July | 2013 | Gaia-Health.link

Bexsero: Stealth Ingredient Similar to Squalene

We can be glad that Britain has refused to approve Bexsero. It contains a stealth adjuvant known to cause a severe autoimmune disorder, APS. This stealth adjuvant is similar to squalene and, believe it or not, butter—which long ago was discovered to act as an adjuvant.

Photo of Gun and Smoke by Charles Knowles, The Knowles Gallery
(Photo cropped. Smoke altered in orientation, transparency, shape, & size.)

by Heidi Stevenson

In a stunning announcement, the United Kingdom stated that the new meningitis B vaccine, Bexsero, would not be approved. That is, indeed, wonderful news—especially in light of the potential risks it poses. The UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) announced:

On the basis of the available evidence, routine infant or toddler immunisation using Bexsero is highly unlikely to be cost effective at any vaccine price based on the accepted threshold for cost effectiveness used in the UK and could not be recommended.^[1]

It’s unfortunate that this decision may not be permanent, but for now, the UK has taken a protective stand for children whose lives might have been put at risk because of this vaccine, which contains a stealth ingredient that may hold severe risks.

Stealth Adjuvant!

The fact that an ingredient is not labeled as an adjuvant does not turn it into something else. Though it may have another effect, too, avoiding acknowledgement of what it is does not change its nature. Once it’s been injected, it will do whatever its nature makes it do.

The ingredient at issue is an outer membrane vesicle (OMV), which is part of a bacteria that protrudes from the external membrane. OMVs are proteoliposomes. As I’ve written before^[2]:

A proteoliposome is a liposome with one or more proteins inserted.
A liposome is a minute spherical sac of phospholipid molecules enclosing a water droplet.
A phospholipid is a type of lipid.
A lipid is a fatty acid. That is, a lipid is a fat.

Any vaccine that includes an OMV is of particular concern. Whether labeled as antigens or adjuvants, they contain fatty acids. Fats and oils are known to be exceptionally dangerous when injected. Their similarity to normal body tissues is the reason. Fats do not normally enter the body through injections. They are either digested or created by the body, in which case there’s no problem. However, injection is not a normal means for lipids to enter the body.

Fats are lipids. Injection can cause the immune system to see them as invaders. the response to an invader is to create antibodies against it. Since lipids normally exist throughout the body, when the immune system is radicalized into seeing a lipid as the enemy, it’s attacked—wherever it’s found, even when it’s a necessary part of the body. An autoimmune disorder is one that exists because the immune system attacks its own body.

Autoimmune disorders have been associated with vaccines for decades. In fact, it was one of the earliest revelations. It was quickly realized that live microbes in vaccines is risky, but killed ones didn’t work well. So the search was on for a way to make killed microbes into effect vaccines.

Butter as an Adjuvant

In 1948, Jules Freund described his adjuvant made of mineral oil and emulsifiers. The idea stemmed from investigation 50 years earlier. Back in 1897 Lydia Rabinovitch experimented with injecting Mycobacterium butyricum, which is similar to tuberculosis bacteria. M. butyricum naturally grows in butter. Rabinovitch discovered—by accident?—that injecting it with butter resulted in a greater immune response.^[3]

Yes, that’s right. Butter is an effective adjuvant. That’s because of its similarities with fat in the human body. Eating it is fine, and those of us who are aware that saturated fats are necessary nutrients know that it’s very healthy. However, injecting it changes the picture dramatically. Injection cause the immune system to see butter as an invader, so a strong immune response is put in force.

Freund’s adjuvant contains lipids, making it noted for its ability to arouse a strong immune response that results in autoimmune disorders. That’s why it’s used routinely injected into laboratory animals to create autoimmune disorders for study. Many consider this use extremely abusive and cruel because it causes so much pain and suffering for the creatures.

Bexsero contains a similar type of ingredient, phospholipids—just like butter or Freund’s adjuvant. Or the squalene of Gulf War syndrome. The fact is that there is already a known disease called antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), an autoimmune disorder that attacks the nervous sytem, cardiovascular system, and virtually all parts of the body. It was noted as early as 1906 that injection of phospholipids causes harm.

Though not well known—yet—APS is now becoming common, just as the new generation of OMV-generated vaccines has been released. Coincidence? Do you want your child to be the test of that?

Poison Is Poison

A rose is a rose and poison is poison, no matter what they’re called. A phospholipid from an OMV is an adjuvant … even when it’s also an antigen, as in the case of Bexsero. It makes no difference what it’s called.

The UK has—for the moment, at least—refused to approve Bexsero. We can hope that this is the beginning of a trend toward protection of the public from poorly-thought vaccines that carry unassessed risks. Bexsero contains a stealth ingredient, an adjuvant that is known to cause the severe disorder, APS. Surely it’s time to stop the mad rush to new vaccines and assess the harm being done.

Sources:

UK rejects meningitis B vaccine Bexsero
New Generation of Vaccine Adjuvants: Worst Ever?
Vaccine Adjuvants Revisited
JCVI interim position statement on use of Bexsero meningococcal B vaccine in the UK
Positive CHMP opinion for groundbreaking vaccine Bexsero® against devastating MenB disease
Outer Membrane Vesicles Derived from Escherichia coli Induce Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome, PLoS One, Kyong-Su Park, Kyoung-Ho Choi, You-Sun Kim, Bok Sil Hong, Oh Youn Kim, Ji Hyun Kim, Chang Min Yoon, Gou-Young Koh, Yoon-Keun Kim, Yong Song Gho, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011334
Outer membrane vesicle of Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B as an adjuvant in immunization of rabbit against Neisseria meningitidis serogroup A, African Journal of Microbiology Research, Seyed Davar Siadat, Saied Reza Naddaf, Mehrangiz Zangeneh, Arfa Moshiri, Seyed Mehdi Sadat, Mehdi Shafiee Ardestani, Mohammad Hassan Pouriayevali, Safieh Amini, and Mohammad Reza Aghasadeghi. DOI: 10.5897/AJMR11.361
Briefing Materials for the Meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, 7th April, 2011
Immunogenicity and Tolerability of Recombinant Serogroup B Meningococcal Vaccine Administered With or Without Routine Infant Vaccinations According to Different Immunization SchedulesA Randomized Controlled Trial, doi:10.1001/jama.2012.85
Delivery of foreign antigens by engineered outer membrane vesicle vaccines, PNAS, David J. Chen, Nikolaus Osterrieder, Stephan M. Metzger, Elizabeth Buckles, Anne M. Doody, Matthew P. DeLisa, and David Putnam
Outer membrane vesicle of Neisseria meningitidisserogroup B as an adjuvant to induce specific antibody response against the lipopolysaccharide of Brucella abortus S99
Contribution of bacterial outer membrane vesicles to innate bacterial defense, doi:10.1186/1471-2180-11-258
Analysis of outer membrane vesicle associated proteins isolated from the plant pathogenic bacterium Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris, doi:10.1186/1471-2180-8-87
PorA Variable Regions of Neisseria meningitidis, Emerging Infectious Diseases
Restored functional immunogenicity of purified meningococcal PorA by incorporation into liposomes
Liposomal meningococcal B vaccination: role of dendritic cell targeting in the development of a protective immune response. Infection and Immunity, doi: 10.1128/IAI.71.9.5210-5218.2003
Immunogenicity and tolerability of a multicomponent meningococcal serogroup B (4CMenB) vaccine in healthy adolescents in Chile: a phase 2b/3 randomised, observer-blind, placebo-controlled study, The Lancet, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61713-3
Use of an investigational multicomponent meningococcal serogroup B vaccine (4CMenB) in a clinical trial in 3630 infants
Adjuvant Activity of Emulsan, a Secreted Lipopolysaccharide fromAcinetobacter calcoaceticus, doi: 10.1128/CDLI.9.6.1240-1247.2002
Lipopolysaccharide Vaccine Adjuvant
Contribution of bacterial outer membrane vesicles to innate bacterial defense, BioMed Central (open access), Andrew J Manning and Meta J Kuehn
Analysis of outer membrane vesicle associated proteins isolated from the plant pathogenic bacterium Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris, BioMed Central (open access), Vishaldeep K Sidhu, Frank-Jörg Vorhölter, Karsten Niehaus, and Steven A Watt
Routine 4CMenB immunizations effective against meningococcal strains in infants

Tagged antiphospholipid syndrome, aps, bexsero banned, bexsero uk, butter adjuvant, butter squalene, omv lipid, omv phospholipid, outer membrane vesicle vaccines, stealth adjuvant, stealth vaccine ingredient, vaccine, vaccine adjuvant, vaccine fatty acid, vaccine lipid, vaccines, vaccines omv

Rise of New Rotaviruses Induced by the Vaccine

A bit of wizardly conjuration involving the words “it is believed” can make things transmute from nice-ideas-if-they-work into facts—if they’re muttered with the correct intonation from the throats of state-sanctioned scientists. It is, at least, a nifty way to hide the fact that the rotavirus vaccine has caused new types of rotavirus.

Newborn, by SCA Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolaget

by Heidi Stevenson

A new study produced by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) documents that the rotavirus vaccine results in a new variety of rotavirus. The study’s authors report that the CDC operates the New Vaccine Surveillance Network that is concerned with acute gastroenteritis in children less than five years of age. They state:

This surveillance has detected the emergence of G12P[8] and G9P[8] rotavirus genotypes, as well as 3 reported instances of US children infected with G8P[4] rotavirus. During the 2009 winter season (December 2008–June 2009) in Rochester, New York, 54 (30%) of 183 enrolled children with acute gastroenteritis had rotavirus infection. Fifty (94%) of 51 rotavirus strains were typical US strains, with G or P antigens contained in the licensed rotavirus vaccines; 3 were G8P[4]. One strain, however, appeared to be an unusual reassortant not previously reported in human infection. We describe this novel rotavirus genotype, G14P[24], found along with enteric adenovirus in a stool sample from a child with diarrhea.^[1]

To put it simply, in 2009 the survey uncovered a child with diarrhea (acute gastroenteritis infection) who had a new (novel) type of rotavirus infection. They labeled the new variety as G14P[24]. The child’s illness was indistinguishable from typical rotavirus infections.

Types of Rotavirus

In the United States, there is a limited number of rotavirus strains. They’re identified by two types of protein on the outer coat of the virus in structures called outer capsids. One is called G and the other P. Specific types are given numbers. The new rotavirus discovered is labeled G14P[24].

There are a total of 16 G-types and 28 P-types.^[2] There are, therefore, a very large number of potential variations in rotaviruses, one for every possible G and P combination.

In the US, there are two brands of rotavirus vaccine: RotaTeq and Rotarix. RotaTeq contains antigens against G1, G2, G3, and G4 varieties^[3], and Rotarix contains G1, G3, G4, and G9 varieties^[4].

The CDC’s study states that, of the rotavirus strains circulating in the US, 85% have an antigen that’s included in one of the two vaccines. Oddly, there is no more discussion about what percent of the strains an individual vaccinated with either of the two licensed brands will have. It’s fairly obviously that no one could have protection against 85% of the strains.

They also tell us nothing about whether the baby who had the new variety of rotavirus had been vaccinated!

The New Variety of Rotavirus

The new strain of rotavirus is in the process of being genetically sequenced. However, much of the job has been accomplished, and what they’ve found is that this new, vaccine-induced variety of rotavirus appears to be a rearrangement of genes from equine, simian, human, and bovine rotaviruses. They go on to state:

[I]nterspecies transmission of both reassorted and nonreassorted animal viruses has been described. The emergence of unusual reassortant animal strains raises questions about the effectiveness of current rotavirus vaccines, which might share neither G nor P types with such viruses. [Emphasis mine.]

It’s clear that the effectiveness of rotavirus vaccines is, at best, questionable. Next, the authors use a bit of magical thinking to wish the problem away:

However, immunity to rotavirus is believed to be polygenic and probably involves antigens in addition to G and P antigens. [Emphasis mine.]

Apparently, a bit of wizardly conjuration involving the words “it is believed” can make things transmute from nice-ideas-if-they-work into facts—if they’re muttered with the correct intonation from the throats of state-sanctioned scientists.

And More of Them!

Going back to the first quote in this article, we can see that G14P[24] is not the only new rotavirus variant to emerge. Types G12P[8], G9P[8], and G8P[4] have also been found by the CDC’s New Vaccine Surveillance Network. That’s a total of four new versions of rotavirus to which every child, vaccinated or unvaccinated, is now exposed.

Are these new varieties milder or worse? If experience is any indication, then they are more likely worse. Just consider MRSA, methycillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, which is far more virulent than the original staph infection, or the new variety of whooping cough caused by vaccines, which is ten times more deadly than the disease vaccinated against.

That leads to the question: Why does the CDC bother to look for new disease that emerges as a result of vaccinations, if all they do with the information is hide it in plain sight? Apparently, the CDC wants a fall-back position, to be able to say, “Don’t worry your little heads about it. We’ve got it all under control. After all, we’ve been aware of these new diseases all along.”

And then, they can roll out the next vaccine campaign—the one for the diseases that they’ve created.

Sources:

Detection of Novel Rotavirus Strain by Vaccine Postlicensure Surveillance; Emerging Infectious Diseases; Geoffrey A. Weinberg, Elizabeth N. Teel, Slavica Mijatovic-Rustempasic, Daniel C. Payne, Sunando Roy, Kimberly Foytich, Umesh D. Parashar, Jon R. Gentsch, and Michael D. Bowen; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1908.130470
Diversity of G-type and P-type of human and animal rotaviruses and its genetic background; Communicating Current Research and Educational Topics and Trends in Applied Microbiology; Kobayashi, M. Ishino, Y-H. Wang, M. Chawla-Sarkar, T. Krishnan, and T.N. Naik (Page 4, Table 1)
FDA RotaTeq approval document (Page 86, Table 27)
Summary Basis for Regulatory Action – Rotarix

Vaccines Cause Severe Cardiorespiratory Harm to Preemies: Study

One of modern medicine’s routine practices is vaccination of virtually all infants on a schedule—even if they’re premature. This study clearly documents the likelihood that preemies are being subjected to severe harm by the practice. Yet, health agencies and doctors won’t even slow down in the rush to jam needles into the weakest among us.

Neonate in Sepia, by Chris and Lara Pawluk (cropped)

by Heidi Stevenson

Premature infants are vaccinated as aggressively as full term babies. This is done in spite of research clearly documenting a high rate of cardiorespiratory harm to these neonates. Known as the Pourcyrous study, it also revealed that a full 85% of these infants who receive the standard multi-vaccine dose at two months of age will experience an abnormal elevation of the C-reactive protein level, a measure of inflammation indicating the presence of infection or other disease state.

The primary question must be: Why does the medical profession routinely do a medical procedure that is known to be harmful? Worse yet, why is such a procedure done to the most helpless and weakest among us?

The American Academy of Pediatrics advises vaccinating premature and low birth weight babies on the same schedule as full term babies. This is, of course, based on … well, that’s a good question. It’s obviously not based on evidence.

Shall we hammer another nail in the evidence-based medicine coffin?

In any case, the authors of the Pourcyrous study—named for the lead researcher, Massroor Pourcyrous, MD—noted that a high rate of cardiorespiratory events, anywhere from 23 to 47 percent, has been reported in premature infants after their initial DTaP (diphtheria, typhus, acellular pertussis) vaccination at age two months. They wrote:

Vaccination-associated adverse reactions are not uncommon and may resemble serious infection in infants. C-reactive protein (CRP) is a marker of inflammation or infection in neonates. A consistent increase in CRP has been reported after immunization of preterm infants with vaccines containing diphtheria-tetanus-whole cell pertussis (DTwP); however, CRP responses to DTaP and other vaccines have not been studied.

Therefore, they decided to study the question.

The Study

The researchers investigated 239 premature infants who were 2 months or more of age and were scheduled to receive the standard vaccines. Infants who were not acutely ill, had bacterial infections, or were otherwise deemed to have serious health problems were not included.

Infants were given either single or multiple vaccines. 168 of the 239 preemies received a single injection, and 71 received multiple injections. Note that the term “single” vaccine refers to number of injections, not number of antigens. So, the vaccines given were:

DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis)
Hib (Haemophilus influenza)
IPV (inactivated poliovirus)
HBV (Hepatitus B vaccine)
PCV7 (pneumococcal 7-valent vaccine)

Children given multiple vaccines were given 2 or more injections in a single day. The neonatal intensive care staff kept them on cardiorespiratory and pulse oximetry (oxygen) monitoring for 3 days. The researchers documented outcomes of:

Apnea (temporary cessation of breathing)
Bradycardia (abnormally slow heart rate)
O₂ (oxygen) desaturation

Any cardiorespiratory event was evaluated for septicemia, and the affected infant was given antibiotics at the attending physician’s discretion.

CRP was tested before vaccines were given and repeated once every 12 hours, for a total of 3 times after vaccination. Any abnormal result was followed with daily testing until CRP returned to a normal level.

Results

The study’s results are shown in the inset tables below.

High C-reactive protein (CRP) levels indicate excessive inflammation, not simply a localized reaction. Normally, CRP is undetectable in blood tests. For the purposes of this study, A CRP between .7 and 1.6 mg/dL was defined as “detectable”, and anything over that was termed “abnormal”.

Overall, 17% of the infants in this study had detectable CRP, and 43% had a high CRP, which is a very worrisome result. Worse, though, is that a full 85% of the babies given multiple injections suffered from high CRP!

Of significant interest beyond that, though, is that the two multiple vaccines, DTaP, which provides 3 disease antigens, and PVC7, which provides 7 disease antigens, caused 2 of the 3 greatest CRP increases. The Hib vaccine produced the most significant CRP result, with 70% of the babies’ results over the abnormal level.

If you scroll down to the second table, you’ll see the number of cardiorespiratory events experienced by the vaccinated neonates. 11% of the babies had to be given oxygen. 20% of those given multiple injections received oxygen. As was the case with CRP, the worst results occurred in the babies who received DTaP, PVC7, and Hib single vaccines.

Overall, 5% of the babies had to be ventilated, and 13% who received multiple injections were. Cardiorespiratory interventions were required in 16% of the babies, and 32% of the multiply injected infants.

DTaP vs DTwP

The authors indicated that they wanted to investigate whether CRP levels increase after DTaP and other vaccines, as had been the concern with DTwP (diphtheria, tetanus, whole pertussis) vaccine. What is clear from these results is that the CRP problem exists with the newer form of vaccine, DTaP, and also with PVC7, Hib, and multiple vaccine injections.

Evidence-Based Medicine?

These results are very worrisome. They indicate that the routinely scheduled vaccination of premature infants may be producing significant harm. High rates of inflammation are not normally ignored, yet these children—the most helpless of all human beings—are routinely given a treatment that we now know could be producing immense harm.

And we’ve known it for years, yet there hasn’t been a hint of consideration for changing the vaccination schedule in premature infants. Take note of this report, which documents several studies that also demonstrate high CRP levels in premature infants after vaccinations: Does primary immunisation cause C-Reactive Protein to rise in premature infants? (Sadly, this document’s purpose is not to suggest stopping the vaccinations of premature infants, but instead to advocate yet more medical intervention, this time in the form of antibiotics.)

What’s most troubling, though, is that there hasn’t even been any consideration for stopping the practice of injecting several vaccinations at once. It’s obvious that the health authorities—and apparently, the doctors themselves—haven’t the slightest interest in evidence-based medicine, unless it tells them what they want to hear. There has been no interest in even monitoring these infants after vaccinating them, in spite of this clear evidence that they are being placed under serious risk for adverse events.

Parents need to wake up to the fact that neither the governmental health agencies nor, apparently, their doctors, have their children’s best interests at heart when they push vaccinations on them. As much as they claim that their advice is based on the evidence, the facts—as shown here—clearly document otherwise. The welfare of children cannot be their first concern. Apparently, it doesn’t even factor into their plans, since they don’t even put forth a bit of extra effort to monitor infants who are being placed at such extraordinary risk with vaccination on the same schedule as other children.

Then again, we need to ask if normal children born on schedule are safe with the vaccination schedule. Where are the studies that demonstrate it? The fact is that they don’t exist.

Sources:

Primary Immunization of Premature Infants with Gestational Age<35 Weeks: Cardiorespiratory Complications and C-Reactive Protein Responses Associated with Administration of Single and Multiple Separate Vaccines Simultaneously; Journal of Pediatrics; Massroor Pourcyrous, MD, Sheldon B. Korones, MD, Kristopher L. Arheart, PhD, Henrietta S. Bada, MD; 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.02.059

Tagged conventional medicine, evidence based medicine premature infants, evidence-based medicine, evidence-based medicine vaccines, modern medicine, pourcyrous premature infants, pourcyrous study, pourcyrous vaccine study, premature babies cardiorespiratory vaccine harm, premature babies crp increase after vaccine, science, vaccine, vaccine adverse effects, vaccine cardiorespiratory effects, vaccine crp increase, vaccines, vaccines doctors, vaccines health agencies

Yeast in Vaccines Tied to Autoimmune Diseases

Yeast is associated with the staff of life, bread—not to mention being the basis pleasure-inducing beer. So why should we be concerned about its presence in a large number of vaccines? A new study reveals that injecting yeast may be the cause of the autoimmune disease epidemic, which is devastating the lives of millions.

by Heidi Stevenson

It’s well-recognized that the incidence of autoimmune diseases has been rising at an enormous rate. A new study indicates that a significant factor in causing them may be the common bakers or brewers yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae^[1] used in many vaccinations, including HepB, which is given to nearly all newborn babies in the United States before they’re a day old.

The specific part of S. cerevisiae that’s of concern is mannan, which is found in the cell walls of yeasts and also in mammalian glycoproteins. These glycoproteins are found in cell walls, connective tissues like collagen, gastrointestinal mucous secretions, and blood plasma. They perform many functions. Obviously, if the immune system goes on the attack against mannan, it can be devastating. Yet, that appears to be happening in many autoimmune diseases.

These diseases happen when the body’s own defense system turns on itself, resulting in life-eroding conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, inflammatory bowel disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, anti-phospholipid syndrome, multiple sclerosis, diabetes mellitus type 1, and even heart disease.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has no doubt about the increase in autoimmune diseases^[2] and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has produced a nice document outlining their approach to dealing with it. The “Autoimmune Diseases Research Plan”^[3] discusses their approach to dealing with the issue, including the type of research they’re supporting. Nowhere is there any indication that vaccinations are being considered as a potential cause.

Of course, if you don’t look for it, you are not likely to find it. Clearly, the CDC is not promoting a genuine investigation into finding the causes of autoimmune disorders, as they’re willing to consider anything and everything … except that elephant in the room named vaccination. As is the case with autism, the primary focus is on genetics, with environment also considered—as long as the term environment doesn’t include vaccines. As with autism, that focus completely ignores the ourright absurdity of blaming genetics for new non-infectious disease phenomena.

How Can Yeast Cause Such Terrible Diseases?

Yeast is, of course, used to make bread rise and create the alcohol in beer. So how can it suddenly turn into an enemy? The answer is in how it enters the body, and what enters with it. The purpose of a vaccine is to create a localized storm in the immune system so that it will respond to a co-injected substance, which may be a weakened microbe or a small bit of a microbe, by creating antibodies to it.

An irritant, called an adjuvant, is what causes the immune system storm, and the microbe is called an antigen. The catch is that other substances injected with the antigen and adjuvant may also be seen as antigens. If one of those substances is similar to something that naturally exists in the body, then the immune system may create antibodies to part of its own body, creating an autoimmune disease.

Parts of the mannan in yeast are similar or identical to parts of the human body. So S. cerevisiae—yeast—used in vaccines has the potential of causing autoimmune disorders. In fact, S. cerevisiae is used in a variety of ways in vaccines. It is, when used whole, a potent adjuvant^[4]. On top of that, genetic manipulation is now being used on it to create artificial antibodies^[4], so S. cerevisiae is becoming more common in vaccines.

Autoantibodies of S. cerevisiae

The researchers who focused on autoimmune aspects of S. cerevisiae (yeast) found significant correlations between yeast’s mannan and known autoimmune antigens in several autoimmune diseases. They found close and, in some instances, exact matches of the genetic sequences. For example, in the case of rheumatoid arthritis, the percent found to match were:

Rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid factor: 60%
Bip/GRP78: 71%
gp130-RAPS: 80%
EIF4G1: 88%
Anti-citrullinated collagen type 2: 100%

Not only were there significant sequence matches with four known rheumatoid arthritis auto-antigens, there was a perfect match with one. In other conditions, they found:

Lupus erythematosus

SmN: 53%
SSA (Ro): 60%
snRNP-SmD3: 64%
SSB (La): 69%
U2 snRNP B”: 83%

Heart disease

P-selectin (protein on surface of blood vessels & platelets): 80%
Myosin (involved with muscle contraction): 88%
Intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (inflammatory response molecules): 100%

Anti-phospholipid syndrome

ß2-Glycoprotein-1 precursor: 56%
Annexin A5: 63%
Anti-CL/ß-2GPI Ig light chain variable region: 73%

AIDs-associated antigens

Thyroglubulin: 52%
GAD65: 57%
Zinc transporter 8: 57%
Transglutaminase: 60%
Thyroid peroxidase: 71%
Soluble liver/pancreas antigen: 80%
Calprotectin (protein S100-A8): 100%

Sclerosis-associated antigens

Major centromere autoantigen B: 57%
RNA polymerase III: 67%
U3-snRNP fibrillarin: 75%
U3-snRNP MPP10: 75%
hU3-55kDA: 86%
Nucleophosmin B23: 88%

A perfect match with a molecule may not be necessary to result in an autoimmune response, so percentages of less than 100% may not indicate lack of an autoimmune response. However, the closer the match between a molecule and an antigen, the more likely it is that an autoimmune response will occur.

Although you may not generally think of heart disease as an autoimmune disorder, certain forms of it, such as rheumatic heart disease, are known to be—and as this study seems to indicate, others may be, too.

Vaccine Risks

Vaccines containing S. cerevisiae It should be noted that anti-phospholipid syndrome was originally associated with the tetanus vaccine. Referring to the table on the right, which was provided by the study, you can see that the first vaccine listed is DTaP. The T stands for tetanus.

Do we know for certain that vaccinations containing S. cerevisiae cause these autoimmune diseases? No, we don’t. However, we now have information that strongly links yeast-containing vaccines to autoimmune disorders—and we have absolutely nothing to suggest that they don’t cause them.

In fact, not only do we now have the strong association between S. cerevisiae auto-antibodies and mannan-containing proteins, we also have a history of increasing rates of autoimmune disorders that, at a casual look, can be seen to correlate with the expanding vaccination schedules in countries around the world.

Autoimmune disorders are devastating our health and a huge percentage of us suffer from a severely diminished quality of life. These disorders aren’t happening because of genetic defects, and to suggest that they are is an insult to our intelligence—though that seems to be the goal of our health agencies.

The cost to us as individuals and as a society is enormous. Surely it’s past time to take a serious and honest look at vaccine risks, including the use of yeast as an ingredient.

Instead, we have a mad rush to create ever-more yeast-related vaccines, because modern recombinant DNA technologies have made it so much easier, faster, and cheaper to produce them. Unfortunately, though, to step back and apply the precautionary principle isn’t profitable. So, you can expect to see more and more of them, no matter how much harm they produce.

Sources:

Anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae Autoantibodies in Autoimmune Diseases: from Bread Baking to Autoimmunity; Clinical Reviews in Allergies and Immunology; Maurizio Rinaldi, Roberto Perricone, Miri Blank, Carlo Perricone, & Yehuda Shoenfeld; DOI 10.1007/s12016-012-8344-9
Autoimmune Disease Rates Increasing
Autoimmune Diseases Research Plan
Saccharomyces cerevisiae: a versatile eukaryotic system in virology; Microbial Cell Factories; Rui P Galao, Nicoletta Scheller, Isabel Alves-Rodrigues, Tanja Breinig, Andreas Meyerhans and Juana Díez; doi:10.1186/1475-2859-6-32

Background Mortality Rate for Vaccines, or Pseudo Study?

Parents of vaccine-injured children call for a study comparing the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated people. So the CDC has come up with a study that, at first glance, appears to provide just that. But that’s just the first glance. A closer view shows that it looks more like another attempt to obscure the truth.

by Heidi Stevenson

A study claims to do what should have been done decades ago: identify the background rate of mortality so that an accurate rate of vaccination risk can be determined. It’s fairly obvious that such information would be of great value. If you know how many people die in an unvaccinated population, then the rate of death after a vaccine is introduced can beidentified fairly accurately. This study, though, suffers from a multitude of problems that negate any possibility of providing a genuine background rate of mortality to determine a vaccine’s risk.

Most Obvious Flaws

The most obvious concern is that the new study does not determine the death rate in an unvaccinated population. In fact, only vaccinated people are included! So how can it possibly provide information about the background death rate in unvaccinated people?

Nonetheless, the study, published in the American Review of Preventive Medicine, states that its goal is to:

Provide background mortality rates and describe causes of death following vaccination in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).

The study investigates only the death rate within 60 days of vaccination. In fact, most of the conditions association with vaccines are long term, not ones that kill quickly. Therefore, most people harmed by vaccines would not be detected through such a simplistic approach. Another consideration is that the study specifically eliminates anyone who has not been vaccinated, since the date of vaccination is the start time for each person’s entry into the study.

The study was produced by Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and 10 managed care organizations (MCOs), including 6 Kaiser facilities, Group Health Cooperative of Seattle, Washington, Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, both of Boston, Massachussetts, and Marshfield Clinic of Marshfield, Wisconsin. The VSD is supposed to provide, according to the CDC, “immunization safety studies” and states:

The VSD has proven to be a highly effective tool for evaluating immunization safety. Since 1990, investigators from the VSD has [sic] published numerous scientific studies on the best ways to use existing immunization safety data.^[2]

Interestingly, the VSD consistently finds absolutely nothing wrong with vaccine safety—not even for the so-called cervical cancer vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, for which extremely high rates of severe adverse effects compared to any other vaccines have been documented, based on the CDC’s and FDA’s own Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

Claims of No Conflict of Interest Exaggerated

It’s fairly obvious from this alone that the CDC itself is vested in covering up the harms done by vaccines. Serious research, including laboratory studies like those done by Christopher Shaw and Romain Gherardi and their groups, or mathematical analyses, like those done by Neil Z. Miller and Gary Goldman—to name only some of the best known researchers—has documented the strong link between vaccines and severe harm, including autism and a range of autoimmune and neurological disorders. Yet, virtually everything vaccine-related that comes out of the CDC serves to whitewash them.

This study claims that only one of its researchers has any conflict of interest. That one, Roger Baxter, receives research grants from Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer, which are all major vaccine makers. However, we need to go deeper than such obvious links to vaccine manufacturers in determining whether there’s any untoward influence. In this case, the lead researcher, Frank DeStefano, by virtue of his position as Director of the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office, which funded this study, cannot truly be considered free of bias. DeStefano recently produced a study claiming that there is no link between autism and vaccinations. Gaia Health documented how deeply flawed it is in CDC Claim of No Autism-Vaccine Link Based on Junk Science.

The previous director of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, left that position to take on the highly lucrative position of Merck’s vaccine division president and is also director of MSD Wellcome Trust Hilleman Laboratories Private Limited. She is an example of the routine movement of people from the CDC to lush positions in the pharmaceutical industry that they’re supposed to be regulating.

It begs credulity to suggest that there is no conflict of interest between the CDC and the vaccine industry. This study stands as a monument to that fact.

Subtle Flaws

Aside from the obvious flaws of not even looking at the unvaccinated and only considering deaths up to 60 days after a vaccination, there are other less apparent flaws.

Types and Numbers of Vaccinations

No consideration was given for what type of vaccination was given or whether they were combination or multiple vaccinations. That most likely has a significant effect on the results. People of all ages were included in the study, and it’s highly unlikely that people of different ages received the same vaccines. After all, adults are rarely given vaccines usually given for childhood disease, such as measles, mumps, and rubella. Adults receive far fewer combination or multiple vaccines. Thus all vaccinations and vaccines were treated as equal. How did this affect the results? We simply do not know.

Time of Enrollment in Study

Time in the study is counted only until an individual’s death. That may seem okay on the surface, but it means that those who died earlier are weighted less than those who died later or survived. A person who died the day after a vaccination compared to someone who lived for 60 days counts only one-sixtieth as much. That gives more weight to the person who lived longer.

Person-Years

The study provides its primary results in terms of person-years. This is simply not a valid measurement for this type of study. It’s useful in a study that’s concerned with time of exposure to something, such as a toxin. It can demonstrate that short term exposure is less harmful than long term exposure, or that harm develops within a certain period of time.

However, this study was not like that. Instead, it was about harm produced by a single event, vaccination. In such a study, person-time results do not provide the needed information. What’s needed in a study like this is a figure that tells us what percent of people are harmed. It can be interesting and helpful to learn how long after an event the harm occurred, but the salient concern is simply whether the event occurred or didn’t occur.

Assumption of Health at Time of Vaccinaton

The authors state:

Generally, people are more likely to receive a vaccine when they are in a relatively healthy, disease-free state, and the VSD mortality rates demonstrate this healthy
vaccinee effect.

Is this true? The fact is that public health authorities tend to focus on people who are considered to be immune-compromised or otherwise unhealthy in their vaccination programs! That’s the antithesis of the assumption made by the authors of this study. It could very well be that the average vaccinee is less healthy than the average person, not the opposite.

No Limits to Evade Doing a Study Comparing Vaccinated with Unvaccinated

It’s quite obvious that the only way to allay concerns of vaccinations risks—or to prove them valid—is with an honest, large-scale study comparing outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. If our health agencies were interested in the truth, the first thing they’d have done is such a study. But they refuse to do one. Instead, they have trotted out this pseudo science, which gives the impression that they’re providing the basis for making such a comparison.

The CDC promotes it with the following statement:

Determining the baseline mortality rate in a vaccinated population is necessary to be able to identify any unusual increases in deaths following vaccine administration.^[3]

That sounds true, but notice that they there’s no clarification about what group of people is included in the background. As it happens, in this study the background consists of people who are vaccinated! They go on to say:

Although there is currently no evidence to support a causal relationship between vaccinations and death, this study provides background mortality rates following vaccination to be used as a baseline when examining the safety profiles of new vaccines and during mass immunization campaigns.^p3[

A casual read gives us the impression that this study looks at the mortality rates of unvaccinated people, but careful reading shows otherwise. The CDC has absolutely no interest in discovering whether the current vaccine schedule is harming and killing people.

Science is being perverted by the very agencies that are tasked with protecting the public’s health. There appears to be no limit of subterfuge and use of junk science in the effort to support these agencies’ true agenda: to provide cover for and enforce the will of their true masters, Big Pharma.

Sources:

Mortality Rates and Cause-of-Death Patterns in a Vaccinated Population; American Review of Preventive Medicine; McCarthy et al; doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.02.020.
Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD)
Background mortality rates crucial to interpreting post-vaccination deaths

Tagged background mortality rate, big pharma, big pharma vaccination, cdc, cdc pseudo science, cdc vaccines, centers for disease control, destefano vaccine background mortality, destefano vaccine study, health time of vaccination, health vaccination, junk science, person-years, person-years mortality, person-years vaccine study, pharmaceutical drugs, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals vaccines, pseudo-science, study of background mortality rate for vaccines. vaccination mortality, vaccine, vaccine background mortality rate, vaccine mortality, vaccine mortality rate, vaccine safety data link, vaccines, vaccines background mortality

Health Agency Officials Knowingly Mislead on Vaccines

Big Pharma collaborators make key decisions about vaccines in health agencies like the CDC & FDA. As this review of official responses to a congressional inquiry clearly demonstrate, the agencies don’t care that it results in the destruction of children’s lives & they will never do the studies that can prove vaccines’ harms.

Lies in Stained Glass, photo by Leo Reynolds

by Christina England (VacTruth)

For many years, parents have believed that multiple vaccinations have caused their children to become autistic. Governments from around the world, however, have categorically denied this possibility.They continue to bury their heads in the sand and ignore what is happening. They refuse to carry out relevant studies and will not answer any questions that may uncover the truth about vaccines.

Their actions are clearly demonstrated in a video titled AutismOne & Generation Rescue 2013 Conference Congressional Panel, featuring Congressman Burton (R-IN), Congressman Weldon, MD (R-FL) and Congressman Bill Posey (R-FL), published on May 11, 2013.

The video highlights what has been going on behind closed doors over the years and gives parents the rare opportunity to witness first hand the lies that are being told and the sheer enormity of the vaccine deception.^[1]

Vaccines, Lies, and Videotape

The video begins in the year 2000.

Representative Dan Burton, chairman of the 2000 House Government Reform Committee on Autism and Childhood Vaccines, opened the conference by stating that autism, once considered a rare disorder, has become a near epidemic. He said that it is a top priority to carry out as much research into the potential connection between vaccines and autism as possible. He finished his introduction to Congress by stating that we must stop burying our heads in the sand and ignoring this possibility.

Turning to Dr. Coleen Boyle, the Director of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), he asked:

We have been checking all the financial records of the FDA, the HHS, the CDC. Do you believe that anybody who is getting funds from Merck or any of the other pharmaceutical companies should be on advisory panels that are making judgements about pharmaceuticals coming from those companies, or do you believe that is a conflict of interest?

Now, for many of us, this question would appear to be relatively simple for someone of Dr. Boyle’s standing to answer. However, it was not simple for Dr. Boyle; she appeared to be rendered speechless, before stating:

I think that is a difficult question to answer.

Congressman Burton then turned to Dr. Paul Offit and said:

You talk about collaboration, I guess with the Merck pharmaceutical company?

To which Offit stuttered:

Yes, I, um, as I, um, disclosed in my written report, I have been in collaboration with Merck and Company on the development of the Rotavirus vaccine since 1992.

To which Congressman Burton simply replied:

They produce the MMR, don’t they?

Looking back towards Dr. Boyle, Burton asked her why the CDC did not include the possibility that some of these vaccines may have caused the autism increase as one of the potential causes they were investigating, asking her to check out this matter. Despite replying that she would, it appears that once again this relatively simple task was too difficult for Dr. Boyle, because thirteen years later, we are still awaiting her answer.

After speaking to other members of Congress, Congressman Burton turned back to Dr. Boyle and stated very firmly:

Dr. Boyle, for your information, at a public meeting in Brick Township in January in 1997, and you should know this, with

the CDC and others present, several of the audience members asked about the vaccines and the possible autism link and they asked for that to be checked.

He continued:

And I submit that maybe, just maybe, it’s because the pharmaceutical company that manufactures it had some influence on the people in that meeting and they said, ‘Hey, we don’t want to get into that,” and if that’s the case, that is damn near criminal.

Concluding the 2000 clip, I feel that Dr. Bernard Rimland made the most honest response of the day, when he answered Dan Burton’s question as to whether, after listening to the comments made at the meeting and carrying out his own scientific research, there was any possibility that vaccines were contributing to the increase in autism.

Dr. Rimland answered:

There is not only the possibility, there is an extremely high likelihood, from all the evidence available.

Those are strong words, so why has he been ignored?

Government Agencies Continue to Ignore Pleas for Intervention

Moving on to 2002, it appeared as if nothing much had changed. Once again, Congressman Dan Burton can be seen chairing the panel meeting, opening with an extremely poignant and moving piece of film of a child suffering with severe autism to demonstrate what parents cope with on a daily basis.

This piece of film moved the audience to tears and Congressman Burton commented that his grandson, along with thousands of other children across the country, were perfectly normal until they received multiple vaccines and continued by adding this extremely strong statement:

So, we can’t let the pharmaceutical industries and our government cover this mess up today because it ain’t gonna go away and it’s going to cost the taxpayers trillions more if we wait around on it and for our FDA, the HHS and the health agencies to continue to hide behind this facade that there have been studies that conclusively prove otherwise, is just wrong, too!

In fact, the whole video from beginning to end clearly shows evidence that this heated debate has carried on for more than a decade. Each year the same issues and the same problems appear to be discussed, and yet the panel comes to the same conclusion that studies are not being carried out to investigate the link between vaccines and autism.

So, why is this happening and why is nothing being done?

Government Investigator Turned Fugitive

In 2012, we see Congressman Bill Posey has taken over the task of trying to question the elusive and now somewhat greying Dr. Boyle from the CDC, about vaccinations and autism.

Congressman Posey asks:

Dr. Boyle, my predecessor Congressman Welder was a well-respected, competent medical doctor and I glean from him with some certainty he felt thimerosal in vaccinations definitely was a contributory factor to autism and I wonder if the CDC has conducted or facilitated a study comparing vaccinated children with unvaccinated children yet? Have you done that?

As expected, instead of answering the question asked of her, Dr. Boyle avoids his question completely and answers by stating:

We have done a number of studies looking at the relationship between thimerosal vaccines and autism and other developmental disabilities.

Not to give up on his line of questioning, Congressman Posey rephrased his question in the hope that he may have gotten a direct answer, asking:

So, clearly, definitely, unequivocally, you have studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated?

To which she replied:

We have not studied vaccinated versus unvaccinated.

Just as she tried to continue with yet more waffle, Congressman Posey stopped her in her tracks, saying:

Never mind, that was the meaning of my question, you have wasted two minutes of my time.

He then asked:

What steps has the CDC undertaken to ensure the integrity of the research that was performed by Dr. Thorsen, who, as you know, has been indicted for misconduct in the misallocation of resources?

Once again Boyle can be seen avoiding his question. Instead of answering Congressman Posey directly, she tried to palm him off with incorrect data, stating that Dr. Thorsen was a co-investigator in just two of the studies carried out. This was immediately refuted by Posey, who asked if he would be allowed to submit, for the record, information proving that Dr. Thorsen was in fact involved in 21 of the 24 studies undertaken.

At no time in any part of the video did Dr. Boyle answer any question without evading the issue put before her, even when Posey asked:

Have you gone back to validate the variety of studies he participated in? I mean, you know this guy is a humongous scumbag, one of the most wanted men on earth, and you relied on him for data to determine whether thimerosal had a negative effect?

Rather than admit to Dr. Thorsen’s failings, Dr. Boyle immediately jumped to Thorsen’s defense, even though this is a man who tops the federal most wanted list for 22 counts of wire fraud and money laundering, facing a total of 260 years in jail for his crimes.^[2]

Conclusion

It is obvious from listening to the video that not one person whom Congressman Burton or the panel questioned had any conclusive evidence that vaccines did not cause autism. Instead, leading figures gave false information and avoided all of the questions being asked of them. Many had conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry manufacturing the vaccines and saw no problem with this.

Members of the CDC, the FDA and other organizations sanctioning vaccinations are supposed to be independent. If, like Paul Offit, they hold patents to vaccines or are in collaboration with the companies manufacturing the vaccines, they are not independent and therefore not impartial.

Surely, parents trusting those officials with their children’s lives deserve better than this. It is time for change. For parents to have faith in the vaccine programs, they need to see concrete evidence proving that the vaccines are safe. Instead of bringing out more and more vaccines and trying to mandate vaccinations, governments and their representatives need to answer the questions being asked of them. This video is conclusive evidence that this is not happening.

Sources:

The AutismOne & Generation Rescue 2013 Congressional Panel
The curious case of Poul Thorsen, fraud and embezzlement, and the Danish vaccine-autism studies; D. Gorski

Tagged autism, autism vaccines, big pharma, big pharma collaborators, cdc vaccines autism, congress autism, congress vaccines autism, congressman burton autism, congressman posey autism, dan burton autism, study vaccinated vs unvaccinated, thorsen autism study, vaccine, vaccine harm, vaccines

Polio Elimination by Vaccine Is a Hoax

The idea that vaccines have nearly eliminated polio is taken as virtually axiomatic. But is it? This review demonstrates that the evidence demonstrates something entirely different. What do polio and acute flaccid paralysis have in common? Everything—literally.

by Paul Fassa

Perhaps you’ve seen those fierce trolling vaccine shills pop into comment sections of articles that report truthfully on vaccines. They often talk about vaccine merits that heavily outweigh risks from adverse effects—which they don’t even believe actually exist … though by now everyone should at least know there are risks from vaccinations.

A common argument whose purpose is to throw people off says that polio was eradicated by vaccinating entire populations with polio vaccines. You may think for a moment that it’s a valid argument, one that you cannot counter. But that’s simply not true.

You can strengthen your own anti-vaccination resolve or fortify your arguments by printing and using several quotes from real physicians, scientists, and other medical professionals commenting on vaccine failure in the Vaccines Uncensored website, which is full of brilliant quotations that demonstrate the absurdity of health agencies’ push for universal vaccination. Many sites that are attacked in by vaccination advocates offer some insightful information.

The ‘Change the Name’ Game

The disappearance of iron lungs, those huge devices resembling miniature, individually customized decompression chambers in which polio victims were placed to help them breathe, has led most to believe that the problem of polio is over. But the iron lung has merely been replaced with another, much smaller portable medical device known as the ventilator. Ventilators are used now to help those stricken with breathing limitations, whether from completely congested lungs, polio, or other paralysis that makes it impossible to breathe normally.

According to Dr. Suzanne Humphries M.D, shortly after 1955, the fact that the polio vaccine was even spreading polio was covered up. Dr. Humphries went on to explain how a deadly live polio virus strain had infected the Salk vaccines and created an epidemic of polio-type diseases, which were labeled aseptic meningitis or acute flaccid paralysis (AFP). The term AFP includes Guillain-Barré syndrome, aka “French Polio”, traumatic neuritis, Reye’s syndrome, enteroviral encephalitis, transverse myelitis, and poliomyelitis.

Dr. Humphries displayed a graph in her article showing how reports of polio leveled out while AFP cases have continually soared since the mid-1990s, demonstrating that polio has not disappeared.

Dr. Lorraine Day, who is an orthopedic surgeon and professor of medicine, healed herself from cancer naturally and stayed away from mainstream medicine’s harsh interventions after being “sent home to die”. She explains that vaccines don’t work in this video interview.

After polio vaccinations had begun, polio was assigned different names to hide the vaccines’ ineffectiveness. Dr. Day asserts that 80 to 100 percent of polio cases were created by the vaccine itself—but few knew it, because the name of most cases had been changed to aseptic meningitis.

Polio peaked in the early 1950s and was on its way out prior to the introduction of the Salk polio vaccine.

Then came the oral polio vaccine (OPV) using attenuated live viruses, which was invented by Albert Sabin. These weakened microbes are shed by people recently vaccinated, which can result in infections in people around them.

Sadly, the reality has proven to be even worse. Live viruses contained in OPVs tend to mutate into a more virulent strain of polio. There have even been cases in the United States where parents were stricken with paralytic polio from OPV viruses while changing their recently vaccinated babies’ diapers.

The dangerous oral polio vaccines were eventually banned in America and other industrialized nations, but the vaccine manufacturers managed to push them onto third world countries that not only paid for them, but often agreed to force the OPV on their populations.

A Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation program in India was promoted as “The Last Mile: Eradicating Polio in India”. The video displays numbers indicating thousands of Indian polio cases decades ago, with the number of cases dropping to 42 by 2010.

But those wild polio virus stats have been traded for former polio cases under a different name: non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP).

Simply change the name of a disease and it disappears, while another one appears with the same symptoms! It’s a great way for the vaccine industry’s PR campaigns to sell their junk to poor and developing nations.

In case you’re wondering why the mainstream media helps the pharmaceutical industry hide this dirt, consider that the media protects the sources of its income, and the pharmaceutical industry provides them with enormous advertising revenue.

Tagged acute flaccid paralysis, aseptic meningitis, change the name game, opv, oral polio vaccine, pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceuticals, polio disappearance, polio elimination, polio vaccine, vaccine, vaccine risks, vaccines, wild polio

MMR Vaccination’s Abject Failure in Measles and Mumps

Herd immunity is the clarion cry to press everyone into vaccination. It’s trumpeted by every health agency, in spite of the abject failure of the MMR in both measles and mumps. Even the vaccine’s failure is used to demand that everyone be vaccinated. There is no absurdity too great that it won’t be used to press for forced vaccination.

by Heidi Stevenson
(with appreciation to Hilary Butler’s insight into this issue)

The mumps portion of the MMR vaccine is failing, according to Public Health England (PHE).^[1] Therefore, according to the Guardian, they say that all those who are unvaccinated should be vaccinated.^[2] Seriously! The PHE says:

[S]ome waning immunity may be contributing to transmission.^[2]

So, the failure of the vaccine is somehow the fault of people who choose not to vaccinate!

But the insanity doesn’t stop there. During the recent measles outbreak in Wales, the death of a young man was blamed on measles, though it was later admitted that the cause of death was unknown. Now, though, they’re returning to the original claim that he did die of measles. The reason is that the official cause of death was giant cell pneumonia, which is generally believed to be caused only by measles.

It’s now reported by the pathologist Dr. Maurizio Brotto that he tested positive for measles. There’s a good deal more about this story, though, which we’ll discuss a bit later. For the moment, we’ll simply note that, for some reason, they were unable to come up with a positive measles test until after it was confirmed that he had died of a disease presumed to be cause by measles.

Herd Immunity: Moving Goal Posts

Herd immunity is the belief that, if enough people (or animals) are vaccinated for a particular disease, then everyone is protected from that disease. The problem is that the percentage of people who must have antibodies to provide that herd immunity is a moving target. Over time, the figure has increased. At various times, it’s been believed that everyone would be protected from measles if 55% … 76% … 85% … well, maybe 95% of the population were vaccinated for it. ^[4]

A 2010 estimate for mumps herd immunity by the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC’s) Dr. Preeta K. Kutty was that 90 – 92% of the population must have mumps antibodies to protect everyone.^[5]

Whoops! Wales’ MMR vaccination rate, according to Health Protection England, is 95 percent.^[1] Apparently, herd immunity isn’t doing Wales much good in preventing the current outbreak of mumps!

So, although PHE has admitted that the MMR vaccine does not last long enough to produce herd immunity, they continue with their policy stating:

The immunity that MMR gives is probably lifelong. We know that people remain immune for at least 30 years against measles, 23 years against rubella and 19 against mumps.

Of course, that’s just plain ridiculous, so there’s a fair amount of shuffling going on. They would like to change the question, “Is MMR protection lifelong?” to “How long does protection from MMR last?” To that, they want to respond:

Most studies suggest that protection following MMR vaccine is very long lasting. For measles and rubella almost all people (more than 99%) will be protected after two doses of vaccine. In contrast, protection against mumps after two doses is a little lower (90-95%) and appears to gradually decline.

In other words, they would like to issue mealy-mouthed propaganda and pressure the unvaccinated to get vaccinated! Of course, they never even consider the fact that a vaccinated person could come down with mumps and be the first person to spread it around to others. In fact, they have not identified the first person who got mumps in Wales, so they cannot possibly claim that the outbreak was started in an unvaccinated person. But still, they blame the unvaccinated for the outbreak.

So, they just resort to using deceptive language, à la Brave New World—and, of course, blame the people who are actually paying attention and not falling for it, the unvaccinated.

Blaming Measles for Failure to Treat a Serious Illness

The young man who tragically died during the Wales measles outbreak died of giant cell pneumonia, also known as Hecht’s pneumonia, which is usually believed to be an adverse outcome of measles. Therefore, the pathologist blamed his death on measles and stated that he had confirmed measles. This is odd, since earlier, when the health department was coming under criticism for promoting his case, the public was told that they had not been able to confirm measles in him … but there’s more to this case than that.

Hecht’s pneumonia usually strikes only the very weakest and immune compromised, like people with leukemia. It’s virtually never seen outside of such severe underlying ill health.

The young man in question was in very poor health. The pathologist called him, “extremely underweight”. He had asthma, and on top of these problems, he was an alcoholic being treated with a detoxification drug for alcohol withdrawal.

I will not stand in judgement of this young man. No one knows what stresses he had to deal with. Nonetheless, the fact is that his health was far from good. But to make matters worse, it’s difficult to make a case that he was properly treated medically.

This unhealthily thin young man with asthma and an obviously severe alcohol problem went to three GPs the day before he died. His mother stated that he could barely stand. He was simply sent home. He went to a hospital. The inquest found that he had complained of a rash, fever, and hallucination. He was clearly extremely ill—but he was sent home.

And found dead the next day.

What was the cause of death? Measles? Hecht’s pneumonia? Alcoholism? Detoxification? Or could it have been lack of proper treatment by several doctors who saw him? No history was taken. He was not diagnosed with the pneumonia he had. Nothing that the hospital should have done was done. He might have survived if he’d been diagnosed and treated properly, but he stood no chance because the doctors turned him away—sent him home.

But there’s even more to this tale. It’s so very easy to simply say that Hecht’s pneumonia is a sequela of measles, but the truth is that it isn’t necessarily the case. It’s actually an opportunistic disease that can happen only to someone with a severely weakend immune system, such as that described by people with an AIDS diagnosis.^[6]

He may have been vaccinated with the MMR, or he may not. His mother originally said that he had been, but the doctors now say he wasn’t—and, of course, blame the lack of a vaccination for his death … though they apparently never considered whether he had a wise GP as a child who determined that his health was not robust enough to handle that vaccination.

So what caused this young man’s death? It’s easy to say that it was measles, but that’s simplistic. The young man’s health was severely compromised. On top of that, his lack of even a diagnosis on entering a hospital so ill that he had hallucinations and could barely stand suggests that the doctors should, at the very least, have acknowledged that his death was largely due to lack of proper treatment.

Who to Blame? Why, the Unvaccinated … of Course!

But it’s ever so much more convenient to blame measles … and then, to take just one more step and place the blame for measles on people who choose not to be vaccinated. And that is, of course, what’s happening. Those people who believe that health is not found artificially in vaccines and are not willing to risk the potentially terrible adverse effects of the MMR, such as autism, are now being blamed.

What they’re saying is that people who have damaged immune systems—even if they’ve done it to themselves—should be protected by forcing everyone else to be vaccinated. But what happens to those people who are maimed or even killed by their sacrifice? Is there any help for them? Do they get medals for their sacrifice?

No. They’re ignored … brushed aside as so much excess weight on society. These people—usually children—pay horrific prices to save the lives of others. Surely they deserve at least a bit of acknowledgment for their sacrifice, don’t they?

And those who suggest that the unvaccinated are responsible for people with weak immune systems also ignore the fact that even the vaccinated succumb to the diseases. They ignore the fact that their vaunted herd immunity has never been shown to work. It’s nothing but a theory, and the goal posts for it keep getting pushed farther out. They presume to have the ethical right to force the risk of harm on some to protect others. But they never explain why those others are more deserving of protection than the innocent child who is sacrificed on the altar of herd immunity.

Sources:

Tagged autism vaccines, giant cell pneumonia, hecht’s pneumonia, herd immunity, lifelong immunity, measles mumps rubella, measles vaccine, mmr, mumps vaccine, unvaccinated blamed, vaccine, vaccine immunity wanes, vaccines, wales measles outbreak, waning mmr immunity

Rotavirus Vaccine: Diarrhea of Deceit

The rotavirus vaccine is a textbook example of what’s wrong with the vaccine industry. It works for only a limited number of rotavirus types, causes severe adverse effects including death, was approved via corrupt agencies & officials with financial ties to the manufacturer—and it results in far more cases of a far more deadly disease.

Photo of man in jeans (original knives replaced by hypodermics) by David Goehring

by Jagannath Chatterjee

When doctors prescribe the Rotavirus vaccine as a preventive against diarrhea, the deception begins. Parents are not informed that diarrhea can be caused by a host of factors, including bacterial and viral infections. Bacterial infections resulting from unclean water are more harmful. Viral infections leading to diarrhea do not pose any danger if the child is treated with an oral rehydration solution or is breastfed, which can prevent dehydration.

There are many strains of rotavirus and most are yet to be identified. Besides the rotavirus strains, diarrhea can also be caused by astroviruses, calciviruses, other pathogens, and toxins. The rotavirus vaccine, delivered orally, contains just four of the many rotavirus strains and can protect against only these strains, leaving the child unprotected against the major factors.

The first rotavirus vaccine was licensed in the USA in 1998 and was recommended in March 1999. Parents did not know that this vaccine was recommended by ignoring serious side effects noticed in clinical trials. As a result many children suffered inversion of part of the intestine into an adjacent section—a condition called intussusception—a very serious, painful, and often fatal condition. Deaths for unexplained reasons were reported. Consequently the vaccine was withdrawn in October 1999.

When the US Congress investigated, serious procedural problems and negligence came to the fore, prompting a hearing on June 15, 2000. It revealed that both the FDA and CDC, US regulatory bodies, were aware about the vaccine’s serious adverse effects. There was also conflict of interest as two members on the advisory committee profited from the decision. Dr. Kathryn Edwards had received research funds worth $255,000 per year from the vaccine manufacturer. Dr. Paul Offit held a patent on another rotavirus vaccine and his travel around the country to advise about vaccine safety was funded by vaccine manufacturers. Moreover, 60% of FDA advisory committee members and 50% of CDC members had financial ties with the manufacturers of the vaccine. Clearly, the greed of both officials and the pharmaceutical industry prompted the flouting of all rules and the health of children took second place.

One would have expected serious action on the basis of these findings, but nothing happened. The erring agencies, which ought to maintain very high standards of honesty and integrity, instead justified their actions by saying that there was no bar to officials with ties to the industry recommending vaccines. In 2006 two more versions of the vaccine, containing live viruses and orally administered, were out in the market and recommended by those very tainted officials and doctors.

A peep into the clinical trials revealed alarming facts:

The vaccine had not been compared to an inert placebo, but against the same vaccine with all the ingredients, minus the virus so that it could be declared safer than it was.
The viruses used were an assortment of human and cow viruses propagated in cells of African green monkeys, the same specimen that has resulted in the oral polio vaccine (OPV) being contaminated with monkey viruses.
The cells are kept alive in a cow serum medium, which further opens the door to unknown viruses.
The chemical ingredients of the vaccine contain polysorbate 80, a known reproductive toxin.

The clinical trials have recorded a lower incidence of intestinal blockage, signifying that even the new vaccine is not free from that risk. Vaccinated children have a three times greater risk of suffering from intestinal bleeding, even after accounting for many cases that were denied by the supervising team. The trials revealed:

Gangrene and necrosis of the intestines
Severe vomiting leading to hospitalization
Seizures caused by abnormal electrical discharges in the brain that in some cases became chronic
Eczema
Diarrhea (the very disease the vaccine is supposed to prevent)
Frequent ear infections
Difficulty in breathing
Asthma
Nasopharyngitis, which is a viral infectious disease of the upper respiratory tract

Recent media reports have noted that the use of this vaccine in the USA has caused an alarming increase in cases of a far more lethal norovirus infection, which is causing 21 million cases and 800 deaths annually—against the 20 to 40 annual deaths that occur from rotavirus infections. There has also been a dramatic increase in cases of inflammatory bowel disease. Instead of reviewing the situation and withdrawing the rotavirus vaccine, which has caused the shift to a more lethal virus, a vaccine for norovirus has been developed and is ready for marketing.

Alarmed by the adverse effects of the vaccine in India and noting that rotavirus-related diarrhea is easily treated without complications, not to mention that the rates for India are based upon estimates kept high to alarm the public, ethical Indian doctors have pointed out that the high cost of the vaccine makes it prohibitive and not cost effective. A study has revealed that the incidence of diarrhea and related deaths in India is directly related to poverty, lack of clean drinking water, and sanitation, and that in most cases it requires the presence of other pathogens for rotavirus to cause diarrhea.

Doctors trying to report cases of adverse effects have been stopped from doing so by the Indian Academy of Pediatrics (IAP) – an agency that is entirely dependent on funds from vaccine manufacturers for its operations—under the plea that the safety profile of the vaccine should not be tarnished! The IAP is lobbying for its inclusion in the government program.

Recently, to counter the cost effectiveness argument, Indian scientists provided great publicity to an indigenously prepared and low priced rotavirus vaccine. Even as the publicity, backed by the Department of Biotechnology in India, was picked up by the national and international press, it emerged that the results of the clinical trials are yet to be made public. It has also been pointed out that the vaccine has only one rotavirus strain, and has been tested on 4,532 infants, whereas to fully determine the adverse events it needs to be tested on more than 50,000. Incidentally, the Indian vaccine requires that mothers stop breastfeeding their children during its period of administration and for a time afterwards—a highly controversial aspect.

Providing publicity to clinical trial findings before the results are published is a violation of medical ethics. This would make it difficult for a peer reviewed journal to publish the findings. The involvement of controversial agencies like PATH and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in the evolution of this vaccine has also riled the health activists because of their recent active connivance with government agencies in India to illegally test the highly controversial and unsafe cervical cancer vaccine on tribal girls in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat without parental consent, which resulted in several deaths and adverse effects.

It remains to be seen whether the industry-backed attempt to mass administer a questionable and unsafe corporate product for diarrhea prevention will succeed and take preference over genuine public health needs, like eradication of poverty, provision for clean water and sanitation, and nutrition for the mother and child. Now the ball is in the court of the government of India, which sadly has a tainted record for allowing the administration of the OPV, which has caused paralysis cases in the country to soar from 3,000 to 60,000 cases annually, and is now claiming credit for a “polio free” India.

Sources:

Tagged big pharma, bill & melinda gates foundation rotavirus, pharmaceutical companies, rotavirus norovirus, rotavirus vaccine, rotavirus vaccine corruption, rotavirus vaccine india, rotovirus vaccine adverse effects, vaccine, vaccines