Conventional Medicine | Gaia-Health.link

Major Threats from Universal Flu Vaccine

The upcoming universal influenza vaccine will be carrying at least two threats: nanoparticles and a potentially new autoimmune disorder. Yet nothing stops the development of these dangerous products intended to be applied to virtually everyone, whether healthy or not. In the end, it becomes obvious that it’s not nice to fool Mother Nature!

Influenza Virus, by Sanofi Pasteur

Reports of a major advance in developing a universal influenza vaccine have provided information that clarifies the utter recklessness inherent in the vaccine industry. Two significant risks to heath will be part of every injection: nanoparticles and autoimmune disorders.

The new technique involves fusing two proteins, haemagglutinin (HA) found on the surface membranes of flu viruses and ferritin. These particles are grown through genetic engineering of bacteria, and according to the journal Nature^[1,2]:

[T]he HA–ferritin complexes automatically assembled into a structure with a 24-piece ferritin core from which protruded eight three-piece HA spikes, mimicking the natural HA spikes in the flu virus coat.

The genetically engineered particles contain a core of 24 ferritin proteins with 8 spikes containing 3 HA proteins. They are believed to be similar to the HA spikes found on viruses, but the HA is described by the lead researcher, Gary Nabel, as more loosely packed than on a natural virus. These HA proteins are believed to act as antigens.

The concept is that these HA spikes are the same on a range of influenza types, so the vaccine, though not actually universal, would be effective against a large group of flu viruses. There are a total of 17 different HA variations in viruses. The H in flu names, such as H1N1 (swine flu) or H5N1 (bird flu of 2004), refers to haemagglutinin. The theory is that all type H1 flu viruses could respond to an H1 vaccine, but H2, H3, and others would not.

The New Risks

Initially, it sounds good. You would be able to get a single vaccine for a range of influenza viruses, not just single vaccines that are simply guesses at which variety you’re likely to come in contact with. That would appear to mean fewer vaccinations and, thus, fewer risks. But don’t be so sure.

To begin with, we know that vaccines don’t last more than a few years, so repeat vaccinations are a surety. On top of that, vaccines would be developed for each HA type. While not all types are known to infect humans, you can easily imagine the push for “just in case” vaccines—”just in case it jumps to humans”. So would there be fewer vaccinations? Not likely.

But the potential risk is far greater than just the number of vaccinations to which each person might be subjected. There are two new risks that these “universal” vaccines would bring about: nanoparticles and autoimmune disorders.

Nanoparticles

Nanoparticles are simple bits of matter that are very small, measured in terms of billionths (nano) of a meter. There’s been little research into their potential health risks, but what does exist is not comforting. Nanoparticles can easily pass through both the blood-brain barrier, indicating potential risk to the central nervous system, and the blood-testes barrier, indicating potential risk to the male reproductive system.^[3] They have been documented to cause lung damage.^[4,5]

While we don’t know much about nanoparticle risks to human health, we know enough that such risk does exist and that their ability to pass the blood-brain barrier indicates that the potential nature of health risk is very high. Clearly, introducing nanoparticles through injections is taking enormous risks with the public’s health.

Autoimmune Disease

Autoimmune diseases are becoming rampant, and as demonstrated many times on Gaia Health, many can be traced back to vaccines. The nature of an autoimmune disorder is disruption of the immune system, making it see normal tissues as enemies to be attacked and destroyed. Multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis are two obvious examples. In multiple sclerosis, the immune system attacks the myelin that covers and protects nerves.

Rheumatoid arthritis is caused by the immune system attacking and destroying joint cartilage, and is known to be induced by vaccine adjuvants that contain oil, such as squalene. An animal equivalent to rheumatoid arthritis is routinely created in lab animals by the injection of oil-based Freund’s adjuvant, so there’s no doubt that the risk is known.

Ferritin is a natural substance that’s ubiquitous in the human body—and it’s the basis of the new “universal” influenza vaccine. Injecting ferritin, almost certainly with an adjuvant designed to increase the immune response, must carry the risk of autoimmune disorders involving activation of the immune system against it.

As an analog, consider antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). It is known to be associated with tetanus vaccinations, but has been on the increase.^[6]APS affects every part of the body and is a condition of the immune system attacking phospholipids, which are building blocks of the body.

Ferritin is required for the regulation of iron balance. It holds iron molecules inside cells until they’re needed, and then releases them. If the immune system is keyed to attack ferritin, then the ability to maintain iron homeostasis will be lost.^[7,8]

Trying to Fool Mother Nature

It seems that medical science has taken on the hubristic notion that it’s possible to fool Mother Nature. But as that old advertisement for margarine so humorously—and with unintended satire—said, “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature!” It’s not only not nice, it’s dangerous. The massive attack on human health that’s been brought forth with vaccines is costing us dearly. Chronic diseases are rampant. Diseases, such as diabetes and autism, that not long ago were almost unknown in children, are now at epidemic proportions. While it’s not possible to pin all chronic ill health on vaccines, evidence demonstrates that they’re a significant part of the cause, and very likely a primary trigger.

Autoimmune disorders are at epidemic proportions, and most, such as multiple sclerosis, lupus erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis, can be tied to vaccines.

Yet, rather than being cautious, medicine and its associated science has pulled out all the stops. Instead of putting resources into investigating the causes of rampant chronic disease, there’s been a gung-ho push to find yet more methods of producing vaccines. If a vaccine can be developed more quickly, then it’s termed a great advance. If a vaccine can be produced more cheaply, we’re supposed to line up with bare arms held out for the injected annointment.

But trying to fool Mother Nature is not only not nice, it’s also foolish. We’re left with more and more chronic disease. The average child is now sick. It’s such a recent development that the full extent of harm is unknown. But we do know that the burden of caring for the sick and disabled is not maintainable. It’s fairly obvious that length of life is now becoming shorter, that children now growing up cannot expect to realize long lives—and many will likely die long before reaching old age.

Is this the world we really want to see? If we continue along these lines, bowing at the altar of medical science and refusing to question every edict based on the “evidence-based” claim, it’s fairly obvious where we’re headed—and that we’re dooming our children to shortened, miserable, and unfulfilling lives. Mother Nature isn’t being fooled.

Sources:

Tagged big pharma, conventional medicine, flu vaccine, fool mother nature, influenza vaccine, modern medicine, mother nature, not nice to fool mother nature, pharmaceutical drugs, pharmaceuticals, science, Self-assembling influenza nanoparticle vaccines elicit broadly neutralizing H1N1 antibodies, threats from universal flu vaccine, universal flu vaccine, universal flu vaccine autoimmune disorder, universal flu vaccine nanoparticles, universal flu vaccine study, vaccine, vaccines, vaccines autoimmune disorders, vaccines nanotechnology

Fetuses Drugged in Attempt to Prevent Obesity

Trying to make newborns healthy by drugging them before they’re born is pure insanity—but that’s exactly what’s happening in a string of studies. The diabetes drug, metformin, is being trialed on overweight pregnant women. Concerns of birth defects are ignored in this insane rush to profit off existing drugs.

by Heidi Stevenson

Finding new uses for old drugs is big money. To that end, metformin, a generic diabetes drug, is being given to fetuses to see if it can prevent them from becoming obese. Trials are popping up in several countries, and at least one has already begun in the UK.

Just five years ago, metformin was considered a potential teratogen, that is, a cause of birth defects. Now, though, it’s suddenly being seen as perfectly safe. So safe, in fact, that researchers are jumping at the chance to give it to fetuses to see if it might prevent obesity when they’re born. However, the claim that metformin is safe does not appear to be universally accepted.

Potential Adverse Effects

An editorial in The Medical Journal of Australia^[1] worries about the potential of adverse effects from metformin. The authors refer to adverse effects listed in the manufacturer’s insert. Wrong Diagnosis^[2] lists it as a teratogen, a substance that induces birth defects. Drugs.com^[3] discusses metformin’s association with ketoacidosis, a life-threatening condition.

Metformin is known to cross the placenta, making it enter a fetus’s bloodstream directly. That means they’ll get the full dose. Whatever dose the mother takes, the fetus gets without modulation—along with all the adverse effects.

In spite of the known risks, and in spite of having absolutely no idea what effects metformin might have on a developing fetus or its effects after birth, Big Pharma is putting money behind giving it to fetuses.

Trials in Process or Planned

The first trial is being run in the UK at Liverpool Women’s Hospital. Obese women are divided into placebo and non-placebo groups.^[4,5]

Another US trial by The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston is in the process of recruiting patients.

Excuses for the Metformin Trial

There appears to be nothing more than wishful thinking behind the trial. The researchers hope that babies will be born smaller, though they apparently have nothing on which to base that hope other than…well, wishful thinking.

There is no sense of whether babies would remain smaller, if indeed they actually are born smaller by being given a drug. In fact, there’s no consideration whether the drug might disastrously affect the fetus’s metabolism and lead to a lifetime of disability.

The most frightening aspect of these trials is that they might be successful. If that’s the case, then we’ll be facing massive drugging of overweight pregnant women, most assuredly with pressure and the application of guilt, very likely with women being forced to take these drugs and prosecuted for child abuse if they don’t. But that may not be the worst of it. What will become of these drugged babies as they grow? The fact is that no one knows. Yet, this experiment on the lives of children yet to be born is going ahead full steam.

Dr. Andrew Weeks, the lead researcher of the UK trial, offers the excuse that it’s better to give the mothers and their fetuses this drug, because:

The difficulty comes when you have been living in a particular way for years that is not healthy. To suddenly change to a different lifestyle is not easy to do. Lifestyle change takes time, and we would always encourage this as well, but the use of Metformin gives us another option when the other is not realistic.

Interesting, isn’t it, that Weeks’ focus is on blaming obese women for their situation? He holds the typical assumption that these women are lazy or without will power. There is no consideration for the fact that much of what obesity is a result of the foods that people are encouraged to eat—especially low-fat and artificially-sweetened, both of which result in weight gains—and an environment that discourages exercise. The failure is not in the obese person. The failure is in a medical system that doesn’t address the real causes of obesity, and even actively encourages the very things that cause it.

Dr. Weeks advocates drugging fetuses, rather than changing the factors that result in obesity. Like so many modern medical practitioners, the focus is no longer on health. It’s on treating symptoms. Fat pregnant women tend to produce fat babies? Just give ‘em drugs!

Health is not the absence of drugs. Health is not found in drugs. Trying to make newborns healthy by drugging them before they’re born is pure insanity.

Sources:

Tagged big pharma, big pharma metformin, conventional medicine, drugging fetuses, drugs for health, drugs for health insanity, metformin, metformin fat babies, metformin fetuses, metformin obese babies, metformin obesity, modern medicine, pharmaceutical drugs, pharmaceuticals, science, using drugs to create health

Pfizer-Funded Study Falsely Claims Fish Oil Useless

A study claiming that fish oil provides no benefit in heart disease is being hyped as the final word on the issue. But is it? No, it is not. In fact, the study is absurdly blatant pseudo science, with two errors so glaring it’s hard to believe they were made. Why do the researchers do it? Why do they care so little about the truth and your health?

by Heidi Stevenson

A new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine purports to show that fish oil provides no benefit whatsoever in prevention of heart disease.^[1] At first glance, it would appear to be true. The study is, after all, double blind and placebo controlled, not to mention having a significant number of participants. But is it for real, or is there some sleight of hand at work?

There’s one initial clue that should give pause. The study’s endpoints had to be changed. That’s always a bad sign. In fact, it breaks the rules of good research. But, they had to do it because they found that their study participants weren’t dying as fast as they’d anticipated.

Now, if they’d been interested in the truth, they’d have tried to figure out what was wrong. After all, the odds of dying when people have signs of heart disease are pretty well understood. Otherwise, how could they possibly have anticipated the rate at which deaths would occur?

Of course, they didn’t sit back and wonder what they might be doing wrong. Instead, they just added new end points to their study.

How They Cheated: Basic Trick

There’s a blatantly obvious reason that the death rate was lower than expected, but we’ll get to that in a minute, after demonstrating the study’s primary flaw:

There was no placebo!

Certainly, the write-up on the study claims there was, but the fact is that a placebo, to be legitimate, must contain things other than the active ingredients being tested. So what’s being tested? Eicosapentanoic acid and docosahexanoic acid, two of the substances in fish oil that are believed to be the active properties that provide its benefits.

The “placebo” used was olive oil. What’s in olive oil? Eicosapentanoic acid and docosahexanoic acid, among other substances. Why would anyone expect different results between subjects who took the active ingredients and a “control” group who also took the active ingredients?

How They Cheated: Secondary Trick

The death rate in both the fish oil and fake placebo groups was less than the author anticipated. Why would that be?

In fact, the study did demonstrate something significant. Fewer people in both groups died than the researchers anticipated. Why would that happen? Simple! Both fish oil and olive oil are beneficial in heart health.

Nonetheless, rather than admit the truth—since clearly, these researchers were focused on something other than finding out what’s beneficial to heart health—they refused to ask why there were fewer deaths than anticipated. Instead, they simply ignored the only valid question. Instead, they simply added end points to the trial, such as nonfatal heart attacks and strokes.

And what did they discover from the secondary endpoints? In fact, they learned something that supports the fact that both fish oil and olive oil are beneficial to heart health: The secondary endpoints had the same results in both groups.

What Went Wrong?

Now we need to ask: Why is this pseudo study so embarrassingly wrong? How did the authors get themselves into such an absurdly ridiculous situation? And that can be answered quite simply: Follow the money.

Who paid for this junk science? There were three funders: Pfizer, Società Prodotti Antibiotici, and Sigma-Tau. All three of them are pharmaceutical corporations.

It isn’t in their interest to fund research that elicits the truth. It’s in their interest to fund research that drives potential patients and their doctors to their products. The fact is that fish oil and olive oil are not products that they sell. What they sell are drugs.

Pfizer sells the cholesterol reduction drug, Lipitor. Fish oil and olive oil are both in competition with Lipitor. So, a study that directly debunks claims about the heart health benefits of fish oil and indirectly implies that olive oil is also not beneficial is just the sort of thing they’d want to fund.

What do the researchers know? If they hope to continue to receive research funding, they’d better deliver what the funders want.

So they did.

If it means that your health is damaged, that apparently means nothing to them. If it means you die as a result, they don’t care. As long as they continue to get funded, they’re happy to produce whatever faux results the buyers want.

As to those “experts” who have been promoting the phony results of this study,^[2,3] shame on them! The question is, do they prefer to be thought of as just plain ignorant, unable to see how absurd this pseudo study is, or do they want to be thought of as stupid, unable to understand how absurd it is?

Sources:

n-3 Fatty Acids in Patients with Multiple Cardiovascular Risk Factors; New England Journal of Medicine; The Risk and Prevention Study Collaborative Group; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1205409
No benefit of fish oil in high-risk patients
Fish Oils to Prevent Heart Disease: A Definite ‘No Go’

Tagged big pharma, double blind study, end points, fish oil, fish oil study, heart disease, junk science, olive oil, olive oil study, pfizer junk science, pfizer pseudo sciience, pharmaceutical drugs, pharmaceuticals, placebo, placebo controlled study, pseudo-science, pseudoscience, science

Hospital Less Safe Than Home for Childbirth: Study

It’s time for women to take back the experience of birthing. Modern medicine has medicalized it, falsely claiming that it’s evidence-based. It is not, and a new Cochrane Collaboration Review clearly documents that fact. The medicalization of birth is doing untold harm to mothers and babies, intervening where none is needed and devastating this most significant of life’s events.

by Heidi Stevenson

In the face of mass medicalization of childbirth, the highly respected Cochrane Collaboration has produced a review that shows no benefit in routine hospital deliveries over midwife-assisted home deliveries.^[1] Home births lead to fewer interventions and rarely involve the now-common practice of inducing labor.

Authors Ole Olsen and Jette A. Clausen go so far as to imply that outcomes may be worse when birth is treated as a medical event requiring modern equipment and oversight:

Increasingly better observational studies suggest that planned hospital birth is not any safer than planned home birthassisted by an experienced midwife with collaborative medical back up, but may lead to more interventions and more complications.

“… more interventions and more complications.” Yet, women are not only being discouraged from natural home births, they are now often treated as criminals, with some countries going so far as to outright ban home deliveries. The UK has just effectively made home deliveries illegal without actually passing a law against them. In October, assisting a home delivery will become illegal unless the midwife has indemnity insurance—but no insurance providers will cover them!^[2]In Hungary, Agnés Geréb, a midwife and gynecologist, is now serving a two-year sentence for the “crime” of attending a home delivery.^[3]

The Study

The study is a review of several existing studies and looked for certain outcomes:

Maternal mortality
Perinatal mortality (non malformed)
Birth trauma (e.g. cerebral haemorrhage, fracture of clavicle, long bones or skull, fascial nerve injury or nerve injuryeffecting movement of a child’s shoulder, arm, and hand)
Apgar < 7 at 5 min
Resuscitation
Early cord clamping
Jaundice
Other neonatal morbidity
Transfer to neonatal intensive care unit
Baby not breast fed
Assisted vaginal birth
Caesarean section
Haemorrhage
Perineal trauma
Other maternal morbidity
Epidural
Other (non-epidural) medical pain relief
Non-medical pain relief
Medical augmentation
Episiotomy
Maternal satisfaction

They were able to find adequate data on only four of these items: baby not breast fed, assisted vaginal birth, caesarian section, and other (non-epidural) medical pain relief. They also found adequate information for three other outcomes, which they reported: perineal sutures, mother disappointed about allocation, and father did not state that he was relieved.

Only one of the six studies that matched the initial requirements was found to be adequate. They required that the births involved be determined as low risk by an obstetrician and likely to have suitable home support and conditions, which includes a qualified midwife. The trial took place in the UK, and though all UK midwives are trained for home births, it’s believed that none in this trial had prior experience with home deliveries. Midwives are used in UK hospitals, including this trial, but not necessarily on a one-to-one basis and never continuously, as in home births.

The study was a randomized trial, so the women were assigned to either hospital or home births. Out of 71 pregnant women judged to be low risk, only 11 agreed to take part in the randomization of the trial.

The study found no differences between the two groups in terms of outcomes, with one dramatic difference. The majority of mothers in the hospital group were disappointed in their experiences, but none of the women who had home births was disappointed.

Evidence Based Medicine?

The results are based on fairly scanty evidence, but the fact is that this is the first serious look at the evidence that’s available—and this review found the five other potential studies to be inadequate. It is, therefore, a good start … and it doesn’t bode well for routine hospital deliveries.

The medicalization of birth has been accomplished without any evidence base, in spite of modern medicine’s constant claim of being evidence based. The move to routinely hospitalized births has been accomplished through fear mongering, by scaring new parents into believing that birth is inherently dangerous for both mother and baby, even going so far as to suggest that any new mother who would consider having her child outside a hospital is guilty of child abuse.

The reality is that, in most cases, the opposite is true. As reviewers Olsen and Clausen found, there simply is no evidence for the claims. But of course, birth has become a highly profitable business for doctors and hospitals. Consider, though, the utter lack of evidence in support of hospital-doctor directed births, which has led to an assorted array of high-tech devices resulting in:

Routine surgical deliveries, disadvantaging both mothers and infants.
Early cord clamping, denying virtually every newborn’s inherent right to his own blood. Sadly, this tends to be done by midwives, too, though they do appear to be the frontrunners in ending the practice.
Routine use of invasive, harmful, and generally useless techniques, including:
- Episiotomies.
- Birth scheduling by labor inducement.
- Introduction of unnecessary monitors.
- Pressure for, and often insistence on, caesarian deliveries when doctors arbitrarily decide labor is taking too long. In Brazil, up to 82% of births are done surgically!
- Depersonalization of the entire process.

The bottom line is that there is no conclusive evidence in support of hospital over home births. If the experience of the women in this study is any indication, giving birth in a hospital was a bad experience, while home deliveries were satisfactory.

There is no evidence of better outcomes in hospital deliveries for normal births, and there is good reason to believe that there may be a significant amount of iatrogenic (doctor-induced) injuries to both babies and mothers. After all. when caesarian deliveries are routine, the added risks of major surgery cannot possibly lead to better outcomes in any instances beyond those where normal delivery is impossible.

As many midwives can attest, many of the caesarians that doctors treat as necessary, such as labors that are longer than they like, are not legitimate excuses. Certainly, scheduling deliveries can never best serve the infants. The routine uses of drugs and epidural injections, which can result in permanent disability from the painful neurological disorder arachnoiditis, are avoided in home births.

Modern medicine’s claim to being evidence based is simply untrue in terms of childbirth. Such evidence has never existed, as this Cochrane Review clearly documents.

Finally, the dehumanization of hospitals cannot possibly be to the benefit of the newest entries into the world. Surely, unless good evidence is produced demonstrating that hospital births truly are safe, the headlong rush to medicalize birth needs to be ended. Women need to reclaim their bodies and take control of this most central of life’s experiences. Leaving it to the whims and profits of modern medicine has benefitted only the medical practioners’ and hospital corporations’ bottom lines.

Source:

Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth (Review); The Cochrane Collaboration; Olsen O, Clausen JA; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000352.pub2
Independent midwives – and home births – are under threat
Hungary: Midwife Agnes Gereb taken to court for championing home births
Agnes Gereb

Tagged childbirth evidence based medicine, cochrane collaboration, cochrane collaboration childbirth, conventional medicine, evidence-based medicine, home birth compared with hospital birth, home birth safety, home birth vs hospital birth, hospital birth safety, hospital less safe for birth, medicalization of childbirth, modern medicine, Planned hospital birth versus planned home birth, science

Vaccine Injured African Children Used as Lab Rats

It is no exaggeration to suggest that African children whose lives have been destroyed by a vaccine—given for a disease that isn’t a concern to them—were used as lab rats by the Gates Foundation, PATH, UNICEF, and WHO. Their existence proves the vaccine is extremely dangerous. Nonetheless, it was hailed as a success.

by Christina England

In December 2012, vaccine tragedy hit the small village of Gouro, Chad, Africa, situated on the edge of the Sahara Desert. Five hundred children were locked into their school, threatened that if they did not agree to being force-vaccinated with a meningitis A vaccine, they would receive no further education. These children were vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge. This vaccine was an unlicensed product still going through the third phase of testing.

Within hours, one hundred six children began to suffer from headaches, vomiting, severe uncontrollable convulsions and paralysis. The children’s wait for a doctor began. They had to wait one full week for a doctor to arrive while the team of vaccinators just carried on vaccinating others from the village. More children became sick.

When the doctor finally came, he could do nothing for the children. The team of vaccinators, upon seeing what had happened, fled the village in fear.

Fifty children were finally transferred to a hospital in Faya and later taken by plane to two hospitals in N’Djamena, the capital city of Chad. After being shuttled around like cattle, these sick, weak children were dumped back in their village without a diagnosis and each family was given an unconfirmed sum of £1000 by the government. No forms were signed and no documentation was seen. They were informed that their children had not suffered a vaccine injury. However, if this were true, why would their government award each family £1000 in what has been described as hush money?

Interestingly, during the time the children spent in the hospital, two more children joined them from another village.

To read the full stories of this tragedy, please see references at the end of this article from previous Vactruth world-exclusive reports. ^[1,2,3,4]

Since this time, Vactruth has been passed a series of secret documents, which fill in some missing gaps in this story and expose just how corrupt the organizations behind this tragedy really are.

The Exclusive, Heartbreaking Details

On January 14, 2013, arrangements were made for seven female patients between the ages of 8-18 to be evacuated from the Hospital of Mother and Child (HME) and the General Hospital of National Referrals (HGRN) in N’Djamena and transferred by air to a clinic in Tunisia. This was scheduled to take place between January 16 and 22.

The documents in our possession state that the Chadian government arranged for the patients to be accompanied by Dr. Joseph Mad-Toingue, Chief Service of Infectious Diseases of the National General Referral Hospital; Dr. Moumar Mbaileyo, anesthesiologist employee of the National General Referral Hospital; and Mr. Dihoulne Kakiang, state-certified nurse, employee of the National General Referral Hospital.

On January 29, 2013, a letter passed between The Chief Service of Infectious Diseases of HGRN-N’Djaména and Mr. Director General of the National General Referral Hospital, stating:

Mr. Director General,

Herewith I have the honor of putting into your hands the report of the mission completed in Tunisia between 15 and 22 of January 2013 regarding the medical evacuation of 7 patients.

The Chief of Service.

Vactruth now has this report.

A Parent’s Worst Nightmare

The report states that seven female patients between the ages of 8 and 18 had suffered adverse reactions after receiving the meningitis A vaccination during a national campaign, which took place on December 11, 2012, for the prevention of this illness. These patients had originally been taken to the Regional Hospital of Faya, before being transferred on December 26, 2012, to the Hospital of Mother and Child (HME) and the General Hospital of National Referrals (HGRN) in N’Djamena.

Arrangements were later made for a medical evacuation to transfer these patients to Tunisia for further tests and treatment.

According to the report, the departure took place in N’Djamena on January 15, 2013, at 10:50 pm after a long wait at the Hassan airport in N’Djamena because of the late arrival of the plane.

The journey took place on board a Tunisian plane chartered by the International Medical Society (SMEDI). The party consisted of seven patients, three members of the medical team and seven parents (two men and five women) who accompanied the sick children.

Interestingly, the document states that the party did not fly alone. The government report states that twenty other passengers traveling to Tunisia for the same reason (medical evacuation) also joined the party. Sadly, there were no further details on these patients in the report.

Were these patients also vaccine-damaged by the meningitis A vaccination, and where did these twenty other sick patients come from?

Just before the plane took off, an 18 year-old patient had what the report describes as a ‘shaking episode,’ and was given a 10 mg vial of diazepam before boarding the plane. Other than this incident, the flight went well.

The Specialists Say “Case Closed”

The group arrived in Tunisia on January 16, 2013, and was received by SMEDI agents who took care of the police formalities (entry visa) before dividing the group into three parties. The patients were transported by ambulance to the clinic, the medical staff was taken to a hotel, and the patients’ parents were taken to a center.

On the afternoon of January 16, the three medical staff were introduced to SMEDI’s Director General, M. Ghazi Mejbri, to get acquainted. This was followed by a work session with the medical coordinator, Dr. Folla Amara. In the course of this meeting, the condition of the patients was discussed and plans were arranged for their care.

The patients were taken to the neurological department of SMEDI’s La Sourka clinic. The clinic had received the children’s medical records in advance and was reported to have conducted their own clinical and biological tests on the patients before meeting with the medical team that had accompanied them.

On January 17, a meeting took place with Professor Rachid Namai (“chef de clinique”), Dr. Kefi and Dr. Mabet. It was concluded that the children’s ‘shaking attacks’ or convulsions were of no consequence. On the paraclinical level, the report stated that the serum tests of five patients did not reveal any anomalies, nor did the EEGs of six patients.

The EEG of the seventh patient showed minor anomalies in the immediate post-critical phase, but was reported to have stabilized. An MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) was to take place on all seven patients. After the meeting, the team visited the patients who were all reported to be well, except for one child who had developed tonsillitis and had to receive appropriate treatment.

On January 19, a second meeting took place at the La Soukra Clinic during which they examined the patients’ medical records that gave the results of all the medical tests that had taken place. Among the biological perturbations there was reported to be one case of persistent thrombopenia (a lower than normal number of blood cell fragments called platelets), two cases of of elevated immunoglobulines E (Ig E) and five cases of gram negative bacteria directly upon examination—culturing has not been contributory.

The report stated that, generally speaking, the patients showed a raised tendency for hypoalbuminemia (swelling), hypo creatininemia (renal dysfunction), and hyper glucorrhagia (no definition found).

The MRI results showed no anomalies, and the HIV and hepatitis serologies were negative. The medical team found the children’s health to be satisfactory. The report states that the children had no infectious cause for their illness and the hypothesis of an immuno-allergic reaction was deemed to be more probable.

At this point, it was decided to close the investigation due to the advice from specialists and followed up with epidemiological and pharmacodynamical studies.

No Reason For Concern?

On January 21, the mission members visited the clinic at La Soukra for a last time. They found all patients waiting for their stay to end. The report states that a short meeting took place with the chief of service who promised to give his medical report shortly. The mission ended with a visit to the Dr. Naoui Mohamed Néjib’s laboratory where the biological tests of all the patients had been performed.

The mission members left Tunisia on January 22, 2013, around 2:00 pm and arrived in N’Djaména at 4:00 pm.

They concluded that the medical evacuation to Tunisia had given them the opportunity to investigate more thoroughly seven patients who had developed post-vaccination reactions during the national vaccination campaign against meningitis.

It was stated that, generally speaking, the clinical state of the patients did not give any reasons for concern and that the paraclinical balance of the majority did not show major perturbations.

The mission was deemed a success.

The report was signed by Dr. Joseph Mad-Toïngé in N’Djaména on January 28, 2013.

Determined Parents Won’t Give Up

The parents tell a very, very different story. According to parents and relatives, these children were locked into their school, threatened with no education and forcibly vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge.

They state that the children are still desperately ill and that they have no way of getting any medical care. After the mission, they were left in Faya and had to make their own way back to the village.

The children are still suffering severe convulsions. One relative told me:

The children drop suddenly to the ground and shake violently before going paralyzed. We do not know what is wrong and we want answers. No one will help us. Our children were well and fit, we have never had meningitis in our area, so why did they vaccinate our children with this vaccination?

Our children have since become aggressive in their behavior and have a rash all over their bodies. They are having terrible frightening convulsions. Why won’t anyone help us?

I have been informed that the parents have formed an activist group to put out their plea to the world.

Unanswered Questions

The parents ask:

Were the vaccines used on our children out-of-date?

Had some of the batches used been spoiled in the heat?

Did the vaccinators vaccinate our children inadvertently with an unsafe product?

Was the maximum duration of four days without refrigeration respected and adhered to?

Were the vaccinators adequately trained?

They state:

All this disturbs us and makes us fear the worst effects for the future. We do not know what is going on behind the scenes and what the Minister of Health, the organizations involved with the tragedy (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, PATH WHO, MVP and UNICEF) are saying or are going to do. As parents, our priority is to get back the health our children. We feel that it is very sad that [our] entire city is paralyzed and is suffering from epilepsy. We were hoping that our government would make a stand and save our children but it has so far failed to do so. Therefore we call assistance for everyone in the world to intervene.

Our needs as listed below:

A health specialist, an organization or an individual to assist the sick children, who are innocent victims and help them to get their health back.
Human rights organization or an individual lawyer who could help the parents‘ association with legal issues and get justice for the children against the Chad government, WHO, MVP, PATH, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Indian company Serum Institute of India Ltd.
Parents need independent and freelance journalists to help them to get media coverage and tell the world what has happened to the children of Gouro, Chad.

Conclusion

The parents’ requests are simple and the same as any other parent left in this impossible situation. They feel deserted and betrayed by the Chadian government, who have left their children to die, while at the same time announcing the vaccination program to be a success. All the parents are very angry and are pleading with the world to help. They state they need lawyers, doctors, medication and above all, support.

This whole debacle has been a coverup from the very beginning. One of the children’s relatives has told me that there has never been a case of meningitis in this part of Africa. So, why vaccinate children needlessly for a disease that does not exist in this area? Worse still, according to my source, this particular part of Chad is not even on the meningitis belt, and yet this vaccine was given to these children. He could be right, as according to a map attributed to the Gates Foundation, it is not.^[5]

The abnormal tests demonstrate that the vaccines caused these problems (especially the abnormal immunoglobin levels). Had the doctors done more specific tests proving vaccine damage (especially anti-myelin antibodies), they would have found abnormal levels, which indicate vaccine injury. Did they avoid doing these tests on purpose?

It seems very likely that these children, who are now sick and vulnerable, were used as lab rats and have since been left to die by some of the biggest organizations known to mankind. Five months have passed and a lot of covering up the truth has gone on and still, the world waits for answers. The children of Gouro and their parents want the following organizations – PATH, WHO, UNICEF, and the Gates Foundation — to make a public apology and to own up to what has happened. They want and need accountability.

This is a violation of the Nuremberg code and these government “officials” are guilty of crimes against humanity.

VacTruth wishes to thank medical research journalist and author Desiree Rover who translated all reports and documents from French.

Sources:

Tagged african children vaccinated, african meningitis vaccine test, chad children vaccine test, gates foundation, meningitis vaccine test, politics, vaccine, vaccine injured african children, vaccine injured children, vaccine injuries, vaccine lab rats, vaccines

Vaccines Reduce Newborns’ Disease Immunity: Study

Every babies’ birthright is his mother’s disease antibodies. As this study demonstrates, that birthright is stolen by vaccinations. So how do the study’s authors hope to resolve the problem? It should come as no surprise that they propose earlier vaccinating, in spite of recognizing that the reason for not vaccinating so early is that they don’t work in babies that young!

by Heidi Stevenson

One of the most significant factors a newborn child receives as part of the birthright is his mother’s antibodies to disease, which normally last long enough to prevent infectious diseases until the child’s immune system is mature enough to manage on its own. That birthright is now stolen by vaccines, as documented in a new study by a team of researchers in the Netherlands.

These researchers concluded:

Children of mothers vaccinated against measles and, possibly, rubella have lower concentrations of maternal antibodies and lose protection by maternal antibodies at an earlier age than children of mothers in communities that oppose vaccination. This increases the risk of disease transmission in highly vaccinated populations.

The Study

The study looked at the babies of two groups of women in the Netherlands: the majority, who are vaccinated significantly more than those in the other group, which they termed “orthodox Protestant”, who tend to avoid vaccinations. From several municipaliies, they selected unvaccinated infants under 14 months of age and women of typical childbirth age, 20-44 years (98.5% of women who gave birth in the Netherlands in 2007). The study ultimately included 1243 women and 434 children from the general population, and 53 women and 19 children from the orthodox population.

The focus of the study was on the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, and because no chicken pox (varicella) vaccine is given in the Netherlands, they used varicella as a control comparison. They took blood samples to analyze antibody levels of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella.

The table to the right shows the numbers of women in each group who have been vaccinated for measles, mumps, and rubella broken down by age groups.

What’s most significant to note is that the average number of vaccinated women is far from either 100% or 0% in any group. Notice that, in terms of measles, the average number of vaccinated women in the general population is 51.2% and the average number in the orthodox community is 12.6%—only 38.6% difference between the groups. This will become significant shortly.

Study Results

The study found that:

The level of antibodies in babies at birth is the same as that found in their mothers.
The concentration of antibodies in the general population is lower than in orthodox women.
Babies of both groups lose their maternally-donated antibodies at the same rate.
Therefore, the babies of the more highly vaccinated general population group lose their antibodies earlier than those from the more rarely vaccinated group, the orthodox Protestants.

The most significant results related to how long infants maintain levels of antibodies that allow them to prevent disease:

Measles: The study found that babies born to mothers in the general population lose their maternally-given antibodies by age 3.3 months, but babies born to orthodox, less vaccinated, mothers hold onto their measles antibodies until 5.3 months.
Mumps: No statistically significant difference was found between the antibody levels of the two groups at the time of birth.
Rubella: Results are complicated by the fact that many mothers may have had rubella before they were vaccinated at age 11. Rubella is a very mild disease that often goes unrecognized. The confidence interval was very wide and the p-value was high, indicating that the results are not significant. Interestingly, they found the same length of time until loss of adequate antibodies in babies to be about the same, though they calculated that it could be as much as 0.8 months shorter in the general population.
Varicella: As expected, there was no difference in times for loss of varicella (chicken pox) antibodies between the two groups, since neither group received this vaccination.

The lack of results for mumps and rubella is not surprising. In the case of mumps, the vaccination rates between the two groups is fairly small, only 12.7% (25.3 – 12.6). In the case of rubella, which has a wider difference in vaccination rates, 48.4% (65.6 – 17.2), the results are confused by the likelihood that many of the vaccinated mothers likely had rubella before being vaccinated.

There is a highly significant difference between the length of time babies are protected from measles when their mothers had natural measles instead of vaccinations. That difference was a full 2 months, 5.3 months for orthodox babies and 3.3 months for general population babies.

The Groups Were Only Partially Vaccinated and Unvaccinated

Now, let’s consider that the difference in measles vaccination rates between the two groups was 38.6% (51.2 – 12.6). What if a study were to compare the babies of two groups of women, in one of which not a single member had been vaccinated and all the members of the other had received vaccines? That would mean there’d be a 100% vaccination rate distinction between the two groups.

Would the babies of nonvaccinated mothers keep their maternally-given antibodies even longer, and the group of babies from mothers who had all been vaccinated have been even shorter? We don’t know. Since the figures that the authors provided were averages, we don’t know the ranges of results. If only the babies whose mothers hadn’t been vaccinated were compared only with babies of mothers who had been, could the results would have been more dramatic?

The authors themselves note this problem:

This proportion of women of childbearing age who have been vaccinated with MMR will increase rapidly in the coming years because the vaccination coverage of each age cohort is >90%. We expect that this will further shorten the duration of protection against measles and rubella by maternal antibodies in infants and that a decreasing duration of protection against mumps by maternal antibodies will become more detectable among infants in the near future.

At this point, we know that, at least with measles, babies born to relatively unvaccinated mothers maintain their antibody protection about 61% longer than relatively vaccinated mothers. That’s significant, a clear indication that vaccinations reduce newborn babies’ immunity to measles, and very likely to other infectious diseases for which vaccinations are given.

This is one of the groups that vaccination proponents routinely use as poster children in their campaigns to shame poeple into getting vaccinated. The reality, though, is that the claimed vaccination need is created by the vaccines!

Sadly, the authors fall back on the idea that vaccinations are the solution, in spite of having demonstrated how the vaccinations themselves are creating the problem. They recognize that vaccinating at an earlier age is not a solution to the problem because babies’ immune systems are not mature, making early vaccines ineffective. However, they seem to forget this fact in their suggestion that babies who are at risk, such as those who may travel overseas to high measles infection areas or in the face of a local outbreak, be vaccinated. Just why they think that the vaccination would be helpful in immature immune systems simply because the babies might be exposed is not explained, nor how they expect a vaccine to help during an ongoing outbreak, since it takes time for antibodies to develop.

Oh well … I suppose it’s asking too much to expect scientists to offer the rational solution when they want their research to be published, though it is nice to see honest science that points out flaws in the vaccine programs.

Source:

Waning of Maternal Antibodies Against Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella in Communities With Contrasting Vaccination Coverage; Journal of Infectious Diseases; Sandra Waaijenborg, Susan J. M. Hahné, Liesbeth Mollema, Gaby P. Smits, Guy A. M. Berbers, Fiona R. M. van der Klis, Hester E. de Melker, and Jacco Wallinga; DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jit143

Tagged baby vaccines, maternal antibodies, measles vaccine, measles worsened by vaccines, netherlands vaccination study, netherlands vaccine study, vaccination schedule, vaccinations measles, vaccine, vaccine schedule, vaccines, vaccines lower maternal antibodies, vaccines measles

Do Antiperspirants Cause Breast Cancer?

Breast cancer and cyst formation are at epidemic proportions. At what point can we say, conclusively, that aluminum in antiperspirants is causal? The evidence grows stronger and stronger, largely due to the labors of one dedicated scientist, but she states that absolute proof does not yet exist. So, how much proof do you require before deciding it’s better to be safe than sorry?

by Heidi Stevenson

Antiperspirants: Cause of Breast Cancer? discussed some of Keele Conference scientist Philippa Darbre’s work on the likelihood of a relationship between aluminum in antiperspirants and breast cancer, in particular locations of aluminum in breast tissue and aluminum as an estrogen mimic. This article follows her work into other areas as the noose tightens around antiperspirant aluminum as a serious risk in breast diseases.

As previously noted in Antiperspirants: Cause of Breast Cancer?, Dr. Philippa Darbre’s latest presentation at the Keele Conference was on research demonstrating the ability of aluminum to cause changes in proteins that may lead to cancer metastasis, which can turn a benign tumor into a malignant metastatic cancer. Here is information she’s elicited in earlier work that has led to the study on aluminum’s potential to cause breast cancer metastasis.

Aluminum’s Interference with Iron Homeostasis

As noted in the previous report, aluminum is found in the breasts of women with breast cancer and it’s more prevalent in the region where the majority of cancers occur. Though too much iron is toxic, some is required for health. Transferrin binds iron in body fluids, and ferritin holds onto iron in cells, releasing it as needed. Aluminum can interfere with the function of ferritin and transferrin, thus destabilizing iron homeostasis.

Dr. Darbre worked with Professor Ferdinando Mannello on aluminum content in nipple aspirate fluid (which is exactly what it sounds like). They and the rest of their team obtained nipple aspirate fluid from both women with and without cancer, and examined it for levels of ferritin and transferrin.^[1] They withdrew nipple aspirate fluid (NAF) from the breasts of 16 women without cancer and 19 with cancer. Here’s a table of their results:

Table - Al in Nipple Aspirate Fluid First, notice that the amount of aluminum in NAF from cancerous breasts is more than double that of non-cancerous breasts! (268.4 µg/L / 131.3 µg/L) Notice also that ferritin is about five times higher in cancerous breasts (280.0 µg/L / 55.5 µg/L), and transferrin is almost 3 times higher (8.3 µg/L / 28 µg/L).

Graph - Cancer vs No Cancer, Aluminum, Ferritin, and Transferrin Milk levels of aluminum are greater than serum levels. That’s very important for nursing mothers to know, so that they can try to find ways ot lessening their aluminum load.

You can see the relative comparison in aluminum, ferritin, and transferrin between cancerous and noncancerous breasts in the bar graph. (Note that a separate graph is used for transferrin because there’s so much less of it that the difference wouldn’t be obvious on the scale used for aluminum and ferritin.)

Scatter Graphs - Al, Ferritin, and Transferrin The scattergraphs to the left definitively demonstrate a genuine connection between aluminum and both ferritin and transferrin. To see if a correlation exists between two sets of points, simply plotting them on a graph is fairly straightforward. If there is a relationship, then you can generally see the points arranging around a line, as you can clearly see is true for aluminum and ferritin in cancer patients (top left graph), and also for aluminum and transferrin in cancer patients.

However, if you look at the bottom two graphs, it’s quite clear that there is no correlation between aluminum and either ferritin or transferrin in non-cancerous patients.

Aluminum’s Association with Breast Cysts

A common problem in women is gross cystic breast disease. Though generally considered benign, it can be quite painful and results in a huge number of doctor visits for treatment, usually by aspiration or, in extreme cases, surgical removal. Occasionally, these cysts can mimic cancer, resulting in testing, biopsies, and worry. These cysts are divided into two types: Type I are more likely to develop into more severe pathologies—meaning cancer—than type II cysts. Women who suffer from type I cysts are more likely to develop them frequently and in large numbers.

Philippa Darbre investigated the potential association between antiperspirant aluminum and gross cystic breast disease.^[2] The report on the study states:

On the basis that antiperspirant formulations are designed to block apocrine sweat ducts of the axilla, and breast cysts result from blocked breast ducts, it has recently been hypothesized that breast cysts might also arise from antiperspirant use.

Table - Al Concentrations in Breast Cyst Fluid Darbre and associates examined breast cyst fluid (BCF) from 48 samples, 27 of type I and 21 of type II. These results were compared with samples from blood sera and milk. Result averages are shown in this table published from the study.

The average amount of aluminum found in breast cyst fluid (BCF) was 90.0 µg/L, with 150.0 µg/L in type I cysts (the more cancer-prone type) and 32.0 µg/L in type II cysts. Notice that the amounts of aluminum found in blood sera, healthy and non-cancerous breast tissue in cancerous breasts (GCBD-matched) was significantly lower than found in either type I or II cyst.

Aluminum levels found in general milk samples and specific types of milk (colostrum, intermediate, and mature) are much higher than in healthy or non-cancerous tissues. This might be of serious concern to nursing mothers, as it indicates high levels of aluminum in their breast milk, irregardless of whether they suffer from cystic breast disease.

Graph - Al Found in Type I and II Breast Cysts The amount of aluminum found in both cyst types is dramatically greater than in normal tissues or milk, but particularly notable is that the more cancer-prone breast cysts have extremely high levels of aluminum, averaging about 150.0 µg/L. The graph to the left makes this easy to see. Note, also, that there is no overlap between the lowest amount of aluminum found in type I breast cysts and the greatest amount found in type II breast cysts. Also note that, in the table above, the p-value is less than .0001, indicating that there is almost no likelihood that the results were obtained by chance.

Do Antiperspirants Cause Breast Cancer?

Writing for Elsevier’s Encyclopedia of Environmental Health 1st Edition, Dr. Philippa Darbre discusses the fact that more and more breast cancer is found in the upper outer quadrant (UOQ) of the breast.^[3] Although it had been suggested that this might be a result of weight gains, the facts don’t fit that idea. She wrote:

Numerous clinical studies dating back to the 1920s have shown that the UOQ of the breast is the most frequent site of carcinoma, but strangely the relative proportion
of breast cancer in the UOQ appears to rise chronologically with the year of publication.

She presented the following graphs to help explain:

The relative incidence of breast cancer in the upper outer quadrant (UOQ) of the breast, as reported in the scientific
literature, appears to rise chronologically with year of publication from 1928 to 1994. Using a single study population of England and Wales, the relative percentage of UOQ breast cancer has risen annually on a linear basis between 1979 and 2000, and in independent records in Scotland, a similar trend was noted between 1980 and 2001.

These graphs are pointing out that the relative rate of increase in cancer of the upper outer quadrant keeps increasing at a linear rate, year after year, in comparison to all other breast cancer locations. The top bar shows this in terms of publications that have reported on the phenomenon since 1928, when UOQ cancers were 30.9% of all breast cancers, but had reached 60.7% in 1994. Fat cannot be to blame for the increase in UOQ cancers, because it cannot explain why it would increase so consistently relative to other breast cancer locations.

There are certainly other carcinogenic chemicals in the environment that could be playing a factor in breast cancer increases. Dr. Darbre discusses them, including parabens, bisphenol A, phthalates, polycyclic musks, triclosan, and ultraviolet light filters (sun screen lotions and cosmetics). However, the amount of aluminum found in antiperspirants is very high, and it’s applied on and next to breast tissue and in the area of the greatest increase in cancer, the upper outer quadrant.

Furthermore, aluminum in antiperspirants is left on the skin and is absorbed through the skin. Antiperspirants work by combining with wastes in perspiration ducts, thus plugging them, limiting detoxification capability.

Dr. Darbre’s still unpublished study presented at the last Keele Conference demonstrates that aluminum has the ability to create changes in breast tumors, making them metastasize. It stands in addition to an already extensive body of work building the case of antiperspirants’ adverse effects. She is, though, the first to clarify that a cause and effect connection between antiperspirants and breast cancer has not yet been demonstrated. Nonetheless, her research keeps drawing the noose tighter.

The question you must answer is: How absolute must the proof be before you want to take action to prevent potential harm from a product, especially one that is not necessary for life? It’s quite obvious that our regulatory agencies are not moving to protect us, though the odds of a woman developing breast cancer are now about 1 in 8—and more and more men are also developing it.

Surely the precautionary principle says that the information now available on an association between antiperspirant aluminum and breast cancer is far more than required to stop using antiperspirants until shown to be safe. It is, though, up to you to decide how much risk you’re willing to accept.

Sources:

Analysis of aluminium content and iron homeostasis in nipple aspirate fluids from healthy women and breast cancer-affected patients; Journal of Applied Toxicology; Ferdinando Mannello, Gaetana A. Tonti, Virginia Medda, Patrizia Simone, Philippa D. Darbre; DOI: 10.1002/jat.1641
Concentration of aluminium in breast cyst fluids collected from women affected by gross cystic breast disease; Journal of Applied Toxicology; Ferdinando Mannello,a Gaetana A. Tonti and Philippa D. Darbre; DOI: 10.1002/jat.1384
Personal Care Products and Breast Cancer; Elsevier; Encyclopedia of Environmental Health 1st Edition; P. Darbre;

Tagged aluminum antiperspirants, aluminum breast cancer, aluminum breast cysts, Analysis of aluminium content and iron homeostasis in nipple aspirate fluids from healthy women and breast cancer-affected patients, antiperspirants breast cancer, antiperspirants breast cysts, Concentration of aluminium in breast cyst fluids collected from women affected by gross cystic breast disease, darbre antiperspirant research, darbre cancer research, do antiperspirants cause breast cancer, does aluminum cause breast cancer, Personal Care Products and Breast Cancer, philippa darbre, precautionary principle, science, scientist philippa darbre

No Historical Benefit in Vaccines: Polish Study

The evidence continues to mount. That vaccines are doing a great deal of harm is well beyond denying. Worse, though, the evidence that vaccines have had little or no effect on infectious diseases is clear, as documented in new graphs. The precautionary principle, which is enshrined in a UN directive, should have been implemented before vaccines were ever routinely injected.

by Heidi Stevenson

Yesterday’s article, Vaccines Do Irreparable Harm: Study from Poland, documents the revealing information brought out by Polish scientists’ review of the scientific literature on vaccination’s adverse effects and immune system effects. Today, the rest of the study covering neurological symptoms following vaccination and a history of vaccines demonstrating little benefit is reviewed.

Post-Vaccine Neurological Complications

The authors focused primarily on the preservative thimerosal’s active ingredient, mercury, in their discussion of vaccine-induced neurological damages. They noted that the percentage of people who have allergic reactions to thimerosal has been calculated at a low of 13% in the Netherlands to a high of 21% in Austria. Allergic responses to mercury are often initially triggered by vaccine injections. It’s noted for toxicity to the heart, liver, kidneys, and nervous system, along with being a carcinogen.

Readers of Gaia Health are probably aware that much current research on vaccine adjuvants indicates that aluminum may be the greatest concern. The reduced mercury load in the United States’ vaccines did reduce the autism burden for a short time in the US. However, a great number of vaccines was added to the schedule shortly after, and many of them included aluminum as an adjuvant, thus increasing the autism burden.

Over the last 20 years, neurological conditions such as autism, ADHD, mental retardation, epilepsy have increased many times over across the world. The authors wrote:

[F]rom the 1990s new vaccines for infants containing thimerosal began to be used in America. In the DTP, Hib and Hep B vaccines, children received a dose of 62.5 ug of mercury, which is 125-fold more than the dose considered safe (0.1ug/kg/day). These reports were the reason that Scandinavian countries already prohibited the use of mercury in 1990

The deaths of 19 infants of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) shortly after vaccination with two hexavalent vaccines were described in a paper. Those authors suggested that, though it hadn’t been proven that vaccines had caused their deaths, “it is a signal that brings to attention the need to monitor the course of vaccination and its complications”.

Epidemiological research has shown a direct relationship between increasing doses of thimerosal and the rate of autism in the US from the late ’80s through the mid ’90s. They found a correlation between the number of measles-containing vaccines and autism prevalence during the ’80s. The same researchers also found odds ratios that were statistically significant, indicating that increasing doses of mercury from vaccines with thimerosal correlate to increasing rates of autism.

Several of Poland’s childhood vaccines contain mercury, including:

Euvax: Hepatitis B, made by LG Life Sciences in Korea – 50µg/dose
DT: Diphtheria & Tetanus, made by Bio-med in Krakow, Poland – 50µg/dose
Td: made by Biomed, Krakow, Poland – 50µg/dose
DTP: Diphtheria, Tetanus, & Pertussis; made by Biomed, Krakow, Poland – 50µg/dose
D,d: Diphtheria, made by Biomed, Krakow, Poland – 50µg/dose
TT: Typhus, made by Biomed, Krakow, Poland – 50µg/dose

Note: Not included in the review is the fact that Poland’s vaccination schedule is mandatory. Notice that all but one of the vaccines listed above are made in Poland. It’s one way to assure profits for the home-grown pharmaceutical industry!

The authors discuss particular concern over the DTwP (Diphtheria, Tetanus, & wholecell Pertussis) vaccine. It is known to result in cytomegalovirus, which can result in severe neurological sequelae, including coma, hypotonia, seizures, and necrotizing encephalopathy. They state that replacing DTwP with DTaP (acellular) vaccine, and OPV (oral polio vaccine) with IPV (inactivated polio vaccine), can reduce the risk of fever after the first dose by 99%, the risk of inconsolable crying by 87%, and the risk of hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes by 56%.

Other complications found with vaccines on the Polish schedule include;

Guillain-Barré syndrome after influenza, hepatitis, meningitis C, polio and HPV vaccines
Transverse myelitis after cholera, typhoid, and polio vaccines
Influenza, flaccid paralysis, meningitis, encephalitis, convulsions and facial palsy after oral polio vaccine
Rapid progression of retinopathy in premature infants after BCG vaccination

Vaccination History

In 1996, Poland introduced a monitoring system to record adverse effects of vaccinations. A study done by Zielinski of adverse effect reports from 1996-2000, stated:

[T[hey met astonishing examples of ignorance of the medical staff, including specialists, in their duty to report the AEFI [adverse effects following inoculation].

Unfortunately, there is no laboratory test to confirm a cause and effect association between an adverse effect and vaccination. While that makes it difficult, the authors of this review report:

[T]here are also no reports in the literature (except those listed above) of research work in immunology in the context of reactions following vaccination. It should also be noted that in more developed countries, there is little incentive for doing appropriate follow-up and laboratory tests on individuals who suffered serious adverse reactions following vaccinations.. The reason for such oversight is likely due to the fact that historically, vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic by the regulatory agencies.

So, the upshot is that there is precious little research into the adverse effects of vaccination. As the authors state:

The resulting lack of evidence of causality between vaccinations and serious adverse outcomes has thus been filled with an assumption that vaccines are safe.

However, even if adverse effects were minor or rare, it is still necessary to demonstrate that vaccinations are beneficial. If they are not, then no amount of risk in vaccination is acceptable.

This is where historical records of infectious disease cases and deaths come in handy. Take, for example, these two graphs on the number of cases of tuberculosis (TB) and number of deaths from it:

They are reports from Germany showing, on the left, the number of TB mortalities from 1956-1988, and on the right, the number of reported cases from 1949-1987. The BCG vaccine against TB was introduced in 1970. (The area in the rectangles represents the total number of vaccinations given during the decade from 1970-1980.) It matters not whether you take a quick look or a long one, it’s obvious that the TB vaccination had absolutely nothing to do with the reduction in either cases of TB or deaths from it.

To the right is a graph of the pertussis (whooping cough) mortality rate from 1946-1987 in Germany, with the times that the original pertussis vaccine was introduced and the diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus vaccine took its place. As can be seen, the death rate from pertussis stayed on approximately the same downward trajectory it had been on at the time of vaccine implementation.

The graph to the left shows the pertussis mortality rate in Switzerland from 1910-1980. The shaded area (at the top right of the graph) shows the introductory date of the pertussis vaccine in 1944, and shows how that vaccine’s coverage increased to nearly 100% by 1980. However, it is not possible to see any change in the trajectory of reduced pertussis deaths.

The next graph, shown to the right, shows the number of diphtheria deaths in Germany from 1920-1987. Notice that the diphtheria vaccine was introduced in 1925, with an enormous increase in the rate of disease rate!

On looking at these graphs, how seriously can we take claims that vaccines have saved lives? We can’t see any improvement in either mortality or number of cases before and after vaccinations were initiated—and in the case of diphtheria, it certainly looks like vaccinating aggravated the rate of disease!

Conclusion

The review refers to a report in the 2002 Lancet that states:

[T]he weight of evidence collectively suggests that personal and environmental hygiene reduces the spread of infection …

… Thus results from this review demonstrate that there is a continued, measurable, positive effect of personal and community hygiene on infections.

Our review authors state that the same article in the Lancet also showed that mortality from infectious diseases in general had decreased to “nearly negligible levels long before introduction of universal vaccination practices.”

They point out that the vaccine schedule has increased dramatically since the time of these studies, and antigens are being injected again and again. They then state:

Doctors and researchers point to the worsening state of health of the child population since the 1960s, which coincided with increasingly introduced vaccinations. Allergic diseases, including asthma, autoimmune diseases, diabetes and many neurological dysfunctions – difficulty in learning, ADD (attention deficit disorder), ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), seizures, and autism – are chronic conditions, to which attention has been brought.

So, for no apparent benefit in reducing infectious diseases, vaccines are being mandated, in spite of the fact that evidence points strongly to the suggestion that vaccines are fueling the astronomically rising rates of chronic autoimmune and neurological disorders.

Of course, political realities do exist for these researchers. In spite of their powerful findings, they still don’t suggest that vaccines should be eliminated. They do, however, offer several suggestions around the idea of reducing their application. They conclude with:

It seems that it would be worthwhile to apply the precautionary principle – the ethical principle (from 1988) according to which if there is a probable, although poorly known, risk of adverse effects of new technology, it is better not to implement it rather than risk uncertain but potentially very harmful consequences.

So, we’re back to the precautionary principle, something that should have been applied decades ago. It’s difficult to imagine the massive amount of harm that’s been brought to generations of children, with each succeeding one suffering worse than the last. Will those in power ever listen to reason, or will they continue to be led around by their greed, leaving our children and future generations to suffer? Do they really believe that society can continue to function when most people are chronically ill?

Source:

Neurologic adverse events following vaccination; Progress in Health Sciences; Sienkiewicz D., Kulak W., Okurowska-Zawada B., Paszko-Patej G.

Vaccines Do Irreparable Harm: Study from Poland

The authors of this powerful new review wrote: “It is not reasonable to assume that manipulation of the immune system through an increasing number of vaccinations during critical periods of brain development will not result in adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.” Here’s what they found.

by Heidi Stevenson

A new scientific review from Poland discusses irreparable harm done by vaccines. This review addresses the issue in terms of adverse effects, immune system effects, neurological symptoms following vaccination, and a history of vaccines demonstrating little benefit. It centers mostly on studies not often referenced in the western world, providing fresh and broad-ranging information. An honest reading of the study can leave little doubt that harm done may be extensive and often permanent.

Adverse Effects

Different systems of defining types of vaccination adverse events include dividing between immune system and nonimmune system, or classifying according to whether they’re local, general, shortly after vaccination, or develop more slowly. Regardless of how they’re distinguished, the authors state:

Reports in many Polish and foreign medical journals lead us to conclude that postvaccinal complications among children can be observed in sporadic cases and that they are disproportionate to the benefits of vaccination in the elimination of dangerous diseases in childhood.

Their study leaves little doubt that vaccines produce serious risks that are entirely out of line with any benefits gained.

They first point out that several adverse effects that occur shortly after vaccination are acknowledged by Polish law. These include:

Local reactions, including:
- local reactions after the BCG (tuberculosis) vaccine
- swelling
- lymphadenopathy
- abscess at the injection site
Postvaccinal adverse events of the central nervous system:
- encephalopathy
- febrile convulsions
- non-febrile convulsions
- paralytic poliomyelitis caused by vaccine virus
- encephalitis
- meningitis
- Guillain-Barré syndrome
Other adverse events following immunization:
- joint pain
- hypotonic-hyporesponsive episode
- fever above 39°C
- thrombocytopenia
- continuous inconsolable crying

Likely major post-vaccine neurological complications, which usually ensue more than 48 hours after vaccination, tend to be permanent nerve damage to the central nervous system, including seizures (especially if there is no increase in body temperature), hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes, postvaccinal encephalitis, postvaccinal encephalopathy, and autism.

Immune System Effects

A neonate’s immune system does not function in the same manner as an adult’s, and it does not reach maturity until about age 3 years. The neonate’s humoral immune system—the part that functions through antibodies—comes directly from the mother. Associated with the immunoglobulin IgG that’s provided by the mother, it starts about 6 months before birth, and disappears by about 6 months after birth.

Autonomously-produced antibodies are called immunoglobulins. While the fetus starts to develop some immunoglobulin before birth, it takes time, in most instances more than a year, to reach maturity. The graph to the right shows the pace at which IgG from the mother increases and decreases, and the rate at which a neonate starts to produce its own, plus IgM, IgA, and IgD.

Because of a neonate’s existing antibodies from the mother, vaccination against some microorganisms simply does not provide any lasting protection for newborns. The authors state:

It is well established that early-life immune responses are weaker and of shorter duration than elicited in immunologically mature hosts. Consequently, vaccine efficacy in early infancy (particularly in the first 6 months of age) is limited.

They go on to state that:

[E]xperimental evidence clearly shows, that simultaneous administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants, or repeated stimulation of the immune system by the same antigen can overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity.

The common practice of administering more than one adjuvant at a time or repeatedly injecting the same antigen can produce autoimmune disorders.

They further point out that the toxicity of adjuvants can produce a range of adverse reactions.

The manner in which the body responds to vaccines is not well understood. It is, though, believed that the Th1 pathway is sacrificed in favor of the Th2 pathway. This is believed to lead to development of allergies in infants. Allergy, a life-threatening condition that was once rare, is now known to exist in at least 35%, possibly as many as 40%, of children. It has become one of the most serious health concerns in Europe.

The authors cite a study documenting that a natural chicken pox infection protects against asthma and atopic dermatitis in children, but the vaccine does not.

They state that:

[A]nnual vaccination against influenza has been shown to hamper the development of virus-specific CD8⁺T-cell immunity in children.

And then point out:

[I]t appears that the necessary Th1/Th2 balance is better provided by natural challenges (i.e., in a form of relatively benign childhood diseases such as chickenpox and mumps) rather than vaccination.

Recent research by Singh of the International Institute for Brain Research in the USA confirm the veracity of this statement. In the study, serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) were analyzed in terms of viral and autoimmune markers in patients with autism compared with a group of healthy children

The table to the left, which the authors reprinted from the Singh study, shows differences in antibody levels they found between normal and autistic children. Notice that autistic children have a significantly higher vaccine measles virus antibody load than normal children, though the differences in mumps and rubella antibodies does not reach a significant level, and the high p-values for them bear that out.

A p-value approaching 1.0 indicates that the results could readily have been reached accidentally. (Note: HHV-6 refers to human herpes virus-6.)

Singh et al also found significantly elevated levels of the IL-2, IL-12, and IFN-γ cytokines, indicators of an elevated inflammatory response, along with acute phase proteins, also indicative of inflammation.

These raised inflammation profiles are significant because subtle changes in the developing brains of autistic children have been found to be caused by autoimmune reactions leading to changes in the myelin sheath (a protective layer around nerves). This could lead to impairment in the brains of autistic children, resulting in problems with speech, communication, social action, and other neurological problems.

Partial Conclusion

At this point in their review, the authors point out that vaccines, which are used to “train” the immune system, lower its threshold of defense responses against development of infectious diseases. This leads to questions, including:

How can the immature, still developing immune and central nervous systems of a healthy child respond to such intense stimulation?
Can these immature systems respond with the same protective effect to so many different stimuli?
Do multi-antigen vaccine side effects change as compared to single-antigen vaccinations, and if so, how?

They go on to state:

[A] burgeoning body of evidence shows that immune molecules play integral roles in CNS development, affecting processes such as neurogenesis, neuronal migration, axon guidance, synaptic connectivity and synaptic plasticity. Despite the dogma that peripheral immune responses do not affect CNS function, substantial evidence points exactly to the contrary. Thus, it is not reasonable to assume that manipulation of the immune system through an increasing number of vaccinations during critical periods of brain development will not result in adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.

“[I]t is not reasonable to assume that manipulation of the immune system through an increasing number of vaccinations during critical periods of brain development will not result in adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.”

Clearly, these authors are stating that vaccines carry the potential to do tremendous harm.

These are the first two sections of the powerful Sienkiewicz, Kulak, Okurowska-Zawada, and Paszko-Patej review. The next article, No Historical Benefit in Vaccines: Polish Study, discusses the last two areas they covered: neurological symptoms following vaccination and a history of vaccines demonstrating little benefit.

Source:

Neurologic adverse events following vaccination; Progress in Health Sciences; Sienkiewicz D., Kulak W., Okurowska-Zawada B., Paszko-Patej G.

Tagged adverse events nervous system, adverse neurological outcomes, Kulak, Neurologic adverse events following vaccination, Okurowska-Zawada, Paszko-Patej, science, Sienkiewicz, toxicity of adjuvants, vaccine, vaccine damage, vaccines, vaccines adverse effects, vaccines adverse neurological outcomes, vaccines autism, vaccines autoimmune disorders, vaccines do irreparable harm, vaccines train the immune system

Antiperspirants: Cause of Breast Cancer?

Recent decades have brought enormous increases in breast cancer. Rather than look for a reason, most research has centered on finding treatments, though with little effect on outcomes. Philippa Darbre, though, has dedicated her efforts to finding if aluminum, a known human toxin that’s the basis for antiperspirants, could be the culprit.

by Heidi Stevenson

We live in the Age of Aluminum, a time that brings great convenience, but at the expense of enormous health damage. A likely case in point is the massive upsurge in breast cancer and fibrocystic disease, a condition of cyst formation in the breasts. Aluminum of the periodic table is the most likely cause of both these conditions.

Keele Conference participant Philippa Darbre has dedicated herself to researching this epidemic. She states:

Mortality results from breast tumour growth at metastatic sites rather than in the breast itself.

That is, breast tumors don’t kill, but their metastases do. The research she presented at February’s Keele Conference on the Biological Effects of Aluminum demonstrate that aluminum in the breast causes changes that can lead to deadly metastasis in breast cancer. She had, though, done a great deal of other research before broaching the issue of metastasis, including investigations of the relative amount of aluminum in cancerous and noncancerous breast tissue, the amount of aluminum found in breast fluid, dispersal of aluminum in breast tissue, and other issues related to aluminum and other metals in human health. Her focus is centered on aluminum in cosmetics, particularly antiperspirants.

Aluminum in Breast Tissue

Breast cancer is more common in the outer upper quadrant of the breast, which may be indicative of a connection with aluminum salts in antiperspirants. Drs. Darbre and Christopher Exley conducted a study to determine the amount of aluminum found in different parts of the breast.^[1] They measured the content of aluminum in the four breast quadrants of 17 women who had undergone mastectomies. The following graph shows the results:

Each bar represents 100% of the aluminum found in each woman, and is divided into four sections to indicate the percent of aluminum found in each quadrant. The bottom two sections show the percentage of aluminum found in the two outer quadrants, axilla and lateral. The graph shows that, on average, signifcantly more aluminum is stored in the outer area of women’s breasts.

This leads to two questions: Does aluminum cause breast cancer? and Is the concentration of aluminum in the outer quadrants of breasts a result of antiperspirants, whose active ingredient is an aluminum compound? This study clarifies, though, that aluminum found in antiperspirants must be considered a potential breast carcinogen.

Aluminum as an Estrogen Mimic

Many metals are estrogen mimics, making them potentially dangerous in the human body because of their ability to combine with estrogen receptors, thus replacing natural estrogen. Dr. Darbre did a study demonstrating that aluminum is also an estrogen mimic.

In the first part, she grew MCF7 breast cancer cells in the presence of estradiol (a type of estrogen) for 14 days. Then, she added one of different concentrations of two types of aluminum compounds used in antiperspirants, aluminum chloride and aluminum chlorhydrate and measured changes in the growth rate of the cancer cells.

Results are shown in the graph to the right. Both Al chloride and Al chlorhydrate interfere with breast cancer cell growth. Al chloride inhibited estradiol binding by 40% at 2.5 x molar excess (blue arrow) and 99.9% at 10 x molar excess (green circle). Al chlorhydrate inhibited estradiol binding by 64% at 5.0 x molar excess (red arrow) and 100% at 10 x molar excess (green circle).

The next experiment is similar, but rather than investigating interference with estradiol function, the needed amount of Al chloride and Al chlorhydrate to interfere with breast cancer cell growth was investigated. MCF7 cancer cells were grown in the lab and then concentrations of Al chloride or Al chlorhydrate were introduced. A concentration of 10^-3 mole of either Al chloride or Al chlorhydrate was required to cause disruption in cell growth. Therefore, MCF7 cells are resilient to high concentrations of these aluminum compounds.

The last part of this group of experiments demonstrated that aluminum, whether in the form of Al chloride or Al chlorhydrate, acts in the same manner as other estrogen-mimicking metals by increasing estrogen-regulated reporter gene expression, both in and out of estradiol’s presence.

Closing the Noose on Antiperspirants

These two studies by Dr. Darbre have shown:

Aluminum found in breast tissue of cancerous breasts is more prevalent in the outer breast, matching the most common location of breast cancer, the upper outer quadrant, the area where underarm antiperspirants are routinely used.
Aluminum in two compounds frequently found in antiperspirants acts as an estrogen mimic and interferes with estrogen’s function.

This doesn’t add up to proof positive that aluminum either causes breast cancer or that aluminum in antiperspirants does. It does, though, add up to prima facie evidence that it’s possible and that aluminum in antiperspirants should be put on trial. In the hope of stopping the breast cancer epidemic, the precautionary principle indicates that these products need to be investigated to find for sure whether there is a cause-and-effect connection.

Sadly, the health agencies that should be protecting us are not even looking at the risk. As a result, the science progresses slowly. Nonetheless, Philippa Darbre has taken the torch to carry this critical research forward. Do Antiperspirants Cause Breast Cancer? continues with more of her research that further tightens the noose on antiperspirants and their association with breast cysts and cancer.

Sources:

Aluminium in human breast tissue; Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry; Christopher Exley, Lisa M Charles, Lester Barr, Claire Martin, Anthony Polwart, Philippa D Darbre; doi:10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2007.06.005
Aluminium, antiperspirants and breast cancer; Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry; P.D. Darbre; doi:10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2005.06.001

Tagged aluminum antiperspirants, aluminum antiperspirants cancer, aluminum science, antiperspirants cancer, breast cancer cause, breast cancer etiology, breast cancer metastasis, breast cancer science, cancer outer quadrant breast, do antiperspirants cause cancer, keele conference, philippa darbre, science