Autism Rate at 1 in 14 Students in NJ’s Toms River District: A ‘Harbinger’ of Things to Come


republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Based on findings by an autism spectrum disorders (ASD) monitoring system at Rutgers University known as the New Jersey Autism Study (NJAS), the autism rate for four-year-old children in New Jersey is estimated at 1 in 35 children—the highest of any state in the United States. This figure, however, is at least eight years old. It is based on a 2019 report by Rutgers that found the ASD rate in New Jersey had increased 43 percent from 2010 to 2014. The rate is likely higher now.1 2 3

A news report by the Asbury Park Press last summer noted that New Jersey’s autism rate was “still climbing.” The article referenced that, for the first time, data from the NJAS had been used to “compare a cross-section of [school] districts in the state” in order to help the government of New Jersey plan for the future needs of districts with “higher-than-expected rates of students with autism.”4 According to the article:

New Jersey’s ever-increasing number of children with autism has significant implications for the educational resources that will be needed in the future, since such students require smaller class sizes, intensive instruction, specially trained teachers and paraprofessional aides. And as adults, eventually they may need housing, job accommodations or financial support.4

New Jersey County Autism Rate Triple National Average

NJAS data from 74 school districts that were studied determined that the autism rate among eight-year-old children had continued to steadily increase. Of the 74 districts, the largest suburban school district—Toms River Regional Schools in Ocean County—had an autism rate estimated at 1 in 14 children, or more than twice the state average and triple the 1 in 44 rate for the country.4 5 6 

The director of the NJAS, Walter Zahorodny, Ph.D., an associate professor in the Department of Pediatrics at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, said, “It feels like some kind of science fiction, but in reality, this is true. And it can’t be explained.”4 7

“We’re well aware of it because we live it every day,” said Joy Forrest, director of special education for Toms River. “The district is constantly planning to meet individual students’ needs. We have programs from preschool to age 21, and each year, we are adding additional programming because of increasing numbers of students.”4

Dr. Zahorodny reportedly believes that the autism rate at Toms River is likely a “harbinger” of the rate that all school districts in New Jersey will soon face. “It’s very likely we will find even greater numbers of children with autism in what we consider underserved communities,” he said.4

In the 1970s, the prevalence of autism in the U.S. was estimated to be between 1 in 5,000 and 1 in 2,500 children, and by 2002, it had increased to 1 in 165 children.8 In 2011, autism prevalence was 1 in 110 children9 and by 2020, it was 1 in 54 among 8-year-old children based on 2016 data.10

Click here to view References:

1 Rutgers New Jersey Medical School. New Jersey Autism Study.
2 Rutgers University. Autism rate rises 43 percent in New Jersey, study findsScience Daily Apr. 11, 2019.
3 TVR Staff. Autism Rate in New Jersey Up 43 PercentThe Vaccine Reaction Dec. 23, 2019.
4 Washburn L. NJ’s autism rate is still climbing. In one district, one in 14 third graders is affectedAsbury Park Press June 21, 2021.
5 Hobley N. U.S. Autism Rate Rises to One in 44 ChildrenThe Vaccine Reaction Dec. 19, 2021.
6 Wall K. Toms River’s Autism Rate In Children Highest In NJ: Rutgers StudyPatch Oct. 26, 2021.
7 Rutgers New Jersey Medical School. Walter M. Zahorodny, Ph.D.
8 Institute of Medicine. Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder: Estimates of Autism Prevalence and Prevalence Trends from the General Population. Mental Disorders and Disabilities Among Low Income Children (Chapter 14). National Academies Press 2015.
9 Rice CE. The Changing Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Am Fam Physician 2011; 83(5): 515-520.
10 Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. US Autism Rates Up 10 Percent in New CDC Report. Mar. 26, 2020.

Pfizer CEO Received $24.3 Million in Total Compensation for 2021

Pfizer CEO Received $24.3 Million in Total Compensation for 2021



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla, who recently announced that a fourth COVID-19 vaccine dose will be necessary for everyone who has already gotten three doses, was awarded $24.3 million in personal financial compensation in 2021. In addition to his $1.69 million salary, which increased by 15 percent, Bourla took home a cash incentive of $8 million, received stock and options totaling $13.2 million, and secured $1.38 million in other compensation. His 597,000 shares of Pfizer stock are worth more than $32 million.1

FDA Staff Bypasses FDA Advisory Committee to Approve Fourth Pfizer Dose

Regarding the fourth booster of COVID vaccine, Bourla stated that, even though the third dose has worked well for the prevention of hospitalizations and death, a fourth shot is necessary.2 Bourla has also stated that Pfizer booster shots will likely need to be administered on an annual basis.

Pfizer submitted a request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the fourth dose on Mar. 17, 2022. On Mar. 29. the FDA granted the EUA for administration to people age 50 and older.2

The FDA staff granted Pfizer an EUA for the fourth dose after bypassing a meeting of the agency’s Vaccines & Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) —a move which has historically been rare but has become increasingly frequent with approvals related to COVID-19 vaccines. Moving forward to approve the COVID vaccine fourth dose without a recommendation by VRBPAC drew criticism from some committee members.2

Last fall, two senior FDA officials stepped down over disagreements with how the FDA, CDC, and White House were developing and handling COVID vaccine policy.3

Pfizer Projects $54 Billion in COVID Related Sales for 2022

Pfizer’s profit almost doubled in 2021, reaching $22 billion, as it became the most widely administered COVID biological in both the U.S. and European Union (E.U.), and sales made up roughly 45 percent of its annual revenue. Pfizer is projecting $32 billion in vaccine sales for 2022, with the company projecting at least $22 billion in sales from their new COVID treatment pill known as Paxlovid.1

Click here to view References:

The Biden Crime Family UNRAVELS as SHOCKING New Hunter REVELATIONS Surface!!!

The Biden Crime Family UNRAVELS as SHOCKING New Hunter REVELATIONS Surface! In this video, we’re going to look at how the proverbial noose is tightening around both Hunter and Sleepy Joe, we’re going to see the shocking new revelations about Hunter’s business dealings that are just breaking as of today, and stick with me to the very end of this video when we’ll find out from Democrat strategists why all of this means that the upcoming midterms may end up being a blowout like we’ve never witnessed before; you are NOT going to want to miss this!

Brighteon: 75% Of Vaccinated Women Have Miscarriages In The First Trimester

Fertility Clinic Data shows an increase of miscarriages by 400% in the first trimester if you received a COVID vaccine! If you receive the covid vax after the first trimester, It still increases miscarriages by 233%! Also, More info from the Pfizer document dump! Naomi Wolf gives an update on what has been found so far.

Food inflation has now reached 12.6% PER MONTH, corporate media blames Putin, not money printing

Image: Food inflation has now reached 12.6% PER MONTH, corporate media blames Putin, not money printing



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) Since its inception in 1990, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Food Price Index has never been higher than it was in February, compliments of endless money printing and many decades of corrupt monetary policy.

The corporate-controlled media, however, is blaming Vladimir Putin as it always does whenever the financial terrorists find themselves in another bind.

Food inflation is soaring around the world by about 12.6 percent monthly, at this point, and the only thing the talking heads in the media are allowed to say is that it’s Russia’s fault for invading Ukraine.

Never mind the fact that inflation has been on a steady upward trajectory for many years or the fact that governments’ Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) plandemic tyranny destroyed the supply chain. No, just make Putin the punching bag, as usual.

According to the latest reports, prices for food commodities like grains and vegetable oils reached their highest levels ever in February. And ABC News claims that this is because of “Russia’s war in Ukraine,” and not because of central banks like the Federal Reserve that have been printing fiat currency like crazy over the past several years.

“The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization said its Food Price Index, which tracks monthly changes in international prices for a basket of commodities, averaged 159.3 points last month, up 12.6% from February,” ABC further reported.

Will the world ever wake up to the reality of financial terrorism and how it destroys economies?

A 17.1 percent rise in grain prices is also being blamed on the war in Ukraine, which has become something of a catch-net for every bad thing that happens these days.

“This is really remarkable,” said Josef Schmidhuber, deputy director of FAO’s market and trade division, about the current inflationary climate. “Clearly, these very high prices for food require urgent action.”

The worst-hit commodity is vegetable oils, which rose 23.2 percent over the past month. Ukraine is the world’s leading exporter of sunflower oil while Russia holds the second spot, so it is easy for the overlords to blame the conflict between these countries as the culprit.

“There is, of course, a massive supply disruption, and that massive supply disruption from the Black Sea region has fueled prices for vegetable oil,” Schmidhuber further told reporters in Geneva.

Schmidhuber says he cannot calculate specifically the exact degree to which the war is causing these financial problems, and that “logistical factors” are also playing a role, as are poor weather conditions in some countries.

“Essentially, there are no exports through the Black Sea, and exports through the Baltics is practically also coming to an end,” he explained.

A big red flag that points to financial terrorism as Enemy No. 1 in all this is the fact that the globalists have been trying to crush decentralized cryptocurrency ever since Putin invaded Ukraine, claiming that he might try to “evade” banking sanctions if the crypto-sphere is not quickly swept into the clutches of the existing financial paradigm.

In other words, the globalist central bankers do not want people migrating away from their fiat currency Ponzi schemes and into crypto, so they are using Putin as their scapegoat to claim that crypto needs to be destroyed in order to keep everyone “safe” against the war, or something.

“For me, the most depressing thing is not bankers and politicians,” wrote someone at Natural News about the situation. “I expect them to be evil, just like I expect cockroaches to be cockroaches.”

“No, the most depressing thing is the stupidity of average people, who only think what their cell phones tell them to think. Just as the peasants supported vax mandates because ‘Covid,’ the peasants now support tyranny because ‘Ukraine.'”

More related news coverage can be found at

Sources for this article include:

Defund Disney: It’s time to stand up to the assault on conservatives, Christians and patriots.



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

My great friend and co-author Nicky Billou and I recently released our first book together, "The Great Patriot Protest & Boycott Book: The Priceless List For Conservatives, Christians, Patriots, and 80+ Million Trump Warriors To Cancel 'Cancel Culture' And Save America."

It's a book that lists 116 "woke" corporations and condemns their fear-driven assault on normal, traditional Americans. We show conservatives, Christians, capitalists, and patriots how to fight back against these gigantic, woke, anti-American corporations spitting in our faces while we make them rich by buying their products.

One of the companies on our list is The Walt Disney Co. Lo and behold, Disney just became THE poster child for our struggle to save America. They must be our "Mona Lisa" — our masterpiece proving we can successfully cancel woke companies that offend conservatives. Once we hurt Disney in the pocketbook and bring them to their knees, this will serve as Exhibit A for how the Silent Majority can take back America.

But first things first: We must successfully "Defund Disney."

Disney could very well be the worst offender we've ever seen. With their arrogance and radical beliefs, they've made themselves the target of 80 million Trump conservatives. Disney has made it easy to hate Disney. They have no one but themselves to blame.

Disney has chosen a "hill to die on": they want to overturn the new Florida law that stops the indoctrination of little children, from pre-kindergarten through third grade, with woke, sexual, gender-identity brainwashing and transgender equality education. Keep in mind that we're only talking about 5- to 8-year-olds. What parent could possibly disagree? What parent visiting Disney could possibly disagree?

But Disney doesn't care. They are intent on alienating the tens of millions of parents who believe that 5- to 8-year-olds shouldn't be sexualized at school and that those same 5- to 8-year-olds shouldn't be taught to change their sexual identity like they're changing a pair of sneakers. Can you imagine? Disney has chosen this hill to die on.

The president of Disney recently bragged that she will make sure half of all characters in Disney movies, television shows, and videos are either gay, lesbian, trans, or other minorities. I have no problem with that. America is a free country. But I hope she and her Disney bosses have no problem if conservatives, Christians, and patriots decide to never again visit any Disney theme park or spend a dime on any Disney product.

All is fair in war, right? And this is a war between Disney and America, American values, American exceptionalism, and Judeo-Christian values.

This is a far cry from the vision of Disney's founder, the iconic Walt Disney, a true American patriot who wanted to create movies and television programs that were family-oriented and wholesome to entertain the whole family. Disney made billions of dollars from brilliantly executing Walt's amazing and wholesome vision.

Billou and I outline exactly what to do in our book. We provide the name of Disney's chairman of the board and CEO, their phone numbers, email addresses, social media addresses, and physical addresses (for snail mail). All of this information is provided in our book's directory of 116 woke companies.

Disney just became our No. 1 target.

First, look up the social media handles for Disney and its key senior executives. Then bombard them with polite but firm messages stating that you will choose to boycott Disney for its woke choices. Here is an example:

"Dear Bob Chapek (CEO of Disney),

I am disgusted that Disney is choosing to create content that brainwashes and sexualizes children with your woke and radical anti-American and anti-Christian agenda. This is not the Disney that I grew up with, and I believe it's highly inappropriate to insert adult and woke brainwashing into children's stories. I will be canceling my family's Disney + membership, and we will not be doing business with your company anymore. Shame on you for caving to the woke mob.


Wayne Allyn Root"

Secondly, FOLLOW THROUGH. Stop doing business with Disney. Post on social media. Encourage others to stop doing business with them. Make them pay, financially speaking.

Third, sign up to our email list at, and join the army of God-fearing, patriotic Americans who are fed up with woke corporations who take our money and then spit in our faces.

Businesses exist to serve their customers, solve their problems and make their lives better with their products and services. Not to promote woke ideologies or brainwash our children to change their sexual identities.

Disney is the poster child for this. It's time for Disney to pay. It's time to bring Disney to its knees. It's time to "DEFUND DISNEY."

And after we prove we have the power to change the direction of this country, one company at a time, with Disney as our first target, then we have 115 other companies to target.

But let's start by treating Disney like the feds once treated Al Capone. Disney is now our "public enemy number one." They richly deserve it.


APOSTATE COMMUNIST Pope Francis Calls on Christians to Surrender Before Violence, AN UNBIBLICAL TEACHING

POPE FRANCIS DEFIES SCRIPTURE: “There is no such thing as a Just War.”



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Pope Francis, a leading advocate of Doormat Christianity, is at it again, trying to reverse nearly two millennia of Christian doctrine, by preaching total passivity—even against violent aggression.

On March 18, 2022, Francis declared before an audience that “A war is always—always!—the defeat of humanity, always. We, the educated, who work in education, are defeated by this war because on another side we are responsible.”

So far, all well and good, if only because such lofty but impotent words are expected.

But then Francis went so far as to say, “There is no such thing as a just war: they do not exist!”

That is a remarkably dangerous claim, one that, if embraced—as no doubt it is by millions of similar naïve thinkers—can easily lead to their annihilation.

There is, indeed, such a thing as a just war—the only rational way of responding to unjust wars—and it is firmly grounded in Christian, especially Catholic, teaching, even if the head of the Catholic world argues otherwise.

In fact, from the very start, Christian theologians had concluded that “the so-called charity texts of the New Testament that preached passivism and forgiveness, not retaliation, were firmly defined as applying to the beliefs and behavior of the private person [and not the state],” to quote historian Christopher Tyerman.

Christ himself—who called on his followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s (Matt. 22:21)—differentiated between the social and spiritual realms. In the only recorded instance of Jesus being slapped, he did not “turn the other cheek,” but rather challenged his slapper to explain himself (John 18:22–23). The Nazarene further praised a Roman centurion without calling on him to “repent” by resigning from one of the most brutal militaries in world history (Matt. 8: 5–13). Similarly, when a group of soldiers asked John the Baptist how they should repent, he advised them always to be content with their army wages (Luke 3:14)—and said nothing about their quitting the Roman army.

This is because there is “no intrinsic contradiction,” continues Tyerman, “in a doctrine of personal, individual forgiveness condoning certain forms of necessary public violence to ensure the security in which, in St. Paul’s phrase, Christians ‘may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty’ (1 Tim. 2:2).”

Or in the words of that chief articulator of Just War theory, Saint Augustine (354–430), “It is the injustice of the opposing side that lays on the wise man the duty to wage war.” Crusades historian Jonathan Riley-Smith elaborates:

What was evil in war itself? Augustine had asked. The real evils were not the deaths of those who would have died anyway, but the love of violence, cruelty, and enmity; it was generally to punish such that good men undertook wars in obedience to God or some lawful authority…. Expeditions to the Levant, North Africa, or the Iberian Peninsula could be justified as responses to present Muslim aggression or as rightful attempts to recover Christian territory which had been injuriously seized in the past.  [For more on the intricacies of just war theory, especially as compared and contrasted with unjust wars, which do merit condemnation, read “Just War vs. Just Plain Old Jihad.”]

Make no mistake: without just wars and the brave men who undertook them, the world today would be a very different place.  Europe, for instance, would have been Islamic—and not by willingly capitulating, as it is now, but by force: countless jihads were waged against it and other Christian nations, and they were repulsed only by the force of arms—by war, just war.

Indeed, even the Vatican itself, whence Pope Francis issues his lofty words of peace and love, has long been targeted and even attacked (for example in 846) by Muslims, and was saved only thanks to men acting in accordance with just war theory.

There is nothing wrong with Pope Francis’s generic condemnation of war and its horrors.  It is his usual lack of distinction—in this case, conflating just with unjust wars—that is problematic, if not suicidal.

See Ibrahim’s new book, Defenders of the West: The Christian Heroes Who Stood Against Islam, for more on just war theory in action.

50% of Women Had a False-Positive Mammogram After 10 Years



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:


  • Data once again show mammograms don't deliver on the promise of effective breast cancer screening as more than half of women in one study had a false positive after 10 years of testing
  • In addition to the added risk from radiation in mammograms that triggers fatal cancer in up to 25 of 100,000 women, the screening does not efficiently identify all cancers, especially in women with dense breasts
  • Women have choices for screening that do not involve radiation, including thermography, ultrasound, and clinical breast examination
  • They can also practice healthy lifestyle choices to reduce risk and maintain optimal levels of omega-3 fatty acid and vitamin D

The effectiveness of consistent early screening mammograms has been studied for many years with mixed results. Current research published by the University of California in March 2022, showed half of all women who got annual mammograms will experience at least one false-positive test after 10 years.1

False-positive testing from mammography as a screening tool can lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, including unnecessary biopsies.2 A past study3 from the John Wayne Cancer Institute revealed needle biopsy can increase the spread of cancer compared to patients who received excisional biopsy, also known as lumpectomies.

After a false-positive mammography, needle biopsies are widely used to diagnose breast cancer. But this can accidentally cause malignant cells to spread from the tumor site and encourage metastasis to form in other areas of your body. The researchers from John Wayne Cancer Institute concluded:4

"Manipulation of an intact tumor by FNA [fine-needle aspiration] or large-gauge needle core biopsy is associated with an increase in the incidence of SN [sentinel node] metastases, perhaps due in part to the mechanical disruption of the tumor by the needle."

There's also a significant financial cost to annual mammogram screenings. According to the American Cancer Society,5 73% of women over 45 had a screening mammogram within the past 2 years. In the U.S., these percentages add up to an overwhelming number of women. As of July 1, 2020, there were 62.03 million women from 40 to 70 years in the U.S.6

Assuming the average out-of-pocket cost for a mammogram in the U.S. is roughly $100,7 the total revenue generated is in the billions of dollars. But the financial cost is not the only downside to annual mammogram testing, and women do have other choices for effective screening.

False-Positive Mammograms Are Not Uncommon

The featured study8 was published in JAMA Oncology in March 2022. The researchers asked the question if there was a difference between screening for breast cancer using traditional digital mammography or 3D mammography, also called digital breast tomosynthesis.

Data were collected between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2018, at 126 facilities. It included 903,495 women aged 40 to 79 years. The results showed there were 2,969,055 nonbaseline screening mammograms interpreted by 699 radiologists; 58% of those mammograms were performed in women younger than 60 years.

Importantly, it was also noted that 46% of these mammograms were on women who had dense breast tissue. Michael Bissell, an epidemiologist in the UC Davis Department of Public Health Sciences and researcher in the study, said in a press release:9

"The screening technology did not have the largest impact on reducing false positives. Findings from our study highlight the importance of patient-provider discussions around personalized health. It is important to consider a patient's preferences and risk factors when deciding on screening interval and modality."

After data collection, the researchers analyzed the type of mammography used, screening interval, age of the woman, and breast density. From this data, they estimated that a woman would have a cumulative risk of at least one false positive after receiving mammograms each year or every other year for 10 years.10

The analysis also showed a false positive resulted in repeated imaging within six months or a biopsy recommendation. The scientists then separated the data for 2D and 3D digital mammography, theorizing that 3D may have a lower risk of a false positive test.

While the theory was proved by the data, the reduction in risk was minimal. They estimated that over 10 years of 3D screening, 50% of women had at least one false-positive test while 56% of those receiving traditional digital mammography had at least one false positive. The comparison between those who had short interval follow-up recommendations and biopsy recommendations differed by only 1%.

Mammograms May Not Work for Women With Dense Breasts

The researchers also found that regardless of whether women had 2D or 3D mammography, the false-positive results were higher in women who had extremely dense breasts.11

The difference between false positives in women who had entirely fatty breasts and those with dense breasts was significant. Using 3D mammography, women with entirely fatty breasts had a 31% probability of a false positive test, while those with dense breasts had a 67.3% probability of a false positive test.12

The researchers also found that, in general, between both types of mammography, women who had almost entirely fatty breasts had a lower probability of a false positive test as compared to women with extremely dense breasts. Additionally, women with dense breasts did not benefit from cancer detection with tomosynthesis.

In addition to the problem with overdiagnosis is the reality that mammograms do not detect all breast cancer. The documentary, “Boobs: The War on Women’s Breasts” available on DVD or Vimeo digital,13 tells the story of Nancy Cappello. Capello was diagnosed with breast cancer after receiving two normal mammograms.

Capello's cancer was missed because she had dense breast tissue. It was only found when her doctor felt the ridge in her breast and prescribed an ultrasound in addition to a mammogram. Capello became a pioneer in the movement to teach women about dense breast tissue and how using a mammogram is "like finding a polar bear in a snowstorm." She said:14

"So I went on a quest — for research — and I discovered for nearly a decade BEFORE my diagnosis, six major studies with over 42,000 women concluded that by supplementing a mammogram with an ultrasound increases detection from 48% to 97% for women with dense tissue.

I also learned that women with extremely dense tissue are 5x more likely to have breast cancer when compared with women with fatty breasts and that research on dense breast tissue as an independent risk factor for breast cancer has been studied since the mid 70s.

… I endured a mastectomy, reconstruction, 8 chemotherapy treatments and 24 radiation treatments. The pathology report confirmed — stage 3c cancer because the cancer had traveled outside of the breast to my lymph nodes. Eighteen lymph nodes were removed and thirteen contained cancer — AND REMEMBER — a "normal" mammogram just weeks before. Is that early detection?"

Cappello succumbed to her breast cancer in 2018 and died after a 15-year fight to beat her cancer,15 but as a result of her efforts, 38 states have passed mandatory breast density reporting laws. The film states that up to 90% of women may have some degree of dense breast tissue that may affect a mammogram's outcome and could benefit from whole breast ultrasound — a procedure that's generally used as an adjunct to a mammogram, rather than a primary test.16

Mammography Radiation Is Not Without Risk

There's also the issue that mammograms use ionizing radiation in a relatively high dose. This, in and of itself, can contribute to the development of breast cancer. A 2016 study concluded:17 "… ionizing radiation as used in low-dose X-ray mammography may be associated with a risk of radiation-induced carcinogenesis."

The researchers pointed out that women who carry a genetic variation or have an inherited disposition of breast cancer should avoid radiation as much as possible. Unfortunately, conventional medicine often recommends routine or even extra mammography for those who have an inherited disposition for breast cancer18 or a genetic mutation.19

The next generation of mammography, 3D tomosynthesis, is basically a CT scan for the breast. Radiation exposure from this is even greater than standard mammograms by a significant margin. According to one study,20 annual screening using digital or film mammography on women aged 40 to 80 years is associated with an induced cancer incidence and fatal breast cancer rate of 20 to 25 cases per 100,000 mammograms.

This means an annual mammogram could cause 20 to 25 cases of fatal cancer for every 100,000 women who got the test. A 3D mammography requires multiple views to get three-dimensionality. It stands to reason your total radiation exposure is considerably higher than from a standard 2D mammogram.

Additionally, data do not support screening asymptomatic women as it is not saving extra lives. A response published in The BMJ21 to research published in The Lancet22 was written by Hazel Thornton, an honorary visiting fellow in the department of health sciences at the University of Leicester. She included reports on her testimony before the House of Commons Health Committee on breast cancer services.

She was asked why she thought the NHS Breast Screening Programme was “a costly trawl of an asymptomatic public group … creating huge costly psychological and physical morbidity,” to which part of her answer was that it:23

“… focuses on the women who benefit, in other words, the one life that is saved, and it overlooks the hundreds of women that go through the process and in some cases suffer psychological harm for that one. It is unbalanced and disproportionate and should be reviewed, in my opinion, at the moment.”

In a Cochrane review of the literature24 they discovered — as Thornton testified — for every 2,000 women screened over 10 years, one avoids dying of breast cancer, and 10 will be treated unnecessarily. Additionally, over 200 women will undergo psychological distress and uncertainty for years after receiving false-positive findings.

One cohort study25 engaged participants in Denmark from 1980 to 2010. They also found screening did not lower the incidence of advanced tumors and concluded: “that 1 in every 3 invasive tumors and cases of DCIS [ductal carcinoma in situ] diagnosed in women offered screening represent overdiagnosis (incidence increase of 48.3%).”26

You Have Choices

Although mammography is the most frequently recommended breast cancer screening tool, you have choices for diagnostic testing that do not involve radiation. Women should be provided enough information to make an informed decision and allowed to use their choice. When you know the options, you can ask to have the test that best suits your situation.

Other potentially safer options for breast examination include clinical breast exams, thermography, and ultrasound. Thermography and ultrasound don't use radiation and can detect abnormalities that mammograms can miss, especially in women with dense breasts.

While it’s also claimed that mammography can catch cancers that an ultrasound misses; according to the National Institutes of Health, “… researchers do not know with full certainty whether 3D mammography is better or worse than standard mammography at avoiding false-positive results and identifying early cancers in all types of patients.”27

Not only that, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on breast cancer screening admits that “… the current evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) as a primary screening method for breast cancer.”28

Although they are effective, alternative tests can be difficult to access in the U.S. due to federal guidelines and the influence of the billion-dollar mammography industry. To deny women the use of these screening programs, the USPSTF claims:

“… current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of adjunctive screening for breast cancer using breast ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, DBT, or other methods in women identified to have dense breasts on an otherwise negative screening mammogram.”

It's also important to recognize that screening does not prevent breast cancer. Instead, prevention requires healthy lifestyle choices, paying attention to nutritional factors, and avoiding toxins.

For example, vitamin D is of vital nutritional factor that can reduce your risk of all cancer,29 including breast cancer.30 Animal and human studies have also demonstrated that omega-3 fatty acids can help prevent breast cancer and have a positive effect during breast cancer treatment.31

To understand your potential risk, it's crucial that you know your vitamin D level and omega-3 index. Conventional medicine has led many women to believe that simply getting an annual test will protect them from breast cancer. Leading a healthy lifestyle and being informed of your screening options can help you avoid this potentially deadly pitfall.


"FDA authorized doses 4 and 5 based on data showing the Moderna shot was only 11% effective, and causing side effects in 40% of recipients, and the Pfizer shot was 30% effective and caused side effects in 80% of people."


Public trust in the agencies behind the COVID booster push has suffered massively from continually making recommendations outside data and sound science. The FDA’s latest move to push 4th and 5th boosters may be the final straw for a medical community already up in arms.