by the Institute of Science in Society
Original Title: Retracting Séralini Study Violates Science and Ethics

Giles-Eric Séralini, a professor of molecular biology at Caen University, led a toxicological study on GM maize and Roundup herbicide involving 200 rats over a period of two years; it found an alarming increase in early death, large tumours including cancers, and diseases of the liver and kidney. The study, published in 2012 by the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) [1], was by no means the first, nor the only one to show adverse health impacts from GM feed or Roundup herbicide (see [2] GM Cancer Warning Can No Longer Be Ignored, SiS 56; and ISIS report [3] Ban GMOs Now for a comprehensive review on the health and environmental hazards of GMOs). It was the latest warning – perhaps the most dramatic – and the most in-depth long-term toxicological study ever done. Significantly, many of the most damaging effects came after 90 days, the officially mandated period of feeding trials for regulatory approval of GMOs.

What followed was a concerted worldwide campaign to discredit the findings, including the appointment of ex-Monsanto scientist Richard Goodman to the newly created post of associate editor for biotechnology at FCT [4]. Soon after Goodman’s appointment, a study by researchers in Brazil also finding potentially harmful effects from GMOs was withdrawn from FCT, but reappeared almost immediately in another journal.

On 27 November 2013, FCT editor Wallace Hayes wrote to Séralini’s team requesting them to retract their paper published just over a year ago on grounds that it was “inconclusive”, not because there was fraud or errors [5]. In fact, the paper was published after peer review by 5 referees – the usual number being 2 or 3 – and the criticisms post-publication answered in full by the team, and appeared in the same journal [6].

The substantive criticisms boil down to two: the Sprague-Dawley strain of laboratory rats used is inappropriate, as it is prone to cancer, and the number of animals for testing cancer is too small. In fact, the study was explicitly aimed not at cancer but at toxicity, for which Sprague-Dawley is the strain most commonly used; and the number of animals, 10 in each group, was in accordance with the OECD guidelines.

The reason the OECD protocol specifies larger groups for cancer testing than for toxicity is that cancer is less common and takes longer to become apparent and is therefore more likely to be missed, i.e. the aim is to avoid a false negative. The fact that excess tumours and cancer was detected even in 10 animals is arguably all the more significant, and may be due to the strong carcinogenic potential of the agents tested (see [7] Excess Cancers and Deaths with GM Feed: the Stats Stand Up, SiS 56). Even though the study was not designed to test for cancer, it would have been totally irresponsible for Séralini and his group not to report what they had found. Equally it is important for the article to remain in the public record for its implications on public health.

As Séralini’s team pointed out, the retraction of their paper is a violation of the international ethical norms as prescribed by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) accepted by FCT, as it had been most thoroughly reviewed, and by the clear admission of the FCT editor, absolutely no fraud or error was perpetrated [5]. In contrast, a study published by Monsanto in the same journal in 2004 does contain errors if not outright fraud, basically because the effect of GMOs was not compared with matched isogenic non-GMO controls, while the feed for controls was most likely contaminated with GMOs. That paper should be considered for retraction, but the issue was never even raised.

A day later, a press release was put out by a PR company entitled, “Elsevier announces article retraction from journal Food and Chemical Toxicology” [8], making it clear that the decision came from the highest level, the publishing giant that describes itself as “a global company employing more than 7,000 people in 24 countries,” and “partner with a global community of 7,000 journal editors” [9].

Elsevier is already notorious for having published 6 fake journals sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies made to look like peer reviewed medical journals [10]. It is also the target of a still current boycott initiated by eminent mathematician, Sir Tim Gowers FRS, as a protest by academics against the business practices of Elsevier, especially the high prices it charges for journals and books [11]. So far, 13 974 people from all subjects have signed and pledged they will not publish, referee, or do editorial work with Elsevier [12].

Séralini’s team is standing firm against the retraction, and would resort to legal measures against the journal to protect their rights [5].

The journal and its publisher are operating a double standard in retracting a paper reporting adverse health impacts for which no fraud or error was found, as opposed to one claiming no health impacts where serious error at least is involved. This is not just a blatant violation of publishing ethics, it means conspiring to remove from the public record results that could be of great importance for public health. Furthermore, it is an abuse of science and amounts to corporate terrorism on independent science and scientists. It strikes at the very heart of science and democracy, and the aspiration of scientists to work for the public good.

That is why a group of scientists have drafted an open letter requesting a reversal of the retraction and a fulsome public apology to the authors. Until this is done, we will boycott Elsevier, decline to purchase Elsevier products, submit papers for publication, review papers or do editorial work for Elsevier [13] Open Letter on Retraction & Pledge to Boycott Elsevier. The letter is open for signing by both scientists and non-scientists. Please sign on and forward as widely as possible.

Sources

1. Séralini G-E, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois J-S. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and Chemical Toxicology published online September 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005

2. Saunders PT and Ho MW. GM cancer warning can no longer be ignored. Science in Society 56, 2-4, 2012.

3. Ho MW and Sirinathsinghji E. Ban GMOs Now, ISIS, 2013, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Ban_GMOs_Now_-_Special_ISIS_Report.php

4. “Journal retraction of Seralini study is illicit, unscientific, and unethical”. Claire Robinson, GMWatch, 27 November 2013,

5. “FCT requests the retraction of Prof Seralini’study”, Frédérique Baudouin, CRIIGEN, 29 November 2013,

6. Séralini G-E, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois J-S. Answers to critics: why there is a long term toxicity due to NK603 Roundup-tolerant genetically modi?ed maize and to a Roundup herbicide. Food and Chem. Tox. 2013, 53, 461-8.

7. Saunders PT. Excess cancers and death, the stats stand up. Science in Society 56, 4-5, 2013.

8. “Elsevier announces article retraction from journal Food and Chemical Toxicology”, PRNewswire, 28 November 2013,

9. At a glance. Elsevier, accessed 2 December 2013, http://www.elsevier.com/about/at-a-glance

10. “Elsevier published 6 fake journals”, Bob Grant, TheScientist, 7 May 2009,

11. “Elsevier boycott gathers pace”, John Whitfield, Nature news, 9 February 2012,

12. The cost of knowledge, 13970 researchers taking a stand, accessed 2 December 2013, http://thecostofknowledge.com/

13. Open letter on retraction & pledge to boycott Elsevier. Science in Society 61 (to appear).

Tagged elsevier retracts gmo study, elsevier retracts séralini study, genetic engineering, glyphosate, glyphosate study retracted, gmo, gmo study retracted, pseudo-science, publisher retracts glyphosate study, publisher retracts gmo study, publisher retracts roundup study, roundup, roundup study retracted, science, séralini, séralini study, séralini study retracted

by Heidi Stevenson

One of the most devastating classes of drugs ever developed is antidepressant SSRIs, selective serotonin receptor inhibitors. Not only can they destroy your own life, but they can also turn you into a murderer. Now, the FDA has approved Brintellix, which may prove to be the worst of them all.

In a press release by pharmaceutical company Lundbeck, the developer of Brintellix^[1], it’s admitted that the cause of depression is unknown. Nonetheless, they cavalierly play with brain chemistry about which they know very little. Making this particular drug potentially even worse than any other SSRI is that it doesn’t limit itself to one or two pathways in the brain. It manipulates a total of 6 receptors!

Although Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Lundbeck, the US distributors, are expecting Brintellix to become a blockbuster drug, the hyped studies that appear to demonstrate both efficacy and safety are far from the full story. In fact, some studies have shown no benefit over placebo whatsoever.^[2] It’s apparent from their approval announcement that the FDA did not take studies with negative results into account. They referred to only 6 studies, which the agency states, “demonstrated that Brintellix is effective in treating depression”.^[3]

SSRIs

SSRIs do not work as claimed. They interfere with normal brain functioning. They don’t stop depression. Instead, they stop the ability to feel emotions. They result in emotional flatness. Some people may find that beneficial, something of a time-out. But it never resolves the problems that lead to depression, and even interferes with resolution. How can anyone resolve a problem when a drug interferes with their ability to even know that it’s there?

All SSRIs do the same thing. They prevent serotonin, also called 5-HT, from being reabsorbed, as their name, selective “serotonin reuptake inhibitors”, indicates. That hasn’t turned out well. These drugs are now known to cause previously nonsuicidal people to take their own lives without warning. They have also made many people violent and are associated with almost all school shootings.

There is little reason to believe that Brintellix will be more effective than other SSRI antidepressants. In fact, the more SSRIs manage to shut down serotonin production, the more harm they do. The brain works to counter the effect. As Dr. Peter Brennan notes, it can result in permanent brain damage.^[4]

In fact, the Los Angeles Time reported that Dr. Michael Thase, a Brintellix development consultant, stated:

It is different enough from the welter of SSRIs currently available that it’s not simply a ‘me too’ drug.^[5]

That’s likely true, but does that make it better?

Brintellix May Be Even Worse

Inexplicable violence, turned both inward and outward, is the result of SSRIs causing a single change to brain function. Brintellix will cause several changes! These changes involve the handling of glutamate, which is a critical amino acid that’s required for brain function and cellular metabolism. Glutamate is necessary—at proper levels, in the right places, and at the right times—for learning, remembering, thinking, and emotions. It’s also involved in energy production throughout the body.

Glutamate excites neural function. Too much glutamate can burn nerves out and too little keeps them from functioning properly. Not only does Brintellix manipulate 5-HT (serotonin), like all other SSRIs, it also manipulates glutamate in several neural receptors:

• 5-HT1A: Agonist
• 5-HT1B: Partial Agonist
• 5-HT3: Antagonist
• 5-HT1D: Antagonist
• 5-HT7: Antagonist

Note: An agonist triggers a response from a cell. An antagonist does the opposite. It blocks a cell’s response.

Does anyone really know what the effects of this manipulation of neural transmission will be?

No. Here is what the manufacturer’s press release announcing Brintellix’s approval says about it:

The contribution of each of these activities to Brintellix’s antidepressant effect has not been established. It is considered to be the first and only compound with this combination of pharmacodynamic activity. The clinical relevance of this is unknown.

Let’s look at that again:

No one knows what relationship exists between any of these neural receptors and Brintellix’s effect.

No one knows what these manipulations of the brain will do to the body, intelligence, emotional state, sexuality, criminality, empathy, or anything else.

Nearly all the effects of Brintellix are unknown.

How Much Harm?

Like so many drugs, Brintellix is being rolled out as safe. Like others, that safety is based on a very slim thread: short term studies, which evade the risks. The existing studies produced by Lundbeck are short term, and many adverse effects take time to be seen. They’re also based on a small number of subjects. Most severe adverse effects don’t show up in such studies.

At this point, the list of adverse effects is both brief and appears to be fairly minor. Medscape^[6] reports the following adverse effects, followed by the percentage who suffered it:

• Nausea: 21-32%
• Diarrhea: 7-10%
• Dizziness: 6-9%
• Dry mouth: 6-8%
• Constipation: 3-6%
• Vomiting: 3-6%
• Flatulence: 1-3%
• Pruritus: 1-3%
• Abnormal Dreams: Less than 1-3%

These adverse effects are not as innocent as they first appear. Notice that as many as a third of the subjects suffered from nausea, and other gastrointestinal effects were not unusual. This is a red flag that there may be a dangerous adverse effect on the digestive tract that doesn’t show up quickly—not something to take lightly.

Dizziness and abnormal dreams are indicative of very serious harmful neurological effects. Pruritus is a neurologically-induced extreme urge to scratch an itch. This symptom is also indicative of neurological damage. Even at this early stage, the adverse effects point to the potential of severe and dangerous, potentially deadly, reactions.

The history of all other SSRIs, which interfere with only one specific function, has been dismal. Is there any reason to expect Brintellix to be different? The studies certainly aren’t more extensive than they’ve been with other SSRIs, so the reality is that, as usual, the people whose doctors prescribe it will be the guinea pigs.

If your doctor tries to prescribe Brintellix, perhaps the correct response should be, “Oink!”

Even Big Pharma’s faithful lapdog called the FDA has acknowledged some risk. They’re requiring a boxed warning that people younger than 24 years are at risk of developing suicidal thoughts. This, of course, is meaningless. All SSRIs carry that warning, and it certainly doesn’t seem to have reduced prescription levels!

SSRI = Killer

As the FDA admits, all SSRI drugs are known to be killers, and worse than most drugs, they can result in the deaths of people who don’t even take them! They are implicated in virtually all the school shootings. That’s a lot of carnage.

Brintellix is an SSRI. Is there any reason to believe that it will produce less harm than other SSRIs? In fact, there is every reason to suspect the opposite.

By its developer’s own admission, no one knows what effects are produced by 5 of the 6 functions Brintellix was designed to cause. But we do know that the 6^th function, serotonin/5-HT reuptake inhibition, is a killer. All of the other 5 functions interfere with normal brain activity—and the manufacturer admits that no one knows what those effects will be!

What more do you need to know?

Sources:

1. Takeda and Lundbeck announce FDA approval of Brintellix™ (vortioxetine) for treatment of adults with major depressive disorder. Lundbeck’s Brintellix press release.
2. Antidepressant – vortioxetine. Manufacturer’s Chemist’s review of Brintellix.
3. FDA approves new drug to treat major depressive disorder. FDA’s Brintellix approval announcement.
4. Psychiatric drug-induced Chronic Brain Impairment (CBI): Implications for longterm treatment with psychiatric medication; International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine; DOI 10.3233/JRS-2011-0542.
5. FDA approves a new antidepressant: Brintellix; Los Angeles Times.
6. Vortioxetine Adverse Effects; Medscape Reference.
7. Vortioxetine (Lu AA21004) hydrobromide.
8. Glutamate.
9. Glutamate benefit and side effects, risk and danger.
10. Vortioxetine: A New Antidepressant Choice in the United States

Tagged big pharma, big pharma brintellix, big pharma’s faithful lapdog, brintellix 5-ht1a, brintellix 5-ht1b, brintellix 5-ht1d, brintellix 5-ht3, brintellix 5-ht7, brintellix adverse effects, brintellix lundbeck, brintellix may be a killer, brintellix ssri, brintellix takeda, fda, glutamate brintellix, glutamate excite, lundbeck takeda, serotonin 5-ht, ssri = killer, ssri emotional flatness, ssri interfere with normal brain function, ssri murderer, ssri suicide, vortioxetine adverse effects

Influenza vaccines are killers, life destroyers, and provide little or no benefit. The evidence is clear. A report published in the BMJ clarifies how these facts are ignored by health agencies. To get around them, they simply push fear of disease well past the point of absurdity. But the CDC and other health agencies have no other way to sell the unsellable.

by Heidi Stevenson

The British Medical Journal (BMJ), one of the world’s most highly revered scientific medical publications, has published an article that condemns influenza vaccines and their marketing. The last sentence reads:

It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t.^[1]

Influenza vaccines don’t work as advertised. Nonetheless, they’re heavily marketed by governmental agencies through one consistent tactic: fear. Dr. Doshi describes how influenza vaccinations are sold:

[I]nfluenza is a serious disease, we are all at risk of complications from influenza, the flu shot is virtually risk free, and vaccination saves lives.

In other words, he’s saying that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), which supposedly exists for the benefit of the people’s health, is selling influenza vaccines by trying to scare people into it. It’s pure fear mongering and as we’ll see later, outright lies, to market flu vaccines. He goes on to state that looking through the CDC’s vaccine-marketing lens gives the impression that:

… the lack of influenza vaccine availability for all 315 million US citizens seems to border on the unethical. Yet across the country, mandatory influenza vaccination policies have cropped up, particularly in healthcare facilities, precisely because not everyone wants the vaccination, and compulsion appears the only way to achieve high vaccination rates.

Dr. Doshi is telling us that a combination of fear mongering and force are now being used to compel people to accept forced drugging by vaccination. Then, he states:

Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims.

The science supporting influenza vaccines is poor. Surely the CDC must know this. After all, it’s their job to know! So, the fact that they use junk science to support a massive program of vaccination clearly demonstrates an utter lack of faith towards the people. There can be no explanation for this dereliction of duty other than having sold out to the manufacturers and the medical system itself.

By the way, those quotes all comes from the first paragraph of Dr. Doshi’s report. Because they’re all provocative statements, it’s imperative that he support them—and that he does, with clarity and force.

Who’s at risk?

When the flu vaccine was originally recommended in the United States in 1960, only adults age 65 or older were considered at risk if they got the flu. Now, the CDC calls for everyone age 6 months or more is considered “at risk”. If the CDC is believed, then the entire population is now as weak as only those over 65 were about 50 years ago.

Does the influenza vaccine save lives?

The CDC wants us all to believe that flu vaccines save lives. However, as Dr. Doshi points out, the evidence does not support the claim. The so-called evidence cited by the CDC consistently contains flaws so severe that they should be discounted completely. He points out one study that appears to show a huge improvement in the odds of death from influenza. But, the study was done outside the influenza season, a time that he refers to as, “when it is hard to imagine the vaccine could bring any benefit.” Even the authors found the results implausible, stating that their result:

… is simply implausible, and likely the product of the “healthy-user effect”.

Dr. Doshi points out that this same bias is present in many studies. Further, he points out that the CDC itself acknowledges this particular bias in studies. Of course, they buried the admission deep inside a 68 page document:

These studies have been challenged because of concerns that they have not controlled adequately for differences in the propensity for healthier persons to be more likely than less healthy persons to receive vaccination.^[2]

This point is only one flaw in the studies cited by the CDC. Also significant is that the CDC completely ignores studies that do not support their chosen vaccination program. They do not admit that the evidence simply does not support their claim that lives are saved.

Is the flu vaccine safe?

The CDC claims that the influenza vaccine is safe. The reality has proven to be the complete opposite. The National Institutes for Health (NIH) actively promoted a video by their director, Anthony S. Fauci, in which he claims:

[T]he track record [of the H1N1 vaccine] for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event.

This same swine flu vaccine resulted in these massive adverse effects:

• It was suspended by Australia in children under 5 years because of febrile convulsions. 1 in 110 children were affected.
• It caused narcolepsy, a life-devastating neurological illness, in hundreds of adolescents in Europe. 1 in 55,000 adolescents lost their futures to narcolepsy as a direct result of this vaccine.^[3]
• Just recently, the UK has admitted that it caused narcolepsy.^[4]

Yet the CDC continues claiming that these vaccines are safe!

Have influenza vaccines reduced mortality?

Vaccine-choice advocates have been pointing out that vaccination has not affected mortality rates from other diseases. Dr. Doshi makes exactly the same point about influenza vaccines, and provides a graph that clearly illustrates the point.

As you can see, it’s obvious that any benefit has been, at best, minimal, making a mockery of the CDC’s claims that thousands die from influenza every year.

How much flu is genuine influenza?

Dr. Doshi is particularly troubled by the abuse of terminology. He states:

But perhaps the cleverest aspect of the influenza marketing strategy surrounds the claim that “flu” and “influenza” are the same. The distinction seems subtle, and purely semantic. But general lack of awareness of the difference might be the primary reason few people realize that even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the “flu” problem because most “flu” appears to have nothing to do with influenza.

He focuses on the distinction between real influenza and influenza-like illness. People often say that they have “the flu”, when they really don’t. Doctors often diagnose “the flu” when their patients don’t have it.

The fact is that most cases of “flu” aren’t. They’re actually influenza-like diseases, and there are many of them.

This graph documents how few people who’ve been diagnosed with influenza actually have it. This is one of the sneakiest tricks used by the CDC, NIH, and such agencies all over the world.

They give the impression that influenza is a far more common disease than it is. That, in turn, is used to drum up yet more fear to sell vaccines.

Is this a legitimate review?

With so much junk science being passed off for the purpose of selling products, it’s always a fair question to ask if the authors are legit. In this case, of course, the question is a bit different. Why would this author write this paper?

Dr. Peter Doshi is a post-doctoral fellow at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, which is generally considered to be one of the world’s finest. His career is ahead of him, but this paper may have derailed it. We’ve seen what’s been done to the career of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who was already a world-renowned researcher with impeccable credentials. Dr. Doshi cannot be unaware of that, so the only conclusion to be drawn is that he feels conscience-bound to tell the truth and to inform people of the fact that influenza vaccines are both dangerous and, if not entirely ineffective, certainly they provide only minuscule benefit.

Dr. Doshi has eviscerated both the claims in support of influenza vaccination and the inherent character of our health regulatory agencies. So, will we see any change in the health regulation agencies’ push to vaccinate every human and animal on the face of the earth?

Not a chance. The CDC and virtually all the other so-called health agencies ceased to be protectors of people’s health decades ago, and likely never were. They are nothing but a marketing front for Big Pharma and Big Medicine.

Sources:

1. Influenza: marketing vaccine by marketing disease; British Medical Journal; Peter Doshi; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3037.
2. Prevention and control of influenza with vaccines: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), 2010.
3. Swine Flu Vaccine Caused Narcolepsy in Thousands: BMJ Claim
4. U.K. gov makes U-turn on link between GSK vaccine and narcolepsy

You’ve heard that a swine flu vaccine causes narcolepsy, but do you know why? Here’s the explanation of what is causing it and why it’s happening. The worst part, though, is that narcolepsy is likely just the beginning.

by Heidi Stevenson

Recent horrifying news has shown that influenza vaccinations in Sweden and Finland cause narcolepsy in children. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control has done an in-depth and very cautious study of the outbreak and reports that it is, indeed, a result of the vaccine.

Two factors are significant in explaining why these two countries had such serious outbreaks of narcolepsy. One is that their vaccination coverage in children was exceptionally high—significantly higher, in fact, than for any other European country. The other is that the brand used was Pandemrix, made by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

Narcolepsy is an autoimmune disorder. It’s caused when the immune system turns on hypothalamus cells that excrete the hormone hypocretin, which helps control wakefulness and sleep.

Pandemrix contains the adjuvant AS03. The active ingredient in AS03 is squalene. It is known to cause autoimmune disorders when injected.

Squalene

Squalene sounds innocuous, and therein lies its danger. You can eat it with no harm resulting. You can slather it on your skin with good effect. It acts as an antioxidant and is a precursor to another critical substance, cholesterol. It may even help prevent cancer.

Squalene is found in many foods, including super-healthy olive and palm oils, amaranth, and shark liver oil. However, it is this friendliness that makes it so dangerous when injected.

That vaccines are injected is no accident. The act of injection is an injury, and the body responds to injuries rapidly, both to heal and to address foreign substances. The problem is that virtually anything injected can be seen as a foreign substance, including things that are normally found in the body.

The very fact that squalene is a normal body substance is the problem. By injecting it, the immune system sees it as an enemy and treats it as an antigen. Therefore, squalene can trigger a process that results in creating antibodies to it.

When the immune system creates antibodies to a substance that normally exists in the body, that substance will be attacked and destroyed. That is the definition of an autoimmune disease. Squalene is seen as the enemy, but this enemy exists throughout the body and is a critical component involved in many functions.

That the particular effect of narcolepsy in children would be the first autoimmune disorder noted as a result of its injection with the swine flu vaccine wasn’t predictable. However, the fact that there is an autoimmune disorder should not be a surprise. It was a virtual certainty. The only real question now is just how much more autoimmune disease will be seen.

A Macchiavellian Approach to Vaccines

In Gary Matsumoto’s book,Vaccine A, on the autoimmune diseases caused by injection of squalene with an experimental anthrax vaccine during the first Gulf War, a compelling tale is told of both the devastation wrought on unwitting soldiers and the Macchiavellian thinking that went into it.

The dangers of squalene are well known. In fact, they’ve been known for decades, ever since Freund’s adjuvant was developed.

An adjuvant’s purpose in a vaccine is to increase the activity of the immune system so that a strong enough response to a weak antigen can be developed, thus creating antibodies to the antigen. Freund’s adjuvant is highly effective at doing that. However, it’s also highly effective at causing antibodies to be created against itself. The problem is that the primary ingredient of Freund’s is an oil that’s also found in the human body. As a result, a large and terrible array of autoimmune disorders can result, including rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, allergic aspermatogenesis (blocking sperm formation, resulting in sterility), allergic neuritis, and allergic uveitis (resulting in blindness).

Therefore, it was quickly realized that Freund’s adjuvant had only one valid purpose: the creation of autoimmune disorders in animals so that they can be used in laboratory testing. This is, in fact, how autoimmune disorders are routinely created to study methods of treatment. However, the misery and suffering that animals undergo has also resulted in recognition that it’s unacceptable cruelty to put them through it—though it continues to happen.

The fact that it’s an oil like much of what’s found in the body is what makes Freund’s so devastating. Squalene is also an oil. In early testing, squalene was found, like Freund’s, to be exceptionally good at triggering an immune response. However, just as Freund’s also proved to trigger the development of antibodies to itself, so did squalene. In fact, it may even be more dangerous than Freund’s!

However, there is a significant problem in vaccine development, and this problem is overcome through the use of a strong adjuvant. Aluminum has been used for decades, but cannot compare with the action of squalene, or of Freund’s, for that matter. Until the last few years, all vaccinations were made from either killed bacteria or viruses, or from live attenuated (weakened) ones. Both approaches, though, are time consuming, expensive, and risky, making vaccines a less-than-effective method of making profits.

Recombinant DNA technology—genetic engineering—changed that picture dramatically. By using it, massive amounts of antigens could be created both quickly and cheaply. Instead of using entire viruses or bacteria as antigens, just bits of them could be used. The disadvantage, though, was that these vaccines tend to be ineffective. Therefore, they require strong adjuvants. But there aren’t many available. Freund’s is not allowed. Aluminum works, but not well enough for most of this technology. The only thing that works and is allowed is squalene.

Therefore, Big Pharma wants squalene. And that’s why it was used in the swine flu vaccines, GSK’s Pandemrix and Novatis’ Focetria. Pandemrix is the one that was used in Sweden and Finland. On top of that, those two countries had high rates of coverage among children—significantly more than other European nations.

Gulf War Syndrome

The result of squalene in Pandemrix is now known, an epidemic of the autoimmune disorder narcolepsy in children. However, we must ask whether this is merely the first round of autoimmune diseases that these children will be suffering. Autoimmune disorders can take time to manifest.

In the aftermath of the Gulf War, a new and devastating syndrome developed among huge numbers, possibly tens of thousands, of American and British soldiers, including those who deployed to Iraq and those who remained stateside. Many fell ill rapidly, but symptoms developed over years. As described in Vaccine A, these autoimmune disorders were devastating. Lupus erythematosus, which is a system-wide attack of connective tissues such as the skin, was a focus. In one case described by Matsumoto, the young man died because his own skin was seen as the enemy and attacked to the point that virtually none was left. Another young man’s cerebellum, the part of the brain that controls muscles was attacked by his autoimmune system, causing it to shrink drastically, with associated loss of his ability to function. These, though, were not the only problems or diagnoses, but they all had one thing in common: they were the result of the autoimmune system attacking squalene-like particles in the body.

Pandemrix contains squalene. We now know that it has caused an outbreak of narcolepsy in Sweden and Finland, the likes of which has never before been seen. Where will it end? What other disorders could develop? What will become of the children given this devasatingly poisonous substance?

We don’t know. The only thing that’s sure is that we will find out—just as we have learned with Gulf War Syndrome. Governments, Big Pharma, and Big Medicine will surely try to cover it up, just as they are still doing with Gulf War Syndrome. But the truth will eventually come out. The only questions are the exact form of autoimmune dysfunction and how many people’s lives will be devastated.

Sources:

• Narcolepsy in association with pandemic influenza vaccination, A multi-country European epidemiological investigation
• Narcolepsy Is An Autoimmune Disorder, New Research Shows
• The hypocretin/orexin system
• History of Narcolepsy
• Statins Inhibit Squalene Synthesis
• Histological and histochemical Studies of H1N1 Vaccine on Testes of Adult Male Albino Rats
• Vaccine A, Gary Matsumoto, pub. Basic Books, Perseus Book Group, 2004. ISBN 0-465-04400-X

Tagged big pharma, big pharma vaccine, genetically engineered vaccine, gm vaccine, gmo, gsk pandemrix, matsumoto vaccine a, narcolepsy autoimmune disorder, narcolepsy gsk, narcolepsy pandemrix, narcolepsy vaccine, squalene narcolepsy, squalene pandemrix, squalene vaccine, swine flu vaccine narcolepsy, vaccine, vaccines

A new study clarifies that statins are the greatest medical fraud of all time. The claims made for them are false. The amount of harm they do is staggering, resulting in millions of lives devastated and ended. The worst part of all, though, is that it was entirely predictable—but studies were designed to hide the truth. The media, the health agencies, and the doctors all provided cover for Big Pharma. After all, there was money to be made.

by Heidi Stevenson

Statins are one of the most dangerous drugs prescribed by doctors. The risks from them were obvious before they were ever marketed. Nonetheless, they are among the best selling drugs of all time. Finally, genuine science has been looking at their adverse effects and lack of benefit to document the truth that was obvious from the beginning:

Statins are the greatest medical fraud ever perpetrated.

A new review of the science reports:

The statin industry, with all of its spin-off(s), is a 20-billion-a-year industry. We are observing the revealing of the utmost medical tragedy of all times. It is unprecedented that the healthcare industry has inadvertently induced life-threatening nutrient deficiency in millions of otherwise healthy people.^[1]

The only point on which I can disagree is the statement that the travesty of statins was somehow “inadvertent”. There is, in fact, absolutely no excuse for it.

The authors of the study, Sherif Sultan and Niamh Hynes, have produced a paper that is utterly condemnatory of the use of statins. Not only do they condemn the drugs, they also condemn the pseudo science behind it. Though they don’t state it, and obviously could not take such a risk, there is simply no way around the fact that the science behind statins has been largely fraudulent, and that fraud has been perpetrated by Big Pharma.

So what did the study actually say?

Sultan and Hynes reviewed a large number of studies, using Pubmed, EM-BASE, and Cochrane review databases to find them. They focused primarily on clinical reviews, meta-analyses, and large-scale randomised controlled trials. The entire list of studies they selected is included in their paper, which you can read because it isn’t hidden behind a pay wall.

They stated:

We seem to have fallen into the marketing trap and ignored the niggling side effects with regard to the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors

The “we” the authors referred to was the medical industry. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors are statins. Their function is to interfere with HMG-CoA, which is a molecule that’s a precursor to cholesterol. Of course, the purpose of a statin is to reduce cholesterol, which they do accomplish.

So what’s the problem? As the authors state:

Cholesterol is crucial for energy, immunity, fat metabolism, leptin, thyroid hormone activity, liver related synthesis, stress intolerance, adrenal function, sex hormone
syntheses and brain function.

Cholesterol is a primary requirement for an enormous array of absolutely critical functions in the body. Obviously, if cholesterol is reduced, then health must be harmed:

• Energy levels must be reduced.
• There must be interference with fat metabolism.
• The thyroid must not be able to function properly.
• Our ability to deal with stress is stressed.
• The adrenal glands’ functions must be damaged.
• Sexual function and reproductive ability must suffer.
• Our brain must be damaged, which can mean any part of our existence may be harmed, including mental functioning, autonomic processes, coordination, and every other function, including the heart.

There is simply no excuse for not recognizing that not only is there an obvious risk inherent in statins, but that it would be stunning if they didn’t produce harm.

The Benefit of Statins

In terms of benefit, the authors noted that the only people who are helped at all are middle aged men who have already suffered heart attacks. (Readers of Gaia Health will be familiar with this fact, as it’s been stated here many times.) And that benefit is minimal. In fact, the authors point out that statins produce less benefit for these men than aspirin. Please note that Gaia Health does not support aspirin as a treatment for heart disease, either.

In effect, statins produce not one whit of benefit to anyone in any manner.

The Adverse Effects of Statins

The authors found that, for every 10,000 individuals in good health who take statins:

• 307 extra patients suffer from cataracts.
• 23 additional patients develop acute kidney failure.
• 74 extra patients develop liver dysfunction.
• Statins increase muscle fatigue by 30% and cause an 11.3% incidence of rhabdomyolysis at high doses.
• They also state, “What’s more, it induces inflammatory myopathy, including necrotizing autoimmune myopathy with immunosuppression and the statin-related myopathy can last for 12 months.”

They also point out that statins cause erectile dysfunction, and that young men suffer 10 times as much erectile dysfunction on low doses of statins. Beyond all these adverse effects:

• According to the FDA’s adverse event reporting system, about 40 out of every 10,000 statin reports are for interstitial lung disease, which causes scarring in the lungs that is almost never reversible.
• Statins cause hyperglycemia after eating in both diabetics and nondiabetics.
• Statins “induce full blown type 2 diabetes in women.”
• Statins increase the risk of developing HbA1c in people with and without diabetes. HbA1c is a condition that causes glucose to stick to hemoglobin, which is an indicator of greater harm from diabetes.
• Statins prescribed to the elderly cause a 9% increase in diabetes.
• Statins can cause insulin resistance.
• A correlation between Parkinson’s disease and low cholesterol exists, which clearly implicates statins.
• A correlation between statins and early-onset cataracts has been found. Statin users may be 50% more likely to develop cataracts early.

Here’s the most shocking health risk of statins:

[S]tatin use is associated with an increased prevalence and extent of coronary plaques calcification. Ironically for a drug which was marketed to lower the risk of cardiovascular disease, the confirm registry identified a strong association of statin use to the progression of coronary artery plaque features.

This isn’t simply irony. Statins increase the harm that they are supposedly meant to decrease!

In relation to this particular heart risk, the authors also found that:

Statin use was correlated with a greater incidence of severe coronary artery stenosis as well as increase in the numbers of coronary vessels developing obstructive coronary artery disease. Furthermore, statin use was linked to an increase in the prevalence and extent of mixed calcific plaque. Five prospective studies have borne witness to the fact that statin therapy does not induce any coronary calcium regression and evolution of
coronary calcium continues regardless of statin treatment

That is, statins increase the narrowing of coronary arteries, which can only increase the chance of heart attacks. They increase the development of obstructive coronary artery disease. Statins may increase calcium-related arterial plaques.

Statins also produce a significant increase in the risk of cancer and neurodegenerative dysfunction in the elderly.

The authors point out even more than this—but just how much more do you need to know? Statins are health destroyers.

Intentionally Hiding the Facts

The study points out that statins may increase the risk for nonmelanoma skin cancers by 1.6 times. The authors then state:

For unknown reasons, since these publications the squamous cell carcinoma has been excluded in all reports from subsequent statin trials.

Is there any way to interpret that other than that the statin industry does not want there to be more evidence that statins cause skin cancer?

The authors referenced studies that had claimed to demonstrate benefits from statins. However, when they were reanalyzed by independent scientists—that is, scientists who genuinely didn’t have ties to Big Pharma—they found that the claimed results were false. The studies actually showed that statins produced no benefit and a great deal of harm.

Cohorts in Crime

It’s bad enough that Big Pharma produces studies that can only be called junk science to give an impression that statins are effective and safe. It’s obviously fraudulent, and all those who have willingly taken part in such studies—whether by paying for them or doing them—should be prosecuted criminally. There is simply no way to get around the fact that, at the very least, many of these people are guilty of negligent homicide by providing false evidence of both efficacy and safety.

News Media

The news industry has also been guilty, as this study was published over two months ago, yet there’s been virtually no coverage by the mainstream media. This is news that could save the lives of millions of people, yet the mainstream media hasn’t bothered with it. Clearly, their interests are not in real news, but are in their owners’ financial interests. Every mainstream media corporation in the United States is owned by another corporation that also owns at least one major pharmaceutical corporation or is controlled by someone with heavy interests in them. For example:

• News Corporation owns Viacom.
• Ropert Murdoch founded News Corporation.
• Murdoch sits on the board of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

If that weren’t enough, consider also that the pharmaceutical industry is, by far, the biggest advertiser on mainstream media. To suggest that the news media hasn’t also been complicit is either naive or intentionally misleading. The mainstream news media has clearly determined that their duty, to provide information that the public needs, is not their concern.

Health Agencies

The agencies that are supposed to protect us from harmful health products, such as the FDA, the CDC, and the NIH, have all been complicit in the promotion of statins. Even now, the CDC strongly recommends the use of statins. The FDA does nothing more than add warnings to the package inserts of statins, an utterly meaningless endeavor that has never been shown to have any significant effect on sales of drugs. The NIH states, “Statins are relatively safe for most people.”

It’s obvious that our health agencies are acting almost exclusively as marketing agents for Big Pharma.

Doctors

Last, but certainly not least, are the doctors who prescribe statins. They tend to argue that it’s not their fault, that they can only go by the studies. But the reality is that it’s their job to stand between their patients and dangerous drugs. If they are unable or unwilling to do their jobs—which is clearly the case for any of them who prescribe statins without informing their patients of the risks and almost complete lack of benefit—then they are no different than those who produce pseudo science, junk science, or outright fraudulent science to support these poisons. At a minimum, they are guilty of failing in their duty to their patients. They may also be guilty of negligent homicide for any patient who dies as a result of their lack of diligence.

The Greatest Medical Fraud of All Time

Statins are the greatest medical fraud of all time. It had to be known from the very beginning that they would likely produce a great deal of harm. As the authors point out, statins interfere with the production of cholesterol, thus producing deficits in metabolic functions that are necessary for life.

There is, therefore, no excuse for doctors not to know.

There is no excuse for the news media not to do the research that would have shown them the fraud being perpetrated.

There is no excuse for the health agencies that approved statins or the ones that promote them. They had to have the relevant information.

And finally, there is no excuse for the doctors, because they should have known. If they didn’t, then they were derelict in their duty.

Everyone involved in the development, marketing, approval, promotion, and prescription of statins is guilty of perpetrating the greatest medical fraud of all time. Tallying up the death toll is most likely impossible, but there can be little doubt that the numbers run into multiple millions.

Please forward this article to anyone you know who is taking statins or considering it. They have a right to know the truth—and that truth is not being told by any doctor who prescribes them.

Source:

1. The Ugly Side of Statins. Systemic Appraisal of the Contemporary Un-Known Unknowns; Journal of Endocrine and Metabolic Diseases; Sherif Sultan and Niamh Hynes; doi:10.4236/ojemd.2013.33025.

by Jeffry John Aufderheide

first published in VacTruth under the title New Minnesota States Law Bans Cancer-Causing Formaldehyde in Children’s Products, Stays in Vaccines

Lawmakers in the state of Minnesota have decided formaldehyde, a known cancer-causing agent, is too dangerous for children’s products. According to section 325F.175 of HF458, products containing formaldehyde are banned from being sold starting August 1st, 2014, for manufacturers and August 1st, 2015, for retailers.^[1]

Finally, an answer to one of the many toxic ingredients being injected into your child?

Not so fast.

At first blush, it appears Minnesota is addressing at least one of the many toxic chemicals found in vaccines. However, a carefully crafted paragraph creates a loophole for excluding vaccines from this ban.

The Pharmaceutical Loophole

So, how is formaldehyde banned in toys and clothes but permitted to still be in vaccines? The new Minnesota state law exempts vaccines through this passage in a section entitled “[325F.174] DEFINITIONS.” It reads:

(c) “Children’s product” means a product primarily designed or intended by a manufacturer to be physically applied to or introduced into a child’s body, including any article used as a component of such a product and excluding a food, beverage, dietary supplement, pharmaceutical product or biologic, children’s toys that are covered by the ASTM International F963 standard for Toy Safety, or a medical device as defined in the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, United States Code, title 21, section 321(h), as amended through February 15, 2013. ^[1] [emphasis mine]

Frankly, I’m puzzled. Lawmakers don’t want your child to play with or put into their mouth products containing formaldehyde, but if your doctor injects it into your baby, it is perfectly fine?

Let’s Look at Which Vaccines Contain Formaldehyde

You may be asking, “Why is there formaldehyde in vaccines?”

The very short answer is this chemical has been used for over half a century in the vaccine manufacturing process. It was originally used as an attempt to inactivate the poliovirus in the first vaccines produced by Jonas Salk in the late 1940s and early 1950s,^[2]

After the polio vaccine, formaldehyde was heavily used in manufacturing pediatric vaccines.

To see how many vaccines contain this cancer-causing chemical today, let’s take a look at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia website. The formaldehyde content of vaccines licensed for use in the United States (quantity per dose converted from mg to mcg):^[3]

Trade Name: Quantity (per dose)

• Td / DT: ≤ 20 mcg – 100 mcg
• Daptacel: ≤ 100 mcg
• Infanrix: ≤ 100 mcg
• Tripedia: ≤ 100 mcg
• Pediarix: ≤ 100 mcg
• Havrix: ≤ 50 mcg (pediatric)
• Vaqta: 4 mcg (pediatric)
• Twinrix: ≤ 100 mcg
• Comvax: < 0.4 mcg
• IPOL: ≤20 mcg
• JE-Vax: < 200 mcg
• ADACEL: < 5 mcg
• Boostrix: < 100 mcg
• Fluarix: ≤ 5 mcg
• FluLaval: < 25 mcg
• Fluzone – intradermal: < 20 mcg

Get a closer look at the vaccine schedule to see how much formaldehyde will be injected into your child.

What Do The Experts Say?

There seem to be conflicting views as to how safe formaldehyde really is. On the one hand, research on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) website cautions us by saying:

Formaldehyde can damage cells by binding to DNA and thereby forming formaldehyde-DNA adducts; this process may interfere with accurate DNA replication and lead to mutations and cancerous tumors.^[4] [emphasis mine]

This should be extremely concerning for you because within every vaccine product insert is the following passage:

This vaccine has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic [cancer-causing] or mutagenic potentials or impairment of fertility.

Personally, I take this as a very serious warning, especially since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would be the ones making this evaluation.

The other side of the argument made by the FDA justifies formaldehyde in vaccines by stating:

The amount of formaldehyde present in some infant vaccines is so small compared to the concentration that occurs naturally in the body that it does not pose a safety concern, according to a study using a mathematical model developed by scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).^[5] [emphasis mine]

Did you catch it?

Please remember this point: The assumption being made is based on a mathematical model. FDA experts should be ready to meet higher standards, in my opinion. Maybe that is why the FDA plays hot potato when answering the question?

Here are 7 basic questions I think parents should be asking at this point:

1. Was a mathematical model the only criteria used to make the determination formaldehyde was safe to inject into babies?
2. Did they test on animals? If so, what are the results and where is the data?
3. What scientific measurements are used to measure harm on infants?
4. What tests can I ask my doctor about right now to see if formaldehyde injured my child?
5. Not every baby is the same and has the same metabolism. Did their mathematical model compensate for different genetics or did it assume all children are the same?
6. What considerations were given to repeatedly injecting this chemical into infants potentially sensitizing them and creating lifelong allergies to formaldehyde?
7. Many pharmacists recommend not mixing drugs and, after all, vaccines are drugs. What are the synergistic effects of having multiple vaccine and ingredients, like mercury or aluminum, injected into your baby at the same time?

Here is the fatal flaw. The pharmaceutical literature cautions arrogant scientists from making large assumptions with “harmless” ingredients and children.

Pharmaceutical products may contain, in addition to the active or therapeutic agent(s), a variety of other ingredients, termed inactive or inert, which are categorized as excipients or additives (flavorings, sweeteners, preservatives, stabilizers, diluents, lubricants, etc.). The words inert or inactive may be misnomers for some excipients because some have been shown to cause adverse effects. Neonates and young children are at risk for such effects because they may not be able to metabolize or eliminate an ingredient in a pharmaceutical product in the same manner as an adult. (pp. 344) [emphasis mine]

Swarbrick, James and Boylan, James C. Encyclopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology. Vol. 11. 1995. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Are you sure there isn’t a hidden agenda?

Get the full list of vaccine ingredients being injected into your child right now by clicking on this link.

Conclusion

If legislatures are concerned with your children wearing clothes or playing with toys containing formaldehyde, why give pharmaceutical products that are injected a free pass?

At the end of the day, government officials do not know your child’s name or face. They care about keeping their jobs and making sure they uphold the policies put in place. The simple truth is this: Vaccine manufacturers are protected by law if your child suffers from an adverse reaction.

Lastly, as a starting reference point, I recommend you read an older but brutally honest review of what happens when formaldehyde is injected into animals by Martin H. Fischer entitled The Toxic Effects of Formaldehyde and Formalin.^[6]

Sources:

1. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF458…
2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2537623/pdf/bullwho00525-0116.pdf
3. http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety…
4. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/2338
5. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm349473.htm
6. http://jem.rupress.org/content/6/4-6/487.full.pdf+html

by Heidi Stevenson

A new study, funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and performed by researchers who receive research funding from the pharmaceutical corporation MedImmune, came up with results in an influenza vaccination study that can only be called confounding. Their results seem to demonstrate that there is little or no correlation between flu vaccination status and confirmed influenza rates. Nonetheless, they conclude:

[A]bsence due to fever or cough illness may be a useful surrogate endpoint in school-based studies if identification of laboratory confirmed influenza is not feasible.

If that makes your mouth drop open and your head wobble back and forth, welcome to the real world! These scientists, whom we generally expect to use good logic, are stating that it’s okay to use fevers and coughs to determine whether flu vaccines are beneficial—though they found nothing to support the use of fevers or coughs as indications of influenza infection!

Some studies appear to demonstrate that high flu vaccination rates result in lower absenteeism in schools. However, they have never shown that the lowered rate of absenteeism is actually the result of fewer influenza infections. Whether absenteeism is a result of an illness similar to influenza or the real thing is rarely investigated. No study has, thus far, demonstrated that flu vaccines result in lower rates of absence as a result of influenza infections. A new study published in PLoS is no different, though they set out to produce:

… an observational pilot study to assess the feasibility of identifying absences due to laboratory-confirmed influenza in vaccinated and unvaccinated students, and to compare absenteeism due to fever or cough illness in schools with and without the school-based vaccination initiative.

So, these scientists set out to compare absenteeism between vaccinated and unvaccinated elementary school students, and apparently they figured they might as well also investigate whether testing for flu infections correlates to absenteeism or vaccination rates. They ended up with a big Oops! The results seemed to make little sense. But did that bother them? Apparently not.

It looks like they had a predetermined conclusion, and come hell or high water, they stuck with it. That’s not too surprising, since the study was wholly funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the two researchers who designed and controlled the study receive research funding from the influenza vaccine-producing pharmaceutical firm, MedImmune.

The Study

Titled Elementary School-Based Influenza Vaccination: Evaluating Impact on Respiratory Illness Absenteeism and Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza, the researchers examined the results of a Michigan school district’s influenza vaccine policies, which varied from school to school because of limited funding. They focused on the four elementary schools (through grade 6, about age 11/12 years). Two of them pushed a school-based flu vaccine delivery program, while the other two used a program that expects parents to obtain vaccinations.

Misleading Terminology

Oddly enough, they did not use the term “exposed” for exposure to an infectious agent. They used the term “exposed” to refer to children who were enrolled in the two schools that had a school-based flu vaccination program. So, children who were enrolled in the two schools that relied on parents to arrange for vaccinations were termed “non-exposed”.

There were 982 students in the “exposed” group and 658 in the “non-exposed” group.

Is this getting confusing? Perhaps that’s why they chose to use the terms exposed and non-exposed as names for the vaccination programs. So, to make it clearer:

• Exposed: Children who went to a school that vaccinated on-site will be referred to as the On-site vaccination group.
• Non-exposed: Children who went to a school that relied on parents to obtain vaccinations will be referred to as the Off-site vaccination group.

All tables reproduced here have changed “Exposed schools” to read “On-site vaccination”, and ”Non-exposed schools” to read “Off-site vaccination”. I hope this helps clarify the data presented.

Confounders

Usually, different schools serve different communities. The financial status, general health, race, and many other characteristics vary from school to school. These characteristics can easily affect the outcome of a study. There’s a term used for such things in research: confounders. Yet, the authors make no reference of any sort to any potentially confounding traits!

Incomplete Definitions of Terminology

A child was defined as vaccinated if 14 days had elapsed since receipt of the vaccination. Children under the age of 9 were defined as fully vaccinated if two or more doses had been received at any time. Children under age 9 who’d received only one flu vaccine were defined as partially vaccinated. In the exposed group, 52% were fully vaccinated; 28% were fully vaccinated in the non-exposed group. No information was given about how the vaccination status of children over age 9 was defined.

The study ran 12 weeks. The acronym FERPA refers to the Family Educational Rights and Protection Act and its requirements to properly inform trial subjects. The researchers say they adhered to FERPA regulations, and all indications appear to be that they did.

Vaccination Rates

Here is their table showing the percentages of vaccinated children in the on-site and off-site groups:

In the schools where vaccination took place on-site, 52.2% of the children were “fully vaccinated”. In schools where parents were responsible for obtaining their children’s vaccines, 27.6% were “fully vaccinated”. Since we know nothing of the relative demographics between these two groups of children, no definitive conclusion can be drawn. However, it does demonstrate why there’s a strong move toward vaccinating children at schools, rather than leaving it up to the parents—and that clearly implies that parents are not considered reliable in determining what’s best for their children.

Absenteeism

This table shows the absentee rates, comparing on-site and off-site vaccination systems:

The rate of absenteeism because of fever or cough was 26.5% in children who attended schools with on-site vaccination and 38.9% in children who attended schools with off-site vaccination. Children who attended schools with an on-site vaccination policy were less likely to be absent (26.5% vs 38.9%), and they were also less likely to be absent for any other reason (42.7% vs 46.6%).

What accounts for this distinction? The fact is that we have absolutely no idea. Any suggestion that it has anything whatsoever to do with the flu vaccine, though, is shown to be utter nonsense in the next table.

Laboratory-Tested Flu

This table depicts the absentee rates of children whose parents agreed to have them tested for influenza:

Among children whose parents agreed to laboratory testing to see if their fever and cough illnesses were actually flu, the results were quite different compared to untested illnesses. The rate of absenteeism because of fever or cough was 64.1% in children who attended schools with on-site vaccinations and 38.0% in children who attended schools with off-site vaccinations. These results are dramatically different from those displayed in the previous table! Significantly, they imply that it’s in the best interests of children to avoid flu vaccinations—the exact opposite of the results for children whose parents did not agree to get lab verification of their illnesses.

How can that be explained? Clearly, it cannot.

Actual Cases of Flu

Because of “resource constraints”, students with cough or fever illnesses were tested for influenza for only a 4-week period of time, further confounding the results.

The story is even more dramatic than the results displayed in Table 3! The authors did not produce a table to show how many of the children whose fever-cough illness was laboratory verified to be flu, and the reason will be quite obvious.

Only 9% of the children tested for influenza actually had the disease!

That means that 91% of the children who stayed at home for coughs or fevers did not have influenza. The fact is that, during flu season, the CDC reports flu-like illnesses as if they were actually flu. The reality is entirely different. The CDC’s campaign to push vaccinations is based on irrelevant data.

The Truth

The results of this study are so confounded that it’s ludicrous to take any part of it seriously. If anything, the study demonstrated that the government’s use of statistics must be designed to mislead. The one factor that seems to make any sense at all in this study—that fewer than one-tenth of the cases of flu-like illness are actually influenza—demonstrates clearly that the CDC is knowingly whipping up unwarranted fear about the number of flu cases based on numbers that are grossly inflated.

It’s difficult to believe that these researchers would have held back if a single student had come to harm as a result of influenza, thus demonstrating yet another reality about the fear mongering whipped up every year in attempts to scare people into getting vaccinated.

The authors of this study claimed that:

[A]bsence due to fever or cough illness may be an effective surrogate endpoint in school-based studies if identification of laboratory confirmed influenza is not feasible.

Could there be any doubt that this was the result they were determined to reach? Their data clearly do not support the statement. Yet, because few doctors actually read studies and the news media generally reports only what is in the conclusions or press releases, this bit of nonsense will be reported again and again and again, until it takes on a veneer of legitimacy by simple repetition.

The Big Pharma Profiteers and their promoters, the Profiteers’ wholly-owned governmental agencies, foundations raking in whatever they can manage from the money being flung around, and pseudo scientists producing whatever results are desired for a price—none of them are interested in the truth. The truth doesn’t serve the Profit God. This piece of junk science funded by the taxpayer via the CDC promotes the pharmaceutical corporations’ cash cow, vaccines. It has nothing to do with the health of our children.

Source:

• Elementary School-Based Influenza Vaccination: Evaluating Impact on Respiratory Illness Absenteeism and Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza; PLoS; Sonia A Kjos, Stephanie A. Irving, Jennifer K. Meece, and Edward A. Belongia; doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0072243.

A new and well-done study clearly documents the relationship between hygiene and Alzheimer’s disease throughout the world. The lower the exposure to microbes, the greater the rate of Alzheimer’s. They name several hygiene issues, but have ignored the most significant according to modern medicine’s own claims: vaccines. Their research clearly shows that vaccines, along with other hygiene issues, are associated with dementia.

Alzheimer’s and Vaccines, Photo of elderly lady by Tim & Selena Middleton
(Syringes superimposed)

by Heidi Stevenson

A new study has documented an association between hygiene and Alzheimer’s disease. The usual interpretation is that too much cleanliness has led to the epidemic of Alzheimer’s, but that isn’t the whole story. There is an elephant in the hygiene room called vaccine.

To the non-medical eye, the term hygiene refers to cleanliness. However, in medical jargon, hygiene has a much broader meaning. It refers to practices intended for the preservation of health. These practices include, of course, cleanliness, but in today’s medicine, the term also encompasses vaccines, which are considered a primary tool of health preservation and, therefore, hygiene.

Thus, the study titled Hygiene and the world distribution of Alzheimer’s Disease documents a very strong connection between vaccines and the modern plague of Alzheimer’s disease. They concluded:

Based on our analyses, it appears that hygiene is positively associated with AD [Alzheimer’s disease] risk. Countries with greater degree of sanitation and lower degree of pathogen prevalence have higher age-adjusted AD DALY rates. Countries with greater degree of urbanization and wealth exhibit higher age-adjusted AD DALY [disability-adjusted life-year] rates. …

… Variation in hygiene may partly explain global patterns in AD rates. Microorganism exposure may be inversely related to AD risk.

The Autoimmune Disease Connection

The authors’ introduction starts with:

Exposure to microorganisms is critical for the regulation of the immune system. The immunodysregulation of autoimmunity has been associated with insufficient microorganism exposure. … The inflammation characteristic of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) shares important similarities with autoimmunity.

These authors are stating quite clearly that lack of exposure to microbes is harmful to the immune system, that autoimmune disorders are associated with lack of exposure to microbes, and that Alzheimer’s disease is an autoimmune disorder.

The primary goal of modern governmental health systems is to limit exposure to disease-inducing microbes. Of course, clean water and sewage are primary factors, but vaccination has become the clarion call, and it’s vaccination that modern medicine claims to be its greatest success in preventing communicable diseases.

How Lack of Microbes May Cause Alzheimer’s

The authors point out that low levels of microbial exposure lead to lack of lymphocyte turnover in the developing immune system, which leads to a deranged immune system. If the immune system is not adequately stimulated, regulatory T-cells (T_Regs) do not proliferate adequately, resulting in inflammation. Alzheimer’s disease is associated with both system inflammation and deficiency in T_Regs.

On this basis, the authors suggest that excessive hygiene is a cause of Alzheimer’s disease. They focused on such hygiene issues as antibiotics, sanitation, clean drinking-water, and paved roads. Note that antibiotics are included in that list, so why not vaccines, especially in light of the fact that vaccines are treated as their crowning glory?

The authors further state:

The period from gestation through childhood is typically thought to be a critical window of time during which the immune system is established, with some authors limiting this critical window to the first two years of life. However, proliferation of TRegs occurs throughout the life course: there are age-related increases in number of TRegs with peaks at adolescence and in the sixth decade. Therefore, it may be not only early-life immune stimulation that affects AD risk (and perhaps risk of other types of immunodysregulation), but also immune stimulation throughout life. Our study is designed based on the hypothesis that microorganism exposure across the lifespan may be related to AD risk.

Could these authors offer a more insidious description of why modern medicine’s vaunted herd immunity, if true, would be a complete disaster? The fact is that Alzheimer’s disease is not the only autoimmune disorder plaguing the modern world.

Autoimmune Disorders and Vaccines

These disorders include some of the worst humans have ever experienced, and all interfere with the ability to lead a full life. They include allergies, asthma, diabetes, autism, chronic gastrointestinal disorders, lupus erythematosus, macrophagic myofasciitis, antiphospholipid syndrome, multiple sclerosis, and a host of others.

Some of these autoimmune disorders, such as macrophagic myofasciitis, didn’t exist a few decades ago. Some of them, such as asthma and allergies, were extremely rare, but now are virtually normal. Some were found only in the aging, but now are found in children, such as type 2 diabetes.

These authors have found the smoking gun, hygiene, yet refrain from naming the single most significant hygiene factor—in spite of the fact that conventional medicine is forever naming vaccines as their greatest success!

Ironically, this claim isn’t based in fact, because it can readily be shown that the infectious disease rates were falling before the vaccines were introduced, and that the rate of reduction was not changed with their introduction. Yet, it’s clear that the rise in autoimmune disorders is well correlated with the introduction of vaccines and their increased rate of usage.

That fact makes the authors’ lack of inclusion of vaccines in their discussion of hygiene even more egregious. It isn’t just hygiene as defined in their article that correlates with Alzheimer’s, but also—and probably even more significantly—vaccines.

These researchers demonstrate quite clearly that the third rail of medicine is vaccines’ adverse effects. Nothing is allowed to interfere with the massive push to vaccinate everyone everywhere for anything that the vaccine profiteers can imagine.

Source:

• Hygiene and the world distribution of Alzheimer’s Disease; Evoloution, Medicine & Public Health; Molly Fox, Leslie A. Knapp, Paul W. Andrews, Corey L. Fincher; doi: 10.1093/emph/eot015.

Tagged autoimmune disease alzheimer’s, conventional medicine, conventional medicine alzheimer’s, elephant in the room vaccines, Hygiene and the world distribution of Alzheimer’s Disease, infectious diseases alzheimer’s, lack of infectious diseases causes alzheimer’s, modern medicine, modern medicine alzheimer’s, science, third rail of medicine vaccines adverse effects, vaccine, vaccine profiteers, vaccines, vaccines adverse effects, vaccines alzheimer’s, vaccines elephant in the room

Print

Genetically modified organisms are a terrifying development when we know they exist, but there’s a new system of creating GMOs that’s getting a complete pass. By fiat, our governments are allowing a process that produces genetically modified ‘foods’ for sale with absolutely no oversight. They can be called natural, or simply not labeled. Nothing, absolutely nothing, interferes with their introduction into the food supply.

by Heidi Stevenson

Genetic engineering means changing the genetic material of a living plant, fungus, or animal. What we’ve been fighting is merely one type, recombinant DNA, in which the gene from one species is transplanted into another. But it isn’t the only way to change genes. Another technique has been developed and patented, technically called oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis (ODM), but branded Rapid Transit Development System (RTDS) by Cibus, of San Diego, California.

A type of rapeseed has already been developed using this technique. The UK’s Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), a part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), reviewed this product back in 2011 and concluded:

ACRE considers that herbicide tolerant (HT) oilseed rape plants produced by Cibus LLC have been developed using a form of mutagenesis. It considers that this technique does not involve the use of recombinant nucleic acid molecules. Consequently, the HT oilseed rape plants could be excluded from the GMO Deliberate Release legislation in accordance with Annex 1B of Directive 2001/18/EC.

In other words, an organism that’s been genetically mutated by ODM/RTDS is not being treated by the government as a genetically modified organism! This technique is sliding around the concerns of genetically engineered plants and animals by using a technique different from recombinant DNA.

New Zealand has taken an equivalent stance. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) told Cibus back in 2004 that they could go ahead with no need to go through an approval process and absolutely no oversight!

Cibus has filed for patents from the EU on several crops, including:

• Glyphosate-tolerant crops, including corn, wheat, rice, barley, soybean, cotton, sugarbeet, oilseed rape, canola, flax, sunflower, potato, tobacco, tomato, alfalfa, poplar, pine, eucalyptus, apple, lettuce, peas, lentils, grape, turf grasses and Brassica species (broccoli, Brussels sprouts, etc.).
• Sulfonylurea herbicide-tolerant canola/rapeseed.

These crops are being sold as natural! They are even claiming that these genetically engineered crops were developed using a technique that’s been in use since World War II, which is obviously untrue.

What Is Oligonucleotide-Directed Mutagenesis?

First, let’s define some terms:

• Nucleotide: The basic structural unit of DNA.
• Oligonucleotide: A molecule that contains a small group of nucleotides. Therefore, an oligonucleotide is a small string of the units that make up DNA.
• Mutagenesis: Something that can cause a mutation.

ODM involves the use of synthetic oligonucleotides. They call this molecule a Gene Repair Oligonucleotide (GRON). It contains the desired genetic change, which consists of a single nucleotide. This chain of nucleotides is inserted into the DNA of an organism. However, it’s done in such a way that the organism sees an error. So, the organism’s own DNA repair system is enlisted to fix the error. In that error-repairing process, the genetic change is affixed into the organism’s DNA.

How does this actually happen? In fact, no one knows! The technique works, but the Senior Vice President of Cibus, Peter Beetham, has admitted that the means by which the repair occurs is “elusive”. The Institute of Science in Society tells us:

Mismatch repair is ordinarily used by the cell following mistakes in DNA replication or recombination as well as in DNA damage. It relies on enzymes that recognise the mismatch by comparing the strand to a template strand’s homologous region … after which the DNA mismatched sequence is cleaved out, the correct bases synthesised and the DNA re-ligated back together. This is a highly complex process essential to the integrity of the DNA and the cell. However, this remains a speculation, and others have suggested that homologous recombination, transcription as well as DNA replication processes are involved.

So, this absolutely critical process is, essentially, a mystery. Whether it could create serious damage to DNA is unknown. Whether it might affect other parts of the DNA is unknown. Whether it has the potential of causing changes that might prove harmful to anyone who eats the resultant produce is unknown! In other words, the only thing that’s known about this process is that the desired change is made in a species. Whether other changes are made or that change might prove harmful in some as-yet unknown way is unknown.

Yet, our governing agencies have seen fit to not only rubber stamp the ODM process, but to give it a complete pass. Cibus is allowed to sell obviously genetically engineered products as “natural”. They are not required to submit to any oversight of any sort. They can churn out stuff with no labeling of any sort and leave the public entirely in the dark about the fact that they are, indeed, eating genetically engineered foods that haven’t even undergone the pathetically limited oversight of governmental agencies for GMOs produced by Monsanto and other corporations.

You thought that Monsanto was scary? Welcome to Cibus, Monsanto on steroids!

Sources:

• Beware the Changing Face of Genetic Modification; Institute of Science in Society.
• What Is RTDS?; Cibus.
• Rapid Trait Development System in Plants; Cibus.
• Site-directed mutagenesis; Biochemistry Journal; P Carter. PMCID: PMC1146940.

Tagged agribusiness, agribusiness gmo, cibus, genetic engineering, genetic modification, genetically modified foods, gmo, monsanto on steroids, mutagenesis, oilseed rape cibus, oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis, Rapid Transit Development System

by Heidi Stevenson

Breast cancer is one of women’s greatest fears, and the numbers have been growing for decades. Some serious, and generally underfunded, scientists have zeroed in on aluminum as a possible cause and almost certain accelerator of it, and they’ve identified a primary source as antiperspirants. New research has now found a likely sequence of events triggered by aluminum that may be the cause of so much breast cancer.

Dr. Ferdinando Mannello, of the Department of Biomolecular Sciences, Section of Clinical Biochemistry and Cell Biology, at the University ‘Carlo Bo’ in Italy, is the lead author of this study. It documents a highly significant association and linear relationship between aluminum presence and breast cancer:

• Protein oxidative carbonyls are associated with cancer. They found a significant relationship between aluminum concentrations and carbonyls.
• Proinflammatory cytokines IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-12 p70, and TNF-a are associated with cancer. They found significant and linear relationships between these cytokines with breast cancer.
• Chemokines are a type of small cytokine associated with cancer metastasis. They found a strong linear association between cancer and chemokines called IL-8, MIP-1a & MCP-1.

The researchers analyzed nipple aspirant fluids (NAFs) of women with and without breast cancer. 19 of the samples were from cancerous breasts and 16 from noncancerous breasts. The NAF samples were analyzed for each of the substances just described. The authors not only described their results, they included clear graphs to show each of their NAF analysis results and some of the statistical regression results, which are reproduced here.

Aluminum and Carbonyls

The graphs below show the aluminum and carbonyl concentrations in cancer and noncancerous breasts:

Aluminum and Carbonyls in Cancerous and Noncancerous Breasts

In these and all other graphs, the cancerous breasts are identified as “Ca” and the noncancerous breasts are identified as “NoCa”.

It’s quite easy to see from the left-hand graph that the concentration of aluminum in cancerous breasts is highly significant. In fact, there is no crossover between the two. That is, the highest aluminum concentration of noncancerous (NoCa) breasts is lower than the lowest concentration of cancerous (Ca) breasts. The same kind of relationship between carbonyls and cancerous/noncancerous breasts can be seen in the graph on the right. (Incongruously, the Ca results are shown on the left in the aluminum graph, but it’s the opposite in all others.)

Aluminum and Carbonyls Linear Relationship,
r² = 0.6628.

The graph to the right displays the linear relationship between aluminum and carbonyls. R-squared (r²) is a statistical figure that rates how well the graphed points correlate to each other. In a small sample like this one of 19 Ca and 16 NoCa samples, the r² of 0.6628 is good. A perfect correlation would be 1.00 and an r² of 0.00 would indicate no correlation.

.

Cytokines

Relationship Between Cancer and Cytokines IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-12 p70, and TNF-a

The above graph shows the results of analysis for the presence of the cytokines IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-12 p70, and TNF-a in NAF. The left-hand bar (white colored) in each graph displays the concentration of a cytokine in noncancerous breasts, and the right-hand bar (dark gray colored) in each graph represents the concentration of acytokines in cancerous breasts. The concentrations of these cytokines was 4-7 times higher in cancerous breasts.

Chemokines

Chemokine-Carbonyl Regression:
IL-8/Carbonyl r2 = 0.8192 (graph on right). MIP-1/Carbonyl r2 = 0.9495 (graph on left).

Chemokines IL-8, MIP-1a & MCP-1 and Cancer

The two graphics show the results of analysis of the chemokines IL-8, MIP-1a, and MCP-1 in nipple aspirant fluid.

The three graphs on the right show how much more of each chemokine is present in NAF. In the case of MCP-1, it’s truly dramatic, as much as 17 times greater in cancerous breasts.

The graphs above document the results of regression analysis for the relationships between two of the chemokines, IL-8 and MCP-1. IL-8/carbonyl regression, shown on the right, presents a clear correlation. The r² result is a high 0.8192. The r² for MCP-1/carbonyl, shown on the left, is a remarkable 0.9495. You will rarely see such a close correlation.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

How Aluminum May Cause Cancer

After presenting their latest research, the authors discussed how it applies to the full picture of breast cancer. The scientific bar for outright proving whether aluminum causes it is extremely high, and they don’t make that claim. They do, though, suggest a strong association and offer a means by which breast metabolism is changed so that cancer could be the result. Here’s a graphic they provide, and below it is a discussion of what it shows:

By far, the largest source of aluminum to the breasts is antiperspirants. The active ingredient in all of them is aluminum. It’s absorbed through the skin—epithelial cells, myoepithelial cells, and the basement membrane—and into what they refer to as the breast microenvironment. The authors state:

Although our results do not support an“absolute”cause-effect relationship between BC [breast cancer] and aluminium, we have hypothesized in Fig. 7 that aluminium salts (accumulated in breast cells/tissues/fluids mainly by underarm cosmetics/antiperspirants) may be able to alter within the breast cancer microenvironment the expression of
iron-binding proteins (like L-chain ferritin and transferrin).

It’s known that aluminum interferes with the metabolism of ferritin and transferrin, as discussed in Do Antiperspirants Cause Breast Cancer?, which reviews research by Dr. Phillippa Darbre, another Keale Conference on the Biological Effects of Aluminum researcher, and Dr. Mannello, of this paper. Therefore, the suggested chain of events outlined here is entirely reasonable. The process that Dr. Mannello and his fellow researchers suggest is:

1. Aluminum interferes with the metabolism of iron (Fe⁺³), reducing it to Fe⁺². (The numbers, +3 and +2, refer to positive electrical charges of the iron ion.) This would be done by the aluminum super-oxide, AlO₂⁺².
2. The altered iron metabolism and the aluminum super-oxide fuel a Fenton reaction, in which free radicals (molecules with a negative charge) produce damage. In particular, the authors refer to previous research that documents the ability of aluminum salts to cause breaks in double-strand DNA, which they state predisposes “human breast cell lines to proliferative and carcinogenic stresses”.
3. Oxidative damage and the alterations in ferritin and transferrin metabolism result in an increase of inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, such as those investigated in this study.

The authors documented that IL-6, which they documented is increased in the presence of aluminum, has recently been shown to be a likely factor in the development of beast cancer.

In conclusion, the authors state that, whether a cause-and-effect relationship between aluminum and breast cancer exists:

… the evidence for the presence of aluminium in the breast is building and further investigation is warranted using both in vitro and in vivo models in order to discern
the possible link among aluminium intake by antiperspirants, tissue accumulation and alterations of crucial biomolecular pathways involved in cancer initiation/progression.

From my point of view, though, the question isn’t so much whether we have absolute proof that aluminum causes cancer or aggravates existing cancer. The solid scientific evidence now in existence documenting a strong association between aluminum and breast cancer is quite clear. Therefore, the use of aluminum needs to be strongly modified. Its use in products that don’t require it should be eliminated. Products that are not necessary and require aluminum, such as antiperspirants, should be eliminated.

It seems to me that we’re well past the precautionary principle on this issue. The evidence is simply too strong to ignore. There cannot possibly be a justification for continuing the use of a toxic substance like aluminum in most everyday products. Humans have existed through most of their time on earth without the benefit of antiperspirants. Clearly, they are not necessary and, as far as I know, no one has ever suggested that they benefit health.

The time to bring the travesty of continued production of this product known to be toxic is now, not later when every detail of aluminum’s toxic effects are known—because that day will never arrive.

Source:

• Aluminium, carbonyls and cytokines in human nipple aspirate fluids: Possible relationship between inflammation, oxidative stress and breast cancer microenvironment; Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry; F. Mannello, D. Ligi, M. Canale; doi: 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2013.07.003.

Tagged Aluminium, aluminum antiperspirant, aluminum antiperspirant breast cancer, aluminum breast cancer, aluminum breast cancer cause, aluminum breast cancer science, aluminum cancer, aluminum chemokines, aluminum cytokines, aluminum science, carbonyls and cytokines in human nipple aspirate fluids: Possible relationship between inflammation, cause and effect aluminum cancer, journal of inorganic biochemistry, keale conference on biological effects of aluminum, mannello breast cancer, oxidative stress and breast cancer microenvironment, precautionary principle aluminum, science