hence nitrosamine formation] causing stomach cancer and not colon cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also focussed on nitrosamines and stomach cancer, but the potential role for dietary nitrate/nitrite in colon cancer is not conclusively proven. Meat-based diets (specifically processed meat, not fresh meat) have a well described higher risk for cancer, but it is not readily attributable to nitrite consistently in all studies. Most studies are on ground and well water and not meat. And the strongest study to show cancer link and nitrite consumption is in mice, not humans The biggest source of nitrate exposure is dietary consumption of certain types of vegetables that are naturally high in nitrate. This is a clear case of investigator bias, looking at any possible way to force the data into a specific conclusion (like Dr. Pal is doing in the video). The IARC maintains the tone of its conclusion, but only to reiterate its validity in a theoretical state, while acknowledging that the epidemiology does to support these conclusions. Nitrites are just one reason processed meats may contribute to bowel cancer, and their relative importance is uncertain. Other factors that may contribute include iron; PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) which are formed in smoked meats; and HCAs (heterocyclic amines), which are created when meat is cooked over an open flame – and which also are tumour-promoting. So its not just red meat, but the cooking method signficantly affecting health outcomes. 3. India does not have a national level screening protocol because the proportion of colon cancer among all cancers in India is only 3% which would lead to wastage of medical resources on a low-incidence cancer detection protocol. But in the USA, colon cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death. Overall, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is about 1 in 23 for men and 1 in 26 for women - which is much much higher compared to India and that is why they have screening protocols in place - not because they eat more red meat than Indians. 4. Kerala has the highest crude incidence rate of all cancers followed by Mizoram. Not colon cancer. All cancers. Highest colon cancer rates and burden of colon cancer are observed in Goa and Orissa, not Kerala. & While the discussion on beef and colon cancer is ongoing in the video, a segment of the clip shows a news item "concerning increasing cases of colon cancer in Kerala" - this is that news piece - - and read what it says: it talks about only younger age group and colon cancer. "Experts opine that underlying factors leading to the rise in cases, especially at this age, could be lifestyle, environment and genetic factors" - they do not mention beef at all. The report also says: "Though we have no authentic records to show the statistics of rising cases, we have been observing a trend here. Our changing lifestyle is most likely to blame for the rise in colorectal cancer cases amongst younger people, though hereditary reasons are also a major cause." - again, no mention of beef eating. 5. Lakshwadeep is India's biggest meat eater followed by north-east states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur followed by Kerala. MEAT EATING. Not beef eating. Specifically looking at the largest beef consuming state - it is Meghalaya, where more than 80% of the population consumes this meat, not Kerala. Kerala is the largest beef consuming state in the context of male population only. [ 6. Oh by the way, about pork and colon cancer --> the risk was not increased consuming high amounts of pork: and there is only one study showing colon cancer risk in women in Japan, not India and that too who consumed pork >/= 3 times/week compared to </=1 time: Add-on: The risk for colon cancer is not red meat alone (with weak evidence), but more importantly (with stronger evidence), alcohol use, smoking, family history of cancer, presence of inflammatory bowel disease, obesity and polyps or adenoma of colon. These have been very conviniently ignored by the Gastroenterologist from California. Summary - red meat causing colon cancer is not convincingly proven. Increased intake of processed red meat more than higher intake of unprocessed red meat is weakly linked from evidence point of view to colon cancer risk. Nitrosamine in red meat as cancer causing in humans is not proven. Kerala does not have the largest burden of colon cancer in India, nor it is the largest consumer of beef. There is no realistic evidence that eating pork increases risk of colon cancer. These are actual facts. And I am not even a Gastroenterologist from California. I am a Hepatologist. From India.
0:28

I am sorry but Dr Pal Manickam, the Gastroenterologist from California, is becoming not just a health misinformation menace, but also a subtle "hate-monger" with his divisive attitude towards dietary choices in India, also known as Bharat, a Union of States and marriage of [dietary] cultures and traditions. Claims: 1. Eating red meat (beef and pork) causes colon cancer 2. Nitrosamines (from nitrites/nitrates) in red meat causes colon cancer 3. Cancer screening in USA above age of 50, but not in India 4. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers in India 5. Kerala has maximum number of colon cancers because Malayalees eat a lot of beef. A lot. Response: 1. Eating red meat does not cause colon cancer Higher red meat consumption was shown to have a correlation with increased risk for colon cancer, but the evidence for independent association was weak and remains weak Eating red meat does not increase risk of colon cancer. Excessive consumption of red meat/ processed meat (excessive not yet fully defined across populations) was confusingly correlated with increased risk of colon cancer 2. Studies have only looked at nitrites and nitrates [and hence nitrosamine formation] causing stomach cancer and not colon cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also focussed on nitrosamines and stomach cancer, but the potential role for dietary nitrate/nitrite in colon cancer is not conclusively proven. Meat-based diets (specifically processed meat, not fresh meat) have a well described higher risk for cancer, but it is not readily attributable to nitrite consistently in all studies. Most studies are on ground and well water and not meat. And the strongest study to show cancer link and nitrite consumption is in mice, not humans The biggest source of nitrate exposure is dietary consumption of certain types of vegetables that are naturally high in nitrate. This is a clear case of investigator bias, looking at any possible way to force the data into a specific conclusion (like Dr. Pal is doing in the video). The IARC maintains the tone of its conclusion, but only to reiterate its validity in a theoretical state, while acknowledging that the epidemiology does to support these conclusions. Nitrites are just one reason processed meats may contribute to bowel cancer, and their relative importance is uncertain. Other factors that may contribute include iron; PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) which are formed in smoked meats; and HCAs (heterocyclic amines), which are created when meat is cooked over an open flame – and which also are tumour-promoting. So its not just red meat, but the cooking method signficantly affecting health outcomes. 3. India does not have a national level screening protocol because the proportion of colon cancer among all cancers in India is only 3% which would lead to wastage of medical resources on a low-incidence cancer detection protocol. But in the USA, colon cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death. Overall, the lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is about 1 in 23 for men and 1 in 26 for women - which is much much higher compared to India and that is why they have screening protocols in place - not because they eat more red meat than Indians. 4. Kerala has the highest crude incidence rate of all cancers followed by Mizoram. Not colon cancer. All cancers. Highest colon cancer rates and burden of colon cancer are observed in Goa and Orissa, not Kerala. & While the discussion on beef and colon cancer is ongoing in the video, a segment of the clip shows a news item "concerning increasing cases of colon cancer in Kerala" - this is that news piece - - and read what it says: it talks about only younger age group and colon cancer. "Experts opine that underlying factors leading to the rise in cases, especially at this age, could be lifestyle, environment and genetic factors" - they do not mention beef at all. The report also says: "Though we have no authentic records to show the statistics of rising cases, we have been observing a trend here. Our changing lifestyle is most likely to blame for the rise in colorectal cancer cases amongst younger people, though hereditary reasons are also a major cause." - again, no mention of beef eating. 5. Lakshwadeep is India's biggest meat eater followed by north-east states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur followed by Kerala. MEAT EATING. Not beef eating. Specifically looking at the largest beef consuming state - it is Meghalaya, where more than 80% of the population consumes this meat, not Kerala. Kerala is the largest beef consuming state in the context of male population only. [ 6. Oh by the way, about pork and colon cancer --> the risk was not increased consuming high amounts of pork: and there is only one study showing colon cancer risk in women in Japan, not India and that too who consumed pork >/= 3 times/week compared to </=1 time: Add-on: The risk for colon cancer is not red meat alone (with weak evidence), but more importantly (with stronger evidence), alcohol use, smoking, family history of cancer, presence of inflammatory bowel disease, obesity and polyps or adenoma of colon. These have been very conviniently ignored by the Gastroenterologist from California. Summary - red meat causing colon cancer is not convincingly proven. Increased intake of processed red meat more than higher intake of unprocessed red meat is weakly linked from evidence point of view to colon cancer risk. Nitrosamine in red meat as cancer causing in humans is not proven. Kerala does not have the largest burden of colon cancer in India, nor it is the largest consumer of beef. There is no realistic evidence that eating pork increases risk of colon cancer. These are actual facts. And I am not even a Gastroenterologist from California. I am a Hepatologist. From India.

TheLiverDoc™

1,924,232 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Iowa has a cancer problem.. Zach Lahn on Iowa's Cancer Paradox: Rural Outdoor Farmers Face Far Higher Cancer Risks Than Nevada - Despite Nevada's Top Smoking Rate and Iowa's Low Smoking & Active Lifestyle - Zach Lahn states Iowa has "the fastest rate of new cancer of anywhere in the history of human civilization." The top 10 highest-cancer counties are all rural/ag-heavy counties (not urban areas like Des Moines). In the worst counties, lifetime cancer risk is 1 in 2. - Statewide: Choosing to live in Nevada instead of Iowa gives you a 40% lower chance of getting cancer in any given year. - Worst Iowa county vs. Nevada: Up to 70% lower risk in Nevada. - Nevada has one of the lowest overall cancer rates in the U.S. - despite having the highest smoking rate of all 50 states. - Iowa has very low smoking rates (far below Nevada's), yet one of the highest cancer rates. - Lahn points out that rural Iowans/farmers spend their days outside getting physical exercise 12 months a year, Yet these same people have higher cancer rates than someone "working in a cube in Des Moines" - Farmers as a group actually have lower overall cancer rates (thanks to outdoor lifestyle, exercise, lower obesity/smoking), But they have dramatically higher rates of two specific cancers: non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and leukemia. Lahn ties these directly to chronic exposure to pesticides/chemicals from the dominant ag companies (Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta). Clip Full Interview
2:31

Iowa has a cancer problem.. Zach Lahn on Iowa's Cancer Paradox: Rural Outdoor Farmers Face Far Higher Cancer Risks Than Nevada - Despite Nevada's Top Smoking Rate and Iowa's Low Smoking & Active Lifestyle - Zach Lahn states Iowa has "the fastest rate of new cancer of anywhere in the history of human civilization." The top 10 highest-cancer counties are all rural/ag-heavy counties (not urban areas like Des Moines). In the worst counties, lifetime cancer risk is 1 in 2. - Statewide: Choosing to live in Nevada instead of Iowa gives you a 40% lower chance of getting cancer in any given year. - Worst Iowa county vs. Nevada: Up to 70% lower risk in Nevada. - Nevada has one of the lowest overall cancer rates in the U.S. - despite having the highest smoking rate of all 50 states. - Iowa has very low smoking rates (far below Nevada's), yet one of the highest cancer rates. - Lahn points out that rural Iowans/farmers spend their days outside getting physical exercise 12 months a year, Yet these same people have higher cancer rates than someone "working in a cube in Des Moines" - Farmers as a group actually have lower overall cancer rates (thanks to outdoor lifestyle, exercise, lower obesity/smoking), But they have dramatically higher rates of two specific cancers: non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and leukemia. Lahn ties these directly to chronic exposure to pesticides/chemicals from the dominant ag companies (Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta). Clip Full Interview

MJTruthUltra

208,327 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Alcohol is a known carcinogen, not just “empty calories” Even one drink a day nudges a woman’s breast cancer risk higher, and sustained moderate intake (1–3 drinks per day) can push lifetime risk from 1 in 8 toward roughly 1 in 4 Heavy drinking raises mouth and throat cancer risk about five-fold, and roughly five drinks per week has a cancer impact similar to smoking 4–5 cigarettes per week for men and 10 for women Cutting out the daily drink (and keeping alcohol to rare, occasional use) is one of the simplest ways to meaningfully lower long-term cancer risk
1:12

Alcohol is a known carcinogen, not just “empty calories” Even one drink a day nudges a woman’s breast cancer risk higher, and sustained moderate intake (1–3 drinks per day) can push lifetime risk from 1 in 8 toward roughly 1 in 4 Heavy drinking raises mouth and throat cancer risk about five-fold, and roughly five drinks per week has a cancer impact similar to smoking 4–5 cigarettes per week for men and 10 for women Cutting out the daily drink (and keeping alcohol to rare, occasional use) is one of the simplest ways to meaningfully lower long-term cancer risk

FoundMyFitness Clips

121,046 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten