Gaia-Health.link | The Investigative Journalism of The Late Heidi Stevenson

EU Taking Control of Seeds for Agribusiness Benefit

When food and gardening are treated as if they’re nothing more than commodities, especially when control is placed in the hands of those whose sole interest is profits, then the people under such rule are living in total tyranny. That’s exactly what the EU is in the process of doing: handing the most basic of food rights, access to seeds, over to Agribusiness.

by Heidi Stevenson

There can be no greater tyranny than control of our food, and seeds are the basis of food. In a major move toward a totalitarian state, the European Union’s unelected Commission is taking over control of all seeds. This is, of course, being done in typically Orwellian manner. The document laying out their plans starts with the statement:

Seed and propagating material (S&PM) is a cornerstone input for agricultural production.
Therefore, ensuring the availability of seed and propagating material of sufficient quality is
crucial for the production of food and feed.^[1]

They are insisting on the authority to register all seeds in the EU and to inspect and certify them. To this end, they have written 21 Directives on how they’re to be controlled. It’s fairly obvious to anyone who has followed modern legislation that the longer it is, the more obscure it is. The initial document quoted above takes 35 pages to summarize their intent.

The Plans

Their plans state:

Plants must be listed in both national and EU catalogs if their seed is to be sold, and they must be tested for their cultivation value.
Plants and seed propagating materials are subject to a pre-market certification system.
Suppliers must be registered.

All of this is being done, of course, in the name of “harmonization”, which is Orwell-speak for control of the market so that multinational corporations benefit. It has nothing to do with benefit for the people.

Although the Commission protests otherwise, it becomes obvious that the small farmer—meaning true organic farmer—and the home gardener will be subsumed.

Costs and controls will eliminate true seed diversity and heritage (old) seeds, those that have been developed over the centuries for a variety of reasons, including sturdiness, natural pest resilience, flavor, and quantity. These have consistently produced the best food on the planet—but that’s not the concern of Agribusiness. Their interest is focused on one thing alone: profits. The cost to society, health, and the environment are of no concern to them, and anything that prevents people from growing their own food and buying from or trading with local, known growers is to industrial agriculture’s benefit.

Supposedly, small farmers will not be heavily affected. But how is the term, small farmer, defined? We don’t know. Nor do we know how the EU Commission defines harm—but we do know that their regulation of herbs and supplements is onerous.

I can personally attest that even the UK’s largest supplement store, Holland & Barrett, is being heavily impacted. They are now able to sell only very large quantities of some of their house brand vitamins because they must apply for separate approval to sell smaller quantities, in spite of the fact that what’s inside the container will be identical. The homeopathic preparations of tissue salts called New Era have been discontinued because the manufacturer is unable to afford the cost of going through the application process.^[3] This is just the beginning of a process designed to destroy the public’s access to natural products, which have proven safe over centuries and are our birthright. The same thing is now happening to the seeds of plants we require for food.

EU Hands Natural Historic Seeds Over to Monsanto

Keep in mind that the EU has allowed Monsanto to patent existing seeds, thus giving them control over vast portions of the seed market already. This includes 36% of all the EU’s tomato varieties, 32% of all peppers, and 49% of all cauliflower^[2]—and this process has just begun. Following their usual practices, Monsanto is suing farmers for growing these seeds that have always been in the commons, available to anyone for trade or purchase or harvest. If there are any further limitations placed on access to seeds, then it’s obvious that freedom to farm and garden will disappear.

National Governments Stand Against the EU Commission

According to Deutsch Wirtschafts Nachriten, a German news site whose name translates roughly as New Products of Germany’s Economy, large private gardens will be treated as small farmers, so they won’t be exempted from the onerous regulations. They suspect that anyone selling even a few vegetables to neighbors may be labeled as a farmer. They state that the definition of terms is very loose. They predict that, ultimately, seed diversity will disappear.^[4]

As Deutsch Wirtschafts Nachriten notes, if trade in seeds is limited or prohibited, the small gardener will be unable to get them. So all the assurances given by the EU Commission ultimately mean nothing. It’s obvious that seed diversity will fade away, leaving us to the whim of Agribusiness and their monoculture slash and burn ethos.

The Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has taken a strong stand against the Commission’s plans, stating that “disadvantages and dangers” predominate.^[4] The Federal Agriculture Minister of Germany, Ilse Aigner, has spoken out against the plans, saying (as translated by Google):

Small growers need to be exempted from the authorization requirement. Gardeners and growers who receive the species richness and species diversity [must be able to grow without restriction in the future.]^[5]

Rare and heritage seed varieties simply won’t have a chance under the planned regulations. Only those seeds with deep pockets behind them, such as Monsanto and other Agribusiness corporations, will be able to gain approval for their seeds. Those truly fine seeds, ones that have lasted for generations, or new ones recently developed by small producers, will disappear for another reason: The regulations will require specificity of the plants’ fruits. Many of these are not consistent in production. You might think of it as a disadvantage, but that’s true nature at work. Fewer fruits are produced at any one time, and their development will vary as a result. But, that won’t matter under these one-size-fits all regulations that are designed to favor Agribusiness, not honest farming and gardening.

EU Commission: Not to Be Trusted

The EU Commission has clearly demonstrated its lack of trustworthiness. They insisted that people’s access to herbal products and supplements wouldn’t be curtailed—but that’s precisely what has happened and continues to happen. It’s entirely unreasonable to trust them when they say that home gardeners and small farmers won’t be affected by directives they’re producing. Indeed, it’s the reason for putting these directives in place—to hand the most basic part of agriculture over to Agribusiness. So, please, take action. Every voice is needed if we’re to stop the theft of everyone’s birthright.

What You Can do

Please, go to Seed for All. Read the letter addressed to:

Members of the European Parliament
Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection
Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development
Commissioner for the Environment
Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship
Commissioner for Development
Commissioner for Regional Policy

Then, go to Freedom for Diversity’s petition and sign it!

Better yet, write to your personal member of EU Parliament to register your dissastisfaction with plans for seed registration. Let it be known that you will not go along—and that this issue will affect your vote!

Sources:

Tagged access to seeds, agribusiness, agribusiness seeds, eu access to seeds, eu commission seeds, eu commission seeds direction, eu heritage seeds, eu old seeds, eu seed control, eu seed diversity, eu seeds, food tyranny, politics

Smoking Bans: Sign of Zombie Times?

Dr. Segura takes on the third rail of modern medicine: smoking. ‘Everyone’ knows it’s bad for you. But how do you explain that, since smoking rates have dropped, lung cancer & heart disease have skyrocketed? Why all the focus on smoking when it’s obvious that other things are far worse? Could it be redirection, so we focus on blame, rather than solutions?

by Gabriela Segura, M.D.

I’m sick and tired of the anti-smoking culture that has taken over the entire world. I have had enough of hearing “don’t smoke, it’s bad for you!!” The ignorance that betrays such remarks is utterly abysmal, especially coming from people who should know better. So for all those who have asked me why do I actually smoke, I’m going to explain my reasons in this article.

The European smoking bans were introduced during my time here and, coincidentally enough, the general state of society has deteriorated badly during the same time. Could that deterioration have something to do with the replacement of nicotine – a chemical that enhances learning and memory – with Big Pharma tranquilizer drugs and dissociative technology?

I have found anti-smoking activists to be intolerant, judgmental Authoritarian Follower types. They believe and parrot emotionally charged catchphrases taken straight from government anti-smoking propaganda. Doctors and non-smokers alike are guilty of this. They feel righteous when providing such ‘advice’ yet fail to take notice of how ill they themselves look, and forget that, in many cases, their own health issues went downhill when they stopped smoking. Thanks to some pretty convoluted thinking, if they are some day diagnosed with a serious disease, they will later blame their ‘smoking years’, while overlooking the real culprits of today’s modern diseases: junk diets high in carbohydrates and the industrial-scale toxicity that has choked our environment.

Yes, the changes in our diet, particularly since the introduction of mechanised agriculture, the Industrial Revolution and arrival in the ‘enlightened’ Modern Age, have systemically destroyed our health. The mismatch between our ancient physiology – which thrived with little or no edible plant food – and our current diet, is at the root of many so-called diseases of civilization: coronary heart disease, obesity, hypertension, type-2 diabetes, cancer, autoimmune disease, osteoporosis, etc. But I’m not here to talk about that. You can read more about it here. My aim here is to defend the rights of people who choose to smoke. It may surprise you to know that, while the percentage of the population that smokes has declined in recent years (due to government propaganda), the incidence of heart disease has not declined. The reason, shock! horror! is that smoking is not the real problem to begin with!

Almost all smokers I know feel guilty about smoking and are planning to quit one utopian day when life gets ‘less stressful’. The way things are going, good luck with that one! I arrived in Europe when there was still a smoking culture and it wasn’t seen as the profound ‘evil’ it is today. The European smoking bans were introduced during my time here and, coincidentally enough, the general state of society has deteriorated badly during the same time. Could that deterioration have something to do with the replacement of nicotine – a chemical that enhances learning and memory – with Big Pharma tranquilizer drugs and dissociative technology?

From my vantage point in the medical profession, everybody and their friend is taking some kind of calming pill that numbs their feelings and further alienates them from reality. It is beyond me how a person who eats food that is completely mismatched to their physiology, and takes drugs to cover up the damaging effects of that food, can claim to be an authority on any health-related matter. I have found that, typically, those who look more diseased are those who feel more self-righteously entitled to use smoking as a scapegoat for all the world’s health problems.

I remember when people used to smoke on airplanes, trains and in restaurants. It was really not that long ago! How have things changed so rapidly? I have colleagues who tell me that they used to smoke in their offices while attending patients. It seems to me that things were definitely better back then, when we were still able to think!

Tobacco has nicotine in it, which is related to acetylcholine, and this fact is very important indeed, as we are going to learn.

Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter responsible for learning and memory. It is also calming, relaxing and is also a major factor regulating the immune system. Acetylcholine also acts as a major brake on inflammation in the body and inflammation is linked to every known disease. For example, inflammation of the brain is linked to every known mood, behavior and attention disorder and every neuro-degenerative disease.

Receptors for acetylcholine, also known as cholinergic receptors, fall into two categories based on the chemicals that mimic or antagonize the actions of acetylcholine on its many target cell types. In classical studies, nicotine, isolated from tobacco, was one of the chemicals used to distinguish receptors for acetylcholine. That is why there are nicotinic receptors for acetylcholine.

People who smoke often experience cognitive impairment when they stop smoking. This worsening is due to the fact that nicotine acts as an agonist (that is, it mimics) receptors of acetylcholine which are important for learning, memory and cognitive functions. Daily infusions of nicotine actually increase the number of acetylcholine receptors.

As in a kind of ‘blessing from above’, local and systemic inflammation is calmed down by the brain through what is called the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway, which is a mechanism consisting of the vagus nerve and its neurotransmitter acetylcholine, a process dependent on a nicotinic acetylcholine receptor¹. Nicotine, the prototypical nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist, counteracts inflammatory cytokine production and has demonstrated protective effects in blood poisoning².

Nicotine has also been used to prevent kidney failure and improve kidney function. Nicotinic receptors in the brain are associated with neuronal plasticity and cell survival, which is why tobacco has been linked with better thinking and concentration. Nicotine has been used to treat ulcerative colitis, a disease characterized by inflammation of the large intestine³. It is clear from available medical literature that the benefits are far-ranging when it comes to this natural compound – nicotine – that acts as an anti-inflammatory and facilitates the creation of new brain cells!

Bertrand Russell Quotation Doctors and anti-smokers are, in my opinion, completely deluded on this topic. They say things like “smoking is bad because it has thousands of chemicals including arsenic and cadmium.” For God’s sake, there are far more toxic levels of arsenic in the chicken they eat! Factory poultry farms produce enormous amounts of concentrated waste, and poultry processing byproducts, which are later fed to pigs, cows and fish, are loaded with arsenic⁴. Dangerous concentrations of arsenic in the water supply is a global threat because it induces both genetic and epigenetic changes related to lung cancer and other diseases⁵.

Yes, tobacco has its pollutants, but they are found in the water we drink, the air we breathe, in baby food, you name it, in even higher concentrations. A conservative estimate is that over 80,000 new chemicals have been introduced into society since the 1800s, only a few hundred of which have been tested for safety; this doesn’t even take into consideration nanotechnology and GMOs, which are already pervasive in the food chain. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, about 2.5 billion pounds of toxic chemicals are released annually by large industrial facilities. And the authorities are worried about a plant that produces the learning and memory-enhancing, natural chemical nicotine? It really is laughable. You see what mainstream education indoctrination does to your brain? You breathe thousands of chemicals every time you inhale air, whether you like it or not, and whether or not you are sitting next to a smoker.

Outdoor air contains some of the nastiest cocktails of pollutants. Most people tend to think of air pollution as having effects on the lungs, but exposure to road traffic and air pollution may also trigger heart attacks⁶. But people are right: air pollution does cause lung cancer. A much-anticipated government study of more than 12,000 miners has found that exposure to diesel engine exhaust significantly increases the risk of lung cancer. For NON-smokers, the risk was seven times higher. The authors of the study say “we also observed an interaction between smoking and 15-year lagged cumulative REC [marker for estimation of diesel exhaust exposure] such that the effect of each of these exposures was attenuated in the presence of high levels of the other.⁷” What does that mean? It means that research suggests that people who smoke are less vulnerable to the toxic effects of inhalation of diesel fumes than people who don’t smoke.

You have no idea how many times we have found again and again the protective properties of tobacco smoking. When it comes to hard-core petrochemical industry pollution, smoking really is a blessing from above. Take for instance this report by Riki Ott from Sound Truth & Corporate Myth$: The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill:

Workers in jobs with high oil exposure to oil fumes, mists, and aerosols have a greater prevalence of self-reported symptoms of respiratory problems, neurological problems, and chemical sensitivities than unexposed workers. Among workers with high oil exposure, nonsmokers reported a greater prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis than smokers. Symptoms of chronic airway disease included sleep apnea, pneumonia, other lung conditions, chronic sinus and/or ear problems, asthma, persistent hoarseness. […]. [Annie O’Neill, a graduate student at Yale Medical School’s Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, conducted an internship with ACAT and AFER, the two nonprofit organizations investigating the health effects of the EVOS cleanup. She conducted independent research on Exxon’s cleanup and an investigation of self-reported chronic health problems among EVOS cleanup workers for her master’s thesis.]

Want to know more about the real enemy? As Laura Knight-Jadczyk wrote soon after the Fukushima fallout:

Well, thinking about that and the fears about nuclear fallout from a power-plant melt-down made me ask the question: why didn’t anybody get excited about all the nuclear bomb tests that were being done all over the planet since WWII? I mean, just take a look at this time-lapse map of every nuclear explosion since 1945 and ask yourself if that is not one heck of a lot of radioactive fallout to be dumping on our planet – sometimes right in our back yard – and nobody was saying a thing about it? […]

In short, while I think that what is happening as a result of the Japan nuclear reactor disaster is a lot worse that the authorities are saying, I don’t think that is any reason to get hysterical right now. The time for hysteria was long ago. You are already poisoned and don’t know it.

The timeline she is referring to is the “1945-1998” video by Isao Hashimoto. It documents 2,053 nuclear explosions conducted in various places around the world, and it doesn’t even cover the tests made by North Korea. It is based on a report made by Nils-Olov and Ragnhild Ferm⁸.

So much for the anti-smoking campaign where we have been led to believe that smoking is practically the sole cause of all humanity’s health problems. Before the fascist anti-smoking legislation, people in Spain, Italy and France were happily puffing away, and as a result, were enjoying much longer life expectancy than the U.S. with its fewer smokers. Incidentally, more nuclear bombs have been detonated in the U.S. than in any other country.

Professor Chris Brusby, Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, explains that we are probably only looking at the tip of a very nasty radioactive iceberg. In a meeting which took place in Stockholm 2009, he said:

“The global death yield of the nuclear age to 1992 has been horrifying. According to objective calculations by the European Committee on Radiation Risk (using weapons fallout radiation exposure) there have been (up to 2003) 61 million cancer deaths; 1,600,000 infant deaths; 1,880,000 fetal deaths. There has been a loss of life quality of 10% (in terms of illnesses and ageing effects). The blame for this can be squarely placed at the door of those scientists and administrators (WHO, UNSCEAR, ICRP) who developed and supported the scientific risk models. This is a war crime far greater in magnitude than any that has occurred in recorded human history.”

So there you have it.

Yes, you’re reading this right; as a doctor, I don’t discourage patients from smoking in this increasingly stressful world. I do encourage them to choose organic tobacco and papers, or to go back to the old traditional ways of smoking pipes or cigars. The smartest people on Earth smoke and it is a veritable sign of the times that smoking is so highly discouraged in this modern, zombie culture.

Gabriela Segura is a heart surgeon from the University of Milan who was born into a multiethnic family in Central America. Her ongoing adventure with the medical science, alternative healing and the true nature of our world has taken her to live in Costa Rica, Spain, Canada, Uzbekistan, France and Italy. Her favorite hobbies are SOTT.net, researching and spending time with nature. Her writings can be found at The Health Matrix.

Up to 100% Vaccinated Sheep Contract Chronic Neurological Syndrome: Study

Bluetongue can be a deadly disease of sheep. The standard approach to an outbreak is vaccination, vaccination, & more vaccination. A new study shows that these vaccines cause an autoimmune neurological disorder called ASIA—the same that vaccines can induce in humans. This study of Spanish sheep provides a frightening look into its frequency and severity. What does it mean in humans?

by Heidi Stevenson

The powers-that-be refuse to do studies comparing the health of vaccinated against unvaccinated children. However, Spanish animal pathology researcher, Lluís Luján, was concerned with serious health problems in sheep following mass vaccination to combat bluetongue, a viral disease spread by insects. So, a study was done to compare vaccinated versus unvaccinated sheep. The results should concern everyone. Though the percentages of affected sheep varied widely, as many as 100% of some flocks were devastated by the vaccine-induced disease called autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA).

ASIA in Sheep

Researchers of the study, published in the journal Immunology Research, describe a syndrome that has an acute phase in only about one-half of one percent of sheep, from which most recover. However, a chronic phase develops later, and that is devasting, both in numbers and severity of illness. The economic impact is enormous. They describe it like this:

The chronic phase of the ovine ASIA syndrome is a more frequent event in our local conditions of ovine production and causes a neurological and cachectic process that has no parallel in ovine pathology, and it is a serious but unexplained concern for farmers and veterinarians. The chronic phase does not necessarily follow an acute episode, and it is
triggered by the combination of multiple alum adjuvantcontaining inoculations over the years and external stimuli.

Severity is generally related to stress. Conditions like cold weather, poor nutrition, and high levels of milk production result in significantly worse disease.

Sheep with Cachexia Resulting from ASIA

Frequency of chronic ASIA is about 50-70% of flocks, and up to 100% of the sheep within a flock. The syndrome runs through phases. It starts with “an excitatory period where affected animals show constant movement, abnormal behavior, restlessness and compulsive wool biting, resulting in animals with a very poor wool coat, a diffuse redness of the skin and thinning of the affected sheep.” During this time, the sheep exhibit a normal appetite or even an excessive one. However, this phase ends dramatically with sudden weakness, head tilting to one side, muscle tremors, and weight loss that moves toward cachexia.

Thickened Peripheral Nerves

In the terminal phase, the animals suffer from lack of response to stimuli, ataxia, and tetraplegia. They then fall into a stupor or coma, and die. They’re also known to have spontaneous abortions. They suffer from lesions of fat deposits, serous fat atrophy, ascites, hydrothorax, hydropericardium, and atrophy of skeletal muscles. Peripheral nerves become thickened in most animals. This can include primary nerves, like the sciatic, also.

Nerves in the spinal cord become necrotic. Most animals suffer from meningoencephalitis. Thickened peripheral nerves tend to be surrounded by fluid and mucous. Some demyelination and neuron loss was noted. About half the sheep were found to have membranous glomerulonephritis.

Stress conditions, such as winter lambing and cold weather, can trigger chronic ASIA. When there is an acute phase, it appears that it’s always followed by the chronic phase.

The Study

The researchers took 6 castrated 3-month old male lambs from an organic farm. They were divided into two groups of 3, one acting as controls remaining unvaccinated, and the other vaccinated according to the schedule on the right. The vaccines were for
a variety of ovine pathogens, including bluetongue (10 doses), Clostridium
(2 doses), Chlamydophila spp, Salmonella spp and abortive bacteria (2 doses). Each vaccine dose contained 4 mg aluminum salts and 0.2 mg thimerosal (thiomersal), for a total of 56 milligrams of aluminum and 2.8 mg of thimerosal. The controls were injected with a phosphate buffered saline solution.

The lambs were all kept together with their flock in their normal situation. The experiment ran from 28 June 2010 through 18 March 2011, which took the lambs through a winter cycle with their flock. On days 177, 254, and 261, pairs of control and vaccinated animals were killed for post mortem examination.

Weight of Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated Sheep

Weight Differences

The weight of the lambs was tracked and reported on the graph to the left. Almost immediately, the vaccinated lambs weighed less, though not by a lot. However, notice how the weights diverge with the weighing on the 177^th day, and the weight of the vaccinated sheep remains signigicantly lower. Winter temperatures started on day 164, causing stress that the vaccinated lambs were less able to withstand. Even after the weather started to warm again, you can see that, though both the controls and the vaccinated lambs gained weight, the vaccinated ones never made up the 8.5% difference lost during the stressful cold time.

Behavioral Differences

The researchers report that the vaccinated lambs exhibited different behaviors, including “an array of nervous clinical symptoms”, which worsened as time went on. They demonstrated periods of “depression with reluctance to move, light stupor and tendency to collapse when handling.” These periods of stupor and little movement alternated with “periods of excitement and abnormally stimulated behavior.” Note that this is much like what’s described for sheep in the early stages of ASIA syndrome.

Tissue Differences

The lambs were sacrificed and their tissues examined. The post mortem studies showed:

Accentuated depletion of fat deposits.
Mild hydroperitoneum and hydropericardium.
Small increase in the diameter of peripheral nerves.
Part of the spinal cord showed lesions indicative of early stage degeneration.

Aluminum and Mercury

The amount of mercury and aluminum in blood was examined in the 6 experimental animals, and also in 5 sheep with advanced ASIA disease:

The 5 sheep with advanced disease had 266.75 to 289.76 ng/mL of aluminum in their blood. No mercury was found.
Control animals had trace amounts of aluminum and no mercury in their blood.
Scanning electron microscopy found that the vaccinated animals had 8.445% aluminum weight, while controls had only 3.825% aluminum weight in their spinal cords.

Bluetongue Vaccine

The researchers’ primary concern is that the bluetongue vaccine was mandated for all sheep in Spain. After it was implemented, the effects on sheep flocks were devastating. Spanish sheep were inoculated four times per year for bluetongue—2 vaccines for different varieties of bluetongue, and then boosters for both each year. Each injection included aluminum adjuvant.

This study injected lambs with a more aggressive vaccination program in their first months of life. However, the total number of vaccines that each sheep receives year-on-year is greater than the lambs were given. They received a total of 14, while sheep in the flock normally received 4 standard vaccines each year, plus another 4 vaccines for bluetongue, reaching a total of 8 vaccines per year. So, any sheep past a year in age has already received more vaccinations than the seemingly over-vaccinated trial lambs.

Those 14 vaccines triggered an immediate acute ASIA response in the trial lambs, and experience has shown that it almost certainly would have turned into chronic ASIA, had the animals not been killed for the study.

As the results demonstrate, the toxic load of adjuvant aluminum that accumulates in blood and the central nervous system is very high over time, and its effect in the form of ASIA is devastating.

The question that must be addressed is whether the bluetongue vaccine makes sense in the face of ASIA syndrome. A natural part of the life cycle of these sheep involves the stress of winter cold. Its effect on the lower weight of vaccinated lambs is clear, and this study demonstrates that the stress will result in a significant number of sheep being lost—and in a particularly cruel manner.

So, let’s take a look at bluetongue. It’s caused by a virus that’s carried by some insects, such as midges. It can never infect humans, so protection for people is not necessary.

Bluetongue primarily affects sheep, then goats, and some cattle. In sheep, the disease can range from quite mild to deadly. It causes a nasal mucous discharge and fluid buildup around the mouth. In severe cases, the lips and tongue can be badly swollen, causing the tongue to protrude and become cyanotic—that is, turn blue, which gives bluetongue its name. The rest of the head and ears can develop edema. Excess blood can build up around the hooves, and if the animal is driven to keep moving, it can result in loss of the hoof. In severe cases, torticolis—twisting of the neck—can occur, along with vomiting, pneumonia, and conjunctivitis. The disease does need to be taken seriously.

However, death is not a given, and the death rate can be nil. The average mortality usually runs from 0-30 percent, though in particularly susceptible sheep, it can reach 100 percent. Only about 5% of cattle become ill from bluetongue, and death is rare.

Compare bluetongue with the devastating effects of its vaccine, and it doesn’t make much sense to be vaccinating against it. If a sheep has been infected and survives, then that sheep will be fine. However, when a sheep gets ASIA, then that sheep has a death sentence—and the reality is that it doesn’t appear to be any more likely that sheep will be harmfully infected with bluetongue than that they’ll be hit with ASIA from the vaccination.

Human Implications

ASIA is not simply a disease of sheep. Human versions of it are becoming better recognized, and their severity is much like that in sheep. Macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) is one of them. Others may include Gulf War syndrome and other vaccine-related conditions. MMF is known to be induced by the vaccine adjuvant aluminum.

It’s certainly true that the fact aluminum in vaccines causes debilitating and deadly ASIA in sheep does not necessarily translate to humans. However, the evidence that aluminum adjuvants do cause ASIA-like syndromes in humans, coupled with how devastating ASIA is in sheep, not to mention how common, should trigger a regulatory response to eliminate aluminum from vaccines. Indeed, it ‘s truly impossible to find any reason other than selling out to explain why it’s still in them.

Source:

Autoimmune/autoinflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA syndrome) in commercial sheep; Immunology Research; Llui´s Luja´n • Marta Pe´rez • Eider Salazar • Neila A ´ lvarez • Marina Gimeno • Pedro Pinczowski • Silvia Irusta • Jesu´ s Santamari´a • Nerea Insausti • Yerzol Corte´s • Luis Figueras • Isabel Cuartielles • Miguel Vila • Enrique Fantova • Jose´ Luis Gracia Chapulle; DOI 10.1007/s12026-013-8404-0
Bluetongue, the Center for Food Security & Public Health

Tagged aluminum adjuvant asia, aluminum asia, asia autoimmuine, asia cachexia, asia neurology, asia syndrome, asia thickened nerves, autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome, bluetongue, bluetongue sheep, bluetongue vaccine, immunology research, Lluís Luján, macrophagic myofasciitis, mmf, ovine asia syndrome, science, sheep asia, sheep vaccine, vaccine, vaccine adjuvant asia, vaccine asia, vaccines

Vaccines’ Alum Adjuvant Path to Brain Found: Study

Newly published research by Keele Conference scientists shows that aluminum adjuvant in vaccines transfers to the brain. They have documented the path from injection site to the brain, and that once in the brain, it persists. Newborns, the elderly, and people with a certain genetic variation are particularly at risk.

by Heidi Stevenson

A new study adds a major link in the association of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines with neurological disorders. It demonstrates the pathway along which aluminum in vaccine adjuvants is transferred from the injection site to the brain, where it persists indefinitely. They have also identified a likely carrier and a means by which the process occurs.

The study is exhaustive, eliminating a wide array of options that might mitigate against their findings. They also focused on two groups to determine if their findings indicate that they’re at particular risk. They include newborns and people with a certain genetic variant. On top of that, the elderly may be at significantly higher risk for aluminum adjuvant-induced neurotoxic harm.

Please note that variant does not mean defective! We all have genes that are not like those of the majority. That does not indicate a defect, only a distinction. Viva la difference!

Reason for the Study

Nanoparticles are not as new in medicine as generally believed. The study states:

The use of nanomaterials in humans is not as contemporary as is recently portrayed. For decades, alum, a nanocrystalline compound formed of aluminum oxyhydroxide, has been the most commonly used adjuvant in vaccines.

In macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF), “alum-loaded macrophages [are] typically detected at sites of previous injections (up to >12 years later), resulting in a specific granuloma called macrophagic myofasciitis or MMF.” *

CCL2 is a cytokine that recruits monocytes, memory T cells, and dendritic cells to sites of inflammation. Earlier work has shown that 252 ASIA patients had an increase in circulating CCL2, along with a variation in the CCL2 gene. It’s also known that:

Danger signals from the CCL2 cytokine draw monocytes, which causes them to convert to macrophages before migrating to lymph nodes.
Dendritic cells (DCs) transfer antigens to a large network of distant dendritic cells, also known as antigen-presenting cells (APCs).
Alum injections are known to incite “significant changes linked to activation of the innate immune system in distant organs”.

These facts resulted in this study to detemine whether injected nanomaterials, most particularly alum, could be moved to distant organs through phagocytosis and CCL2 signaling.

The Experiments

Experiments were done on laboratory mice. A fluorescent surrogate for alum particles, fluorescent latex beads (FLBs), was used to assess movement and distribution of intramuscularly injected materials. Morin stain and particle induced X-ray emission (PIXE) were used to assess movement of alum hybrids, Al-Rho, which match the particle size of injected adjuvant aluminum. Using graphics from the study, I will attempt to explain what was done, though not all aspects of the study will be covered.

Granulomas

Standard C57BL/6 lab mice were injected in the tibialis anterior muscle (equivalent to a calf muscle in humans) with an alum-containing vaccine at a dose equivalent to that given to humans, with the amount calculated by an FDA standard. As is intended with an adjuvant, an intense localized inflammation ensued, which lasted until day 4 post-injection, when it stabilized. The local aluminum concentration decreased rapidly until day 4, remaining stable until day 21.

Aluminum-Laced Granuloma

Aluminum-loaded macrophages were found encased in granulomas from day 4 post-injection, as shown in this image. The left-hand image shows a photo of a granuloma, and the right-hand image is a PIXE graphic demonstrating the high aluminum load. (Yellow shows the greatest load.)

Signs of aluminum were found in the spleens and brains of these mice, as shown in these graphics:

Aluminum-Laced Spleen and Brain

Photographic images show spleen (left) and brain (right) tissues, with areas of PIXE imagery indicated with bright pink squares. The PIXE images showing aluminum loading are on the right side of each photo.

Aluminum Loading of Brain, Graphed Days 21 through 365, Plus Unvaccinated Controls

The graph on the left shows the percent of areas in the brains found to have aluminum spots. Notice the small number in unvaccinated mice. The numbers shown on days 21 and 365, one year post-vaccination, demonstrate that the aluminum does not dissipate. (The authors believe that the bar for day 180 is an anomaly, caused by either “interindividual variations in aluminum handling or to sampling problems related to variable proportions of grey and white matter in the randomly scanned areas”.

The aluminum that makes its way to the brain is persistent.

Movement of Alum Surrogates

FLB Movement by Macrophages, Hour 1 and Day 4

The image to the right shows the movement of FLBs by macrophages from the injection site to interstitial spaces in the muscle around it. Notice the bright red slash in the image to the left showing the fluorescing surrogates for alum, FLBs (fluorescent latex beads) one hour after injection. The right-hand image shows how they’ve been dispersed by macrophages four days later.

FLB Movement to Lymph Nodes, Hour 1 through Day 21

The image to the left is a graph of the number of cells loaded with FLBs (surrogate alum) found in popliteal (knee area) lymph nodes (P-DLN) and inguinal (groin) lymph nodes (I-DLN) at one hour, day 4, and day 21. Notice that movement of FLBs to lymph nodes is dramatic by day 4. Other images (not shown) document that this movement can be accounted for by inflammatory dendritic cells and macrophages that are derived from monocytes.

Another related part of this section of the experiment utilized injection of a compound known to inhibit FLB movement by phagocytes to popliteal lymph nodes. At day 4 movement to popliteal lymph nodes was down by 32%, and to inguinal lymph nodes by 69%. This treatment resulted in significant reduction of FLB in lymph nodes, further confirming that macrophages are the primary means of transportation to lymph nodes.

Graphs-of-Aluminum-found-in-Spleen-and-Blood

Graphs of FLBs found in Spleen and Blood

After moving to lymph nodes, the FLB alum surrogates moved to the spleen, as shown in the image to the right. The left-hand graph shows the number of FLBs in the spleen peaking at day 21 and decreasing to a little over half that number on day 90. Compare this with the previous graph, which shows FLBs leaving the lymph nodes between days 4 and 21. This increase in FLBs in the spleen between these same dates indicates that they’re moving from lymph nodes to the spleen.

The question then is: How does that happen? There is no connection between lymph nodes and the spleen. However, if you look at the graph on the right, you can see that FLBs are found in the blood, too. The authors surmise that the FLBs must travel in macrophages through the thoracic duct, the largest lymph vessel, which releases most of the body’s lymph into the blood system. Thus, macrophages carrying the alum-surrogate FLBs are transported from lymph nodes into the blood system, and then arrive in the spleen.

Graph of FLB Movement into Brain

The authors wrote, “Cerebral translocation of FLBs was delayed but relentless until the d90 endpoint in C57 mice,” and the graph to the left shows it. Only a small amount of the alum surrogate injected into the standard C57 lab mice reached the brain on day 4, but you can readily see how the pace picks up by day 21, and more than doubles again by day 90, the endpoint of the study on C57 mice.

The CX3CR1^GFP/+mice, indicated by the white bars, have an inserted gene that allows visualization of the microglia, which are a particular kind of macrophage found in the brain and spinal cord. As you can see, the FLBs were still increasing on day 180, the study’s endpoint for these mice.

FLBs in the Brainstem

The image to the right shows FLBs in the brainstem of a CX3CR1^GFP/+mouse. The inset is a photo of a stained slice of brain with their locations indicated by dots. The larger image is of an unstained section on day 21 showing the FLBs located mostly just under the pia membrane, i.e., on the surface of the brainstem.

Preventing FLBs from Transporting to Organs

Effect of I.V. Injections

Some C57 mice were given the FLB injection intravenously into the tail, rather than into the tibial anterior leg muscle. The result is shown in the graph on the left. Notice that hardly any FLBs ended up in the brain by either day 21 or 90. Clearly, little, if any, immune response resulting in macrophages engulfing FLBs is triggered by an intravenous injection.

Percent of FLB-Loaded Cells After Lymph Node Ablation

After ablating (destroying) popliteal and inguinal lymph nodes, the number of FLBs reaching the blood, spleen, and brain was reduced by 60-80%. The graph to the left shows the percentage of FLBs remaining compared to controls. The number that reached the spleen was only about 20% and the number reaching the brain was about 40%. This indicates that movement of FLBs by macrophages to local lymph nodes is part of the process for movement of most FLBs—and by analogy, most alum—from injection site to organs, including the brain.

Blood-Brain Barrier

FLBs with a Weak Blood-Brain-Barrier

One of the concerns in clinical procedures involving toxic elements on newborn babies is their weak blood-brain barrier. Mice with a leaky blood-brain barrier, called mdx, were used to see what happens in this situation. The graph to the right shows that, by day 21 the number of FLBs reaching the brain of an mdx mouse with a leaky blood-brain barrier is significantly greater than in a normal C57 mouse, and that this remains a problem over time.

Images from the muscles, spleen, and brain chimeric (genetically engineered) mice with a green fluorescing protein confirmed these findings.

Morin Stains Showing Al-Rho Particles

Confirmation: FLBs Correlate with Alum Adjuvant

The Morin stain for aluminum showed “Al-Rho particles were avidly phagocytosed after i.m. injection and formed intracellular agglomerates similar in size to the vaccine adjuvant”, as can be seen by the clusters in the “Vaccine” and “Al-Rho” images to the left. These images are similar to the first image of an aluminum-induced granuloma shown above.

The graphs below show Al-Rho movement from lymph nodes to spleen, and spleen to brain:

Al-Rho Movement to Lymph Nodes, Spleen, and Brain

The Al-Rho nanohybrid surrogates for alum showed up prominently in the popliteal and inguinal lymph nodes, which are nearest to the injection site, by day 4, as shown in the left-hand graph. Most have moved by day 21, showing up in the spleen, as you can see by the middle graph. By day 90, you can see that a significant number of Al-Rho have left the spleen. However, from the graph on the right, you can see that they’ve been moving from the spleen to the brain. The movement is strikingly similar to that of the FLBs.

Effect of CCL2 Cytokines in Alum Distribution

The CCL2 cytokine is suspected to be at the center of some ASIA disorders because research has shown that ASIA patients have high amounts in their blood, along with a genetic variant related to CCL2. Mice bred to be deficient in the CCL2 cytokine were used to see what effect they have on distribution of the alum surrogate, Al-Rho, to lymph nodes and organs.

Movement of Al-Rho in CCL2-Deficient Mice

In the left-hand graph of the image to the right, you can see that there is significantly less movement of Al-Rho from the site of an intramuscular injection to organs. Compared with controls, 65% the amount of Al-Rho is found in the nearest lymph node at day 4, and even less, 34%, gets to the inguinal lymph node. On day 21, only 15% as much is found in the blood, 29% in the spleen, and only 18% as much Al-Rho is found in the brains of CCL2-deficient mice compared to controls.

The graph to the right of “CCL2 Deficient Mice” shows the amount of Al-Rho found in the same kind of CCL2-deficient mice after they’ve been injected with rCCL2, a recombinant form of CCL2 that was used because no other version is available. The results are dramatically different. First, note that the y-axis scale is dramatically different, running up to 600%, instead of only 80%. By day 21, the rCCL2 injections increased distribution of Al-Rho to the blood by 274%, the spleen by 180%, and the brain by 341% as compared to controls.

These experiments, along with others not described here, document that more CCL2 cytokines—which draw monocytes and dendritic cells to the site of inflammation—than normal are directly associated with the distribution of alum to the brain.

Implications

This study has demonstrated that aluminum adjuvant particles can be transported to the brain through CCL2 signaling that brings monocytes to the site of vaccine administration. The route is shown to be:

First to the nearest lymph nodes.
Through the lymph system’s thoracic duct.
Through the thoracic duct into the bloodstream.
Through the blood to the spleen and possibly partially directly to the brain.
From the spleen to the brain.

This process appears to occur in all mice, though at a slow rate. However, in mice with high levels of CCL2 cytokines, the process is speeded up dramatically. The study also documented that an inefficient blood-brain barrier, as is found in the youngest babies, allows significantly more alum through to the brain.

The toxic potential of aluminum is high. This study has demonstrated that injecting alum adjuvants with vaccines results in transferrence to the brain, where it persists. Most people have a high tolerance to alum. However, there are limits in anyone. In the case of people with high levels of CCL2—such as those with a genetic variant leading to high CCL2 levels, as found in ASIA patients—even small amounts of injected alum can be disastrous.

Consideration needs also to be given to the association of aluminum in the brain with Alzheimer’s disease, which is afflicting an accelerating percentage of people as they age.

As the study’s authors point out:

It is likely that good tolerance to alum may be challenged by a variety of factors including overimmunization, BBB immaturity, individual susceptibility factors, and aging that may be associated with both subtle BBB [blood-brain barrier] alterations and a progressiveincrease of CCL2 production.

With the rapidly increasing number of vaccinations recommended, and even mandated, in schedules, along with the increasing number of people suffering from chronic neurological and autoimmune disorders, surely it’s past time to sound the alarm. At the very least, serious research to investigate these risks must be launched.

The researchers involved with the Keele Conference are doing valuable research aimed at identifying and mitigating these risks. It’s long past time for the agencies supposedly concerned with public health to follow these leaders of science.

Three of the study’s authors, Christopher Exley, Romain Gherardi, and François-Jérôme Authier, attended the 10^thKeele Conference titled, “Illuminating and Elucidating Aluminium’s Exposome: From Geochemistry to Neurochemistry, From Microbe to Man”:

Dr. Exley was the conference administrator and has published a large number of studies on the topic, not to mention being involved in several of the studies and references of this conference.
Dr. Gherardi presented his latest work on macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF), a new vaccine-associated disease, indicating that the cytokine CCL2 is not simply a biomarker of MMF inflammation, but is also associated with its pathophysiology. He suggested that CCL2 should be investigated in relation to other autoimmune/inflammatory syndromes (ASIA).
Dr. Authier reported on a new non-invasive method to diagnose MMF, which has hitherto been diagnosable only via muscle biopsy. He also suggested that MMF is probably more prevalent than currently realized.

* Unattributed quotations are from the study.

Source:

Slow CCL2-dependent translocation of biopersistent particles from muscle to brain, Biomed Central Medicine; Zakir Khan, Christophe Combadière, François-Jérôme Authier, Valérie Itier, François Lux, Christopher Exley, Meriem Mahrouf-Yorgov, Xavier Decrouy, Philippe Moretto, Olivier Tillement, Romain K Gherardi, and Josette Cadusseau; doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-99

Tagged adjuvant brain, adjuvant spleen, al-rho, alum adjuvant, alum brain, alum vaccine adjuvant, aluminum brain, asia vaccine, biomed central, ccl2, ccl2 alum, ccl2 cytokine, ccl2 vaccines, dendrite, dendrite vaccine, flb, fluorescent latex bead, granuloma adjuvant, granuloma alum, granuloma vaccine, macrophage, macrophage vaccine, monocyte, monocyte vaccine, nano adjuvant, nano aluminum, nano vaccine, phagocytosis, Slow CCL2-dependent translocation of biopersistent particles from muscle to brain, surrogate adjuvant, vaccine adjuvant

Organic Food Is Not Discount Food

Organic food isn’t cheap, and the real thing never will be. The concept of mass-produced organics is fraudulent. It runs counter to both the ethos & reality. They cannot be produced by Agribusiness-style farmers who keep producing the same crop year-on-year. As long as food is treated as a commodity, then we have degraded the basic substance of our bodies and minds.

by Heidi Stevenson

On top of the recent horsemeat scandal, we now have human DNA found in meat produced by Agribusiness. Lest we forget, the horsemeat scandal started in exactly the same way. First, it was announced that traces of horsemeat DNA had been found in some beef products. Then, we heard about how it was actually more than DNA, but significant percentages. Finally, we learned that some “beef” products had no beef at all—they were 100% horsemeat!

Of course, we were informed that there was no need to worry about it. Government agencies assured us that it was perfectly safe.

Now, though, we’re learning that human DNA is being found in South African Agribusiness foods. Naturally, no one should worry … but it shouldn’t be surprising, because, after all, humans do cut meat up and … well, sometimes they injure themselves. That does, though, beg the question: Why aren’t the factory lines stopped and the contamination from human blood—and even body parts—from such accidents removed?

And that, of course, is the rub. It won’t happen because time is money, and so is that human DNA contaminated meat. Surely you don’t expect anything to stand in the way of Agribusiness profits, do you?

There’s a very important lesson to be learned from all this. Real food—organic food—is not produced by Agribusiness. Real food cannot be produced by “economies of scale”, which is the mantra of Big Business.

Economies of Scale

Economy of scale is the idea that prices can be cut if products are produced in larger and larger quantities. There’s truth to that, but the biggest benefactor is corporations, which are focused on profits over and above everything else. Lest anyone question that statement, it must be noted that a corporation’s first duty—by law!—is to the investors. Corporations are required to place profits over any other concerns. Everything else is treated as a means to profit, not as holding any inherent value.

The reason we’re seeing so many mass outbreaks of food poisoning and contamination is the food industry itself. The prevention efforts are utterly misguided. They focus on control and sterility—not just sensible cleanliness.

Foods are routinely being sterilized now. This does nothing to prevent the problem and destroys much of the nutritional value, while also harming the food’s quality, even to the point of creating toxins, which are then eaten by people.

Controls are being put into place, such as tagging every single animal and recording every detail of their movement. These extra requirements are driving the small farmer—the real farmer—out of business. That, of course, leaves ever more of the food business in the hands of Agribusiness. And that leads to ever more “economies of scale”, with ever more pressure on the producers and workers to produce more and faster.

That pressure results in accidents leading to human flesh in meat and ever-more reason for unscrupulous operators to cut corners, which is the reason behind the horsemeat scandal. It also results in under-payment and mistreatment of workers, further degrading society.

Food as a Commodity

Treating food as nothing but a commodity destroys it. Shortcuts will continue to be used to avoid the inherent problems of mass production. Methods are put in place to disguise the harm. The fact that most so-called fresh vegetables in supermarkets—including ones defined as “organic”—are anything but fresh is ignored:

They’ve often traveled thousands of miles.
They’ve spent who-knows-how-much time just sitting in gas storage, which makes them look like they’re still fresh, but does absolutely nothing to stop the deterioration of nutrients, resulting in “foods” that still have calories, but are becoming devoid of nutritional value.
They’re disguised to look fresh and lovely. They’re waxed and dyed.
They’re being irradiated to give an appearance of freshness—but that process also destroys nutrients.
They’re grown on depleted soils, resulting in far lower nutrient levels.
They’re sprayed with pesticides—and don’t think that foods labeled organic are necessarily free of them. Rules and regulations often allow the use of pesticides on organic crops in some circumstances.

Beyond those problems, you can never know if fruits and vegetables have been contaminated by the effluent from modern CAFOs—concentrated animal feed operations. These examples of institutionalized cruelty result in turning healthy meats into the equivalent of poisons:

CAFO animals are fed unnatural diets to fatten them up. This results in animals being in constant pain as their systems struggle to digest what’s unnatural to them. It does not result in normal healthy meat.
They are highly stressed living in horrific concentrations, with little room to move and no natural interaction with their species—so you eat their stress hormones.
They often live in their own filth. You can imagine the implications of that on their health and yours.
They’re given drugs, including both antibiotics and ractopamine, to cause both rapid and massive growth. Ractopamine is a poison, and it puts animals in pain—which shouldn’t be surprising if you experienced growth pain as an adolescent.
These problems result in very sick animals prone to disease. Therefore, they are massively and routinely given antibiotics to mask their ill health.
Some of these methods are used in so-called “organic” and “free range” animals. The truth is that most so-called free range animals raised in CAFOs never go outside. The term organic does not mean free range, and in some instances doesn’t even mean antibiotic-free.

All of the focus on controls and sterilization completely misses the point. We literally are what we eat. As long as food is treated as a commodity, then we have degraded the basic substance of our bodies and minds.

Organic Food

Organic food—real organic food, not the faux stuff produced by Agribusiness and passed by the USDA—is not mass produced. It’s not produced on large-scale farms. It’s not produced by corporations.

Genuine organic food is produced in small quantities. It’s produced on farms that rotate their crops. It’s produced by natural means—and yes, sometimes that results in crop failures, though the oft-concealed reality is that the same thing happens to Agribusiness crops, though on a much larger scale. Organic crops come from seeds with a wide range of variations; there were once nearly-countless varieties of virtually every food, including meats. Organic food is not doctored to be prettier so you’ll buy it. Animals raised for organic meat are not routinely treated with antibiotics or other drugs, fed unnatural foods, or forced to live in misery. Organic meat, unlike the stuff that’s sold in supermarkets, including most of what’s labeled as organic or free range, is healthy.

The term organic has been compromised. What you find labeled as organic food in supermarkets has usually been gas stored and subjected to a range of mass production techniques. What we must come to appreciate is that organic food is not cheap food. If we go along with large-scale operations that sell stuff as organic, but allows corner-cutting, then we are adding to our own misery. The term organic, as defined by governments—and many other agencies—has been compromised. The USDA allows carageenan, a chemical that causes harmful gastrointestinal effects, to be added to foods with the organic label. In England, pharmaceutical drugs can be, and often are used in animals raised for food—and the number of allowable vaccinations is unlimited.

Obviously, the only way you can be sure of your food supply is by knowing the source. Those pretty, feel-good images on so-called organic foods found in supermarkets are nothing but marketing. They don’t present the reality. If you want real organic food, you must take responsibility for it yourself. You can’t buy it at a discount rate. It isn’t available from marketers saying that they bring “economies of scale” to the business. Economies of scale are the heart and soul of Agribusiness, but they’re anathema to organics.

At some point, people need to understand that using the tools of Agribusiness in organic foods is dishonest. Ultimately, if price becomes the sole issue on which people purchase organic food, then it will go the way of conventionally-grown food stuff. Indeed, that process has already started.

Tagged agribusiness, agribusiness economies of scale, conventional food, economies of scale, food as commodity, mass-produced organic, organic, organic antibiotics, organic food, organic gas storage, organic meat, organic vegetables

More Junk Genetics Science for Autism Awareness

A study shows that children with environmentally-induced genetic changes are more likely to have regress into autism. But that has nothing to do with whether autism is inherited. That’s why such research is an utter waste of resources. This is nothing but a sideshow intended to redirect attention away from the probable real cause: vaccines.

by Heidi Stevenson

Autism Awareness month, which is on now, brings out some of the worst junk science on the issue. The worst of all is the genetics research, which is now the beneficiary of millions of dollars, pounds, euros—pick your currency. And this time around is no different. We now have a study stating that autism is linked to changes in a region noted for genome instability.

So what? Seriously, so what? This does not help identify the cause of autism. Every bad health condition can be associated with genetics. The fact is that we’re all different, and part of that difference is our genetic basis. Our genes determine hair color, eye color, skin color, height, body type, voice range, and a huge array of characteristics that help to describe us. It also means that each of us is different in terms of inherent strengths and weaknesses—and that includes susceptibility to diseases of all types.

During an epidemic, some people exposed to the pathogen do not succumb. Why? Part of it is good health … but part of it is also innate susceptibility. That’s even more true when it comes to the modern plague of chronic disorders, including autism.

The Study

The study, “Global increases in both common and rare copy number load associated with autism”^[1] found that 5-10% of autistic children have a change in a region of the genome noted for instability. That means an epigenetic, environmentally induced, change in the genome has happened.

It says absolutely nothing about what has caused the changes!

The study did not find that these changes in that part of the genome exist only in children with autism. It found these changes in children without autism, too. In fact, even when the worst autism cases are taken into account, the percentage of children with autism who have the gene is only about double those who don’t have autism. Look at these graphs to see:

Graph of genetic changes These graphs display the relative number of duplication (left-hand graph) and deletion (right-hand graph) changes occurred in their study. They showed that, in terms of duplications of base pairs, the non-autistic control group (NIMH controls) were at a rate more than one-third of the most severe autism cases (ID/MCA), and only slightly below the average autism group (SSC autism). In terms of deletions of base pairs, the differences were even less.

So, what they’ve shown is only that autistic children are more likely to have an environmentally-induced genetic variation at one point in the genome—and that only 5-10% of autistic children have that kind of genetic variation in that location. So why don’t the other children with that variation also suffer? That isn’t answered.

And that’s the point. This study in no sense demonstrates that there is any genetic cause for autism. They’ve demonstrated only that changes in genetic structure known to be caused by environmental effects result in a child to be 5-10% more likely to develop autism. It says absolutely nothing about what environmental stimulus does it.

Why Do Such a Study?

Is there anything technically wrong with this study? In fact, it’s probably quite good. However, it should not have been done. The expenditure of money on a study that cannot possibly help identify the cause of autism is an utter waste of resources in an era when 1 out of 50 children is regressing into autism. It’s a travesty.

Obviously, there is no truth to the claim that vaccines have nothing to do with autism:

It’s been acknowledged in the US vaccination court and in Italy’s court system.
There’s a growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating a strong association between vaccines and autism.
Strong evidence that ties the increase in autism rates to the increasing number of vaccines given to children exists.
Modern countries with the highest child mortality rates have the highest rates of vaccinations.
Thousands, perhaps millions, of parents attest to the evidence of seeing their children regress following vaccinations. That’s more than anecdotal, it’s a mass of evidence.

In the face of the evidence demonstrating a link between autism and vaccines, there is simply no excuse for evasion of the study that can show the truth. Simply compare the rates of autism between vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

But that’s precisely what the CDC and all other agencies that are supposedly concerned with autism flatly refuse to do. And that’s positively criminal.

Until such a study is done, there can be no proof that vaccines are innocent. Of course, the money behind vaccines is enormous, and it’s being spent to assure that nothing can get in the way of Big Pharma’s and doctor’s profits. Nothing is allowed to stand between corporate profits … including the lives of our children

Sources:

Global increases in both common and rare copy number load associated with autism, Human Molecular Genetics; S. Girirajan, R. L. Johnson, et al; DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddt136
Relative Burden of Large CNVs on a Range of Neurodevelopmental Phenotypes, PLoS; Santhosh Girirajan, Zoran Brkanac, et al; doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1002334
Autism Linked to Increased Genetic Change in Regions of Genome Stability

Tagged autism, autism cause, autism genetics, autism regression, autism science, autism study vaccinated vs unvaccinated, autism vaccines, big pharma, cause of autism, genetics autism cause, genetics doesn’t cause autism, genetics science, genetics science autism, Human Molecular Genetics, Human Molecular Genetics autism, junk science, pseudoscience, science, vaccine, vaccines

Oil from Petroleum Used as Vaccine Adjuvant

Petroleum forms the basis of one of the most devastating adjuvants in existence. Historically, it was considered too dangerous for use in vaccines, but it’s making a comeback in this new age of recombinant DNA vaccine development. Of course, the public relations mantra is that it’s safe—so why is it kept quiet?

by Heidi Stevenson

The current hype in a new vaccine against foot-and-mouth disease is all about how the new ones are safer. But are they? The clue is in what isn’t discussed: the adjuvants. PLoS reports that a UK government and Big Pharma funded study has found a new approach, using recombinant DNA technology, to create empty capsids, that is, empty virus protein shells, to use as antigens against foot-and-mouth disease.^[1]The hollow antigens would be grown inside insects.

Antigens and Adjuvants

Only the surface of an antigen is required to show the immune system how to create antibodies. This method of vaccine development makes it impossible to spread the infection, since none of the active part of a virus is included. It also means that vaccine antigens can be made both rapidly and relatively cheaply.

There’s one big disadvantage, though. The immune system isn’t all that dumb. It does appear to be capable of distinguishing between genuine and fake threats. So, something is needed to trick it.

These synthetic antigens aren’t able to trigger much of an immune response when injected. Therefore, an adjuvant is required, and it must be particularly strong for the vaccine to trigger a strong enough immune response to result in antibodies to the antigen.

The problem is that all adjuvants are, by definition, toxic. Their function is to fire up the body’s immune system. Try this analogy:

Photo by Njambi Ndiba

Picture a tiger in a cage, one that’s well-fed, content, and has spent his entire life in it. The audience wants a show and the zookeepers want to give it. So they toss some chicken skins in his cage, hoping he’ll get excited, and start growling and shredding the skins.

But they fail to interest him. He’s used to a certain amount of aggravation. Kids hooting don’t faze him at all. People tossing odds and ends of things into his cage … oh well, he’s gotten used to it. So, the zookeepers—having no moral sense about the animals under their care—spray the tiger with pepper spray.

Now, that gets him riled up! He roars and looks for something to attack. And what does he find? Those chicken skins. So he puts on a great show, fussing and fuming and shredding those skins to bits.

The pepper spray is equivalent to a vaccine adjuvant. Had the zookeepers tossed live chickens into the cage, that tiger would have gone after them and put on a great show. But chicken skins just weren’t interesting enough.

Empty capsids are to the immune system much like chicken skins are to that tiger. You can inject and inject them, but the immune system won’t care. So, you need to toss something really aggravating into the mix. That something is a strong adjuvant.

And that’s exactly what this vaccine will require. According to the PLoS study, the adjuvant proposed for use is called Seppic 206B. The manufacturer’s website defines it as:

Ready-to-use oily vaccine adjuvant for water-in-oil-in-water (W/O/W) emulsion

Based on high-grade injectable mineral oil^[2]

Mineral oil is made from petroleum. It is the same oil that’s the basis of Freund’s adjuvant, which is used to create autoimmune disorders in laboratory animals by injection. Shortly after discovery, they were banned from use in humans because they were recognized as too dangerous.

And this is what is now being praised as safe. The publicity gives the impression that the vaccine itself is safe, but careful reading shows that the safety element is associated only with the manufacturing process—the fact that no live virus is used, so there’s no chance of accidental infection or escape. It has nothing to do with the safety of injecting it.

Animal Abuse

The initial goal of this new technology is to produce a new vaccine against hoof-and-mouth disease so that it can be used on a mass scale in livestock. The plan, obviously, is to use the same kind of adjuvant that’s sold to science labs around the world for the purpose of creating severe autoimmune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis in lab animals.

As long as their pain from these horrible diseases isn’t obvious, who’s going to know how the animals suffer? You know that no one’s going to be watching to see if they’re harmed. One of the most difficult things to deal with in an autoimmune disorder is that they often don’t show on the outside. Sufferers of myalgic encephalitis (chronic fatigue syndrome) have routinely been accused of malingering simply because their misery showed only on their faces.

In the case of animals raised for food … well, these won’t be healthy beasts, and it isn’t healthy to eat meat from sick animals. In the case of animals raised for dairy, their milk would likely contain the inflammatory agents that result from an autoimmune disorder. You have to wonder at that. Will they redefine the “safe” levels of inflammation markers in milk, since they usually won’t find pathogens associated with it? Or just pasteurize it more? That process already exists in long shelf life milk that doesn’t require refrigeration.

The Real Goal

The study’s authors state:

… the approach we have demonstrated here may be applicable across a wide range of human and animal picornaviruses, including polioviruses and coxsackieviruses.^[1] [Emphasis mine.]

It is not the intention to use this technology only on animals. The goal is to develop vaccines for humans. These vaccines, by their very nature, will require very strong adjuvants.

The nature of any adjuvant is to be toxic. That’s what makes them work. The weaker the antigen, the stronger the adjuvant must be. The new technology utilizes an adjuvant that’s known to be extremely toxic, so much so that it’s used to produce autoimmune disorders in lab animals.

This mineral oil adjuvant is already in use on farm animals. Aside from the incredible abuse that factory farming heaps on those poor beasts, how many of them live in constant pain simply because of the vaccinations given? But these animals are kept out of sight—and out of sight does tend to mean out of mind. After all, most people still buy their meat in supermarkets, which are the mainstay of these industrialized farms.

The real goal is to bring these mineral oil based adjuvants to humans. These, and others like squalene, which is responsible for the recent mass outbreak of debilitating narcolepsy from the swine flu vaccine, will be used so that Big Pharma can produce vaccines quickly and cheaply.

We’re living in an era of mass vaccination. The results are showing up in our children. The average child is now sick. The countries with the highest vaccination rates have the highest child mortality rates. Rather than do legitimate studies to identify the reasons for it, we see junk study after pseudo study trying to convince us that vaccines are just fine. Meanwhile, even with strong evidence of vaccination harm, the push is on to produce more and more, faster and faster.

And the lives that are devasted? Oh well, that’s too bad … and anyway, it’s mere coincidence when a child gets autism or arthritis or asthma or bullous pemphigoid or cancer or diabetes or eczema or …

Note: Study funders were the Wellcome Trust, a foundation started by the company now called GlaxoSmithKline; DEFRA, UK agency that controls animal vaccination and promotes it; Medical Research Council, an agency funded by the taxpayers.

Five of the nine researchers have deep ties to the vaccine industry, including a lead researcher who’s a Jenner Investigator, two students supported by the Wellcome Trust, and two supported by the Medical Research Council.

Sources:

Rational Engineering of Recombinant Picornavirus Capsids to Produce Safe, Protective Vaccine Antigen. PLoS Pathog; Porta C, Kotecha A, Burman A, Jackson T, Ren J, et al. (2013) 9(3): e1003255. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1003255
Montanide ISA 206 VG
New foot-and-mouth vaccine is safer and cheaper to produce
New hope for safer, more stable foot and mouth disease vaccine
Scientists develop new foot and mouth vaccine
Montanide ISA 206 VG
Aspects of the role of mineral oil as immunological adjuvants in rheumatoid arthritis
Autoimmunity induced by adjuvant hydrocarbon oil components of vaccine

Tagged adjuvant toxic, chronic disease vaccines, empty capsids vaccine, freund’s adjuvant, immune system adjuvants, immune system antibodies, immune system antigens, immune system vaccines, junk science, junk study, mineral oil adjuvant, mineral oil petroleum, oil adjuvant, petroleum adjuvant, pseudo study, pseudo-science, pseudoscience, recombinant dna technology, science, vaccine, vaccine adjuvant, vaccines

New Vaccine Adjuvant Targets Newborns

There seems to be no end to medical science’s hubris. Now, they’ve got the basic nature of every newborn baby’s immune system in the crosshairs. It doesn’t work the way they want it to, so they declare it to be defective … and then set about finding a method to ‘fix’ it. VTX-294 may be the scariest vaccine adjuvant they’ve yet devised.

by Heidi Stevenson

In a blatant display of hubris, medical science has decided that there’s something inherently wrong with newborn babies’ immune systems. Since they don’t naturally react to invaders by developing antibodies, they assume that it’s an inherent flaw, one that needs to be fixed by their science. And now, they believe that they’ve found a means to overcome the natural development of newborns’ immune systems with a new adjuvant called VTX-294.

A vaccine adjuvant is any substance that increases the immune system’s response to an antigen. An infant’s immune system functions differently from an adult’s. This is called a flaw by those who promote vaccines. So they’re hailing the discovery by researchers at Boston Children’s Hospital,^[1] who have discovered that infants’ white blood cells do respond strongly to at least one synthetic compound called VTX-294. It results in triggering tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and interleukin-1 beta (IL-1ß), which are both strong immune system responses.

Triggering an immune response is the purpose of an adjuvant. Thus, if used in vaccinations, VTX-294 will be an adjuvant.

The Trouble with Vaccines in Newborns

A newborn’s immune system is not the same as an adult’s, or even like that of a small child. Instead of fighting off invaders, it welcomes them. That makes sense, because the fetus is a guest in his mother’s abdomen. The fetus must be able to trust everything that comes across the placenta. Through a process that is not understood, shortly before and after birth, the immune system converts from acceptance of foreign substances to rejection of them. It takes around six months after birth for that process to be completed.

That’s why vaccines tend not to work in newborns. However, in spite of a near-complete lack of understanding about the process of immune system conversion from acceptance to rejection of foreign substances, modern medicine has decided that there’s something wrong with it. Therefore, a search has been on to try to force infants’ immune systems to develop antibodies to vaccinations.

So the discovery of VTX-294′s effects on newborns’ blood in vitro (in a laboratory, not a living being) is hailed as a breakthrough. And that it most certainly is. But that doesn’t make it a positive development.

Inflammation

Inflammation in pregnancy has been identified as a strong factor in the development of autism.^[2] TNF and IL-1ß are cytokines, and excessive cytokines—cytokine storms—have been linked to autism.^[3,4,5,6,7] What would you call the unnatural release of the cytokines TNF and IL-1ß in newborns but a cytokine storm?

Thus, this research into finding a way to activate a newborn’s immune system in a manner that is contrary to nature may be a primary triggering factor for autism!

VTX-294 and Benzene Rings

VTX-294 is a benzazepine, a chemical similar to benzodiazepines, which include diazepam and Xanax. The basis of benazapines is a combination of an azapine ring and a benzene ring.^[8]Benzene is a noted toxin, associated with cancer, along with neurological, developmental, and reproductive damage.^[9,10,11]

It’s hard to imagine that anyone would seriously consider injecting benzene, a known toxin, into newborns—until we realize that other known toxins, like mercury and formaldehyde, are already being injected with other vaccines.

Medical Hubris

The presumption of modern medical research in the assumption that there is something inherently wrong with every human baby born is pure hubris. Yet that’s precisely what’s taking place in attempts to circumvent the basic nature of a newborn’s immune system. We know from experience that there will be no tests for VTX-294′s safety. Adjuvants seem never to be tested. No matter how toxic they’re known to be, when they get added to vaccines, they automatically are defined as generally recognized as safe (GRAS).

That’s true of squalene, which has recently been shown to cause narcolepsy. It includes formaldehyde, a carcinogen, mercury, a neurotoxin, polysorbate 80, an endocrine disruptor, aluminum, a neurotoxin and possibly carcinogen. all of these are routinely used in vaccinations, which are all used in vaccines, in spite of their toxicity. When it comes to vaccines, they are termed GRAS.

If this latest adjuvant, VTX-294, gets used in vaccinations, it’s terrifying to consider the potential for harm. Will it disrupt normal immune system development? Will it cause cancer? Autism? Other neurological defects? Or create new diseases, such as macrophagic myofasciitis, which is probably induced by aluminum in vaccines?

What will it take for modern medicine to shake off the hubris-induced blinders? It seems that nothing less than the vaccine-caused devastation of every baby will stop these crimes. Or will they still try to claim that all the destroyed lives are “mere coincidence”?

Sources:

The Ultra-Potent and Selective TLR8 Agonist VTX-294 Activates Human Newborn and Adult Leukocytes: PLOS One; David J. Dowling, Zhen Tan, Zofia M. Prokopowicz, Christine D. Palmer, Maura-Ann H. Matthews, Gregory N. Dietsch, Robert M. Hershberg, Ofer Levy; doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058164
Prenatal Inflammation Linked to Autism Risk
A proposed mechanism for autism: an aberrant neuroimmune response manifested as a psychiatric disorder.
A proposed mechanism for autism: an aberrant neuroimmune response manifested as a psychiatric disorder.
Cytokine dysregulation in autism spectrum disorders (ASD): Possible role of the environment.
Elevated plasma cytokines in autism spectrum disorders provide evidence of immune dysfunction and are associated with impaired behavioral outcome.
GMO-DNA Vaccines and Cytokine Storms
Benzazepine
Toxicological Review of Benzene (EPA’s report on non-cancer effects)
The toxicity of benzene and its metabolism and molecular pathology in human risk assessment
OSHA report on effects of benzene
Human Fetal Immune System Arises from Entirely Different Sources Than Adult Immune System
A Vaccine That Works in Newborns? Promising Compound May Help Protect Babies During Vulnerable Window

Tagged adjuvant vtx-294, autism, autism vaccines, benzazepine, benzene rings, conventional medicine, medical hubris, modern medicine, newborn vaccine, science, vaccine, vaccine adjuvant, vaccines, vaccines newborns, vtx-294, vtx-294 benzazepine, vtx-294 benzene, vtx-294 cytokine storm, vtx-294 il-1 beta, vtx-294 IL-1ß, vtx-294 inflammation, vtx-294 tnf, vtx-294 toxin

CDC Claim of No Autism-Vaccine Link Based on Junk Science

The CDC has produced junk science that demonstrates absolutely nothing, but claims it shows no connection between autism and the vaccine schedule. It’s now spinning it as if it proves that there’s no link between the modern day nightmare of autism and the vaccines that they push for Big Pharma. Here’s the evidence.

Junk, by Daniel Y. Go, cropped and with word Science superimposed

by Heidi Stevenson

The CDC has produced a study, claiming that it proves that there’s no link between autism and the number or timing of vaccinations. The mainstream news has been covering it with its usual unquestioning cheerleader approach. Worse, they have—with the assistance of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)—conflated the study with the more basic question of whether vaccinations cause autism. Of course, their implied conclusion is that it doesn’t, and that now parents should simply accept their claims that there’s no connection between vaccines and autism.

However, I have read the study—and frankly, it provides a new standard for the term pseudo science.. Even the little information that’s been produced by the media makes it absolutely clear that the study is nothing but junk science. In no sense does it even come close to demonstrating a lack of association between autism and vaccines. There are several reasons.

The primary flaw is that there is no comparison between vaccinated children and unvaccinated children.

That’s right. That alone is more than enough to simply toss the study in the trash. The only way to prove whether vaccines cause autism is by comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children. That has never been done. Until then, there is simply no purpose served in examining how the relative levels of vaccination affect the condition:

Why would you want to investigate whether the degree of exposure affects a condition, unless you’ve already found that it actually causes it?

The fact is that no such legitimate study has been done. The CDC’s reason, the same one that’s parroted around the world, is that it would be unethical. They claim it would be unethical to deprive children of the questionable benefits of vaccination by doing such a study. There are, of course, two solid arguments countering that claim:

The first is that such considerations have never stopped them from doing medical studies in any other arena. So why should it stop them now?
The second is that there are large unvaccinated pools of children who could be compared with vaccinated ones. These include the Amish people, thousands of Homefirst clinic patients, and a large percentage of the Waldorf Schools children. There is no lack of unvaccinated children for such a study, either prospective or retrospective.

The Study

The study^[1] was a case-controlled variety. It used 256 children defined as having autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and compared them with 752 children who hadn’t been given the diagnosis. Reports that give these numbers, though, do not tell the whole story.

Any child who also had a diagnosis for fragile X syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, Rett syndrome, congenital rubella syndrome, or Angelman syndrome was not included in the study. The stated reason was that they had “known links to ASD traits”. However, at least one of these conditions, Rett syndrome, is defined as a type of autism. It is not similar to autism. It is possibly the worst form of it. So, the authors of the study specifically eliminated the worst cases of autism from their trial!

They started with 771 potential ASD cases, not the 256 reported in the media, and 2,760 potential controls, not the 752 reported—and then they started eliminating subjects:

103 ASD cases (leaving 668 cases) and 316 controls (leaving 2,444 controls) were deemed ineligible. Why they were ineligible, we’re not told.
Of the remaining subjects, only 321 ASD cases (48.1%) and 774 controls (31.7%) completed the trial. The reasons are not given. This is a significant factor. Notice that a far higher percentage of the ASD cases than controls completed the trial.
Of the remaining controls:
- 12 of the remaining controls were eliminated because they had exclusionary conditions. (as described above)
- 10 controls were not included because they didn’t match any of the ASD cases.
- 186 controls were eliminated because they “had indications of speech delay or language delay, learning disability, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or attention deficit disorder, or tics, or had an individual education plan”. In other words, any indication of a developmental disorder resulted in removal of a child from the controls group.
- 27% of the original controls were counted in the study.
The remaining ASD cases were not eliminated for the same reasons that controls were. Instead, a different set of criteria was used:
- They defined a set of criteria based on testing to determine which children would remain in the study.
- They eliminated any child whose diagnosis happened after age 36 months.
- 33% of the original ASD cases were counted in the study.

Why the Results Are Meaningless

As initially pointed out, this study was done on the assumption that there is no connection between autism and vaccinations. Therefore, there was no reason to do such a study. Why would you do a study on whether there’s an association between autism and vaccinations before you believe that there’s been a study demonstrating such a connection? If this were legitimate science, then there’d be no reason to do it.

There is no explanation for the high dropout rate of subjects, nor is there an explanation for the significantly different dropout rates between ASD cases (51.9%) and controls (68.3%). More than half of both groups didn’t finish the study, yet we’re left without an explanation. Obviously, this large number could easily have changed the results.

The elimination of the worst type of autism, Rett syndrone, could easily have skewed the results.

Eliminating subjects from ASD cases and controls for different reasons is generally not legitimate in a case controlled study.

They looked at the number of antigens given to each child, both overall for their first two years and the number given on single days. This presumes that the number of antigens, rather than the number of vaccinations is the issue. It completely ignores adjuvants and other vaccine ingredients, including known toxins such as formaldehyde, mercury, and sorbitol 80, among others.

How the Authors Unintentionally Show the Absurdity of Their Study

Most interesting, though, is that the authors provide a very good reason to completely discount their approach to the question of whether vaccines are associated with autism. It’s in these words in the study:

The immunization schedule in effect during the years in which our study children were vaccinated included some, such as diphtheria, tetanus, and whole-cell pertussis, that
were cruder and more antigenic than current vaccines, and also caused more side effects. Removal of whole-cell pertussis vaccine from the childhood vaccination schedule has substantially decreased the antigenic load from vaccines.

The rate of autism has skyrocketed since the years covered by the study. The study looked at children born between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1999—more than 13 years ago. They state that the antigens were “cruder and more antigenic than current vaccines, and also caused more side effects”. So, if antigens are so much gentler today, why would autism be increasing at such a great rate if antigens are the issue?

Clearly, the entire concept of using antigen burden to determine whether there’s an association between vaccines and autism is pointless. We have only to read what the authors themselves stated to know that.

Other Factors that Tend to Discredit This Study

At the end, the authors give thanks to Dr. Paul Offit for “his assistance in determining the antibody stimulating protein and polysaccharide content of specific vaccines”. Anyone familiar with Offit knows that he’s arguably the most significant vaccination promoter in the world. His infamous statement that it’s safe to give a ten thousand vaccinations to a single child clarifies that the authors entered this study with a strong bias in favor of vaccines.

The CDC produced the study. This is the US agency responsible for determining the vaccination schedule for children and adults. They have repeatedly denied any connection between vaccines and autism, in spite of an utter lack of any legitimate study demonstrating their claim. Therefore, they have a strong motivation to produce something that gives the impression that there’s no connection.

This study, even if well done, would be meaningless simply because it jumps the gun. It makes no sense to do a study on the relative degree of a potential toxin’s effect on autism when no study has yet been done to determine that there is one. Since no such study has been done that officially implicates vaccines as the cause of autism, as explained earlier, what’s the point in doing a study focused on the relative degree of harm? This is pure duplicity on the part of the CDC.

Conflating This Study with Whether Vaccines Cause Autism

What has happened in the mainstream media as a result of this study was predictable. Here are some quotes:

A large new government study should reassure parents who are afraid that kids are getting autism because they receive too many vaccines too early in life. (National Public Radio)^[3]

Myths about autism and vaccines have persisted, in spite of the scientific evidence, partly because researchers don’t really know what causes autism, Dawson [Chief Science Officer of Autism Speaks] says. “Until we conduct the research to answer the questions about autism’s causes and risk factors, parents will continue to have questions,” she says. (USA Today)^[4]

It’s obvious that the non-results of this study are being conflated with the issue of whether vaccines cause autism. That’s not the least surprising, since the Journal of Pediatrics, which published it, starts its own article introducing the study by doing it themselves:

Although scientific evidence suggests that vaccines do not cause autism, approximately one-third of parents continue to express concern that they do; nearly 1 in 10 parents refuse or delay vaccinations because they believe it is safer than following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) schedule (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/downloads/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs.pdf). A primary concern is the number of vaccines administered, both on a single day and cumulatively over the first 2 years of life. In a new study scheduled for publication in The Journal of Pediatrics, researchers concluded that there is no association between receiving “too many vaccines too soon” and autism.^[5]

This statement clearly confuses the issue of whether autism is caused by vaccines and the results of this study. Can there be any doubt that the study’s purpose was to do precisely that, to confuse the issue?

Overall, the study and the way it’s promoted tell a story very different from the one intended. How can there be any doubt that the CDC has determined that it will do whatever is necessary to convince the public to subject their children to vaccines, even to the point of producing junk science that demonstrates absolutely nothing and then spinning it as if it proves that there’s no link between the modern day nightmare of autism and the vaccines that they push for Big Pharma?

Sources:

Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism; Journal of Pediatrics; Frank DeStefano, MD, MPH, Cristofer S. Price, ScM, and Eric S. Weintraub, MPH1
Autism Risk Is Not Increased by Childhood Vaccines: Study; Pharmalot; Ed Silverman
Number of Early Childhood Vaccines Not Linked to Autism; NPR; Jon Hamilton
Full vaccine schedule safe for kids, no link to autism, USA Today
The Risk of Autism Is Not Increased by “Too Many Vaccines Too Soon”

Tagged autism, autism vaccines, big pharma, cdc autism, cdc junk science, cdc pseudo science, centers for disease control autism, centers for disease control vaccines, conventional medicine, Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism, journal of pediatrics autism, journal of pediatrics vaccination, journal of pediatrics vaccination schedule, junk science, modern medicine, politics, pseudo-science, vaccinated unvaccinated children, vaccination autism, vaccination schedule, vaccine, vaccine autism, vaccines

Unvaccinated Children Suffer Fewer Infectious Diseases: Study

This study stated a conclusion absolving vaccinations of causing harm to children. But their conclusion doesn’t match their results! Worse, though, is that close inspection shows that the study was utterly inadequate. That they showed vaccinated children have more infectious diseases, though, is rather humorous.

by Heidi Stevenson

A German study has found that unvaccinated children suffer from significantly less infectious disease than vaccinated children. Particularly humorous is that the article’s introduction contradicts the findings:

Protective vaccinations are among the most important and effective preventive measures in modern medicine. They make a substantial contribution to reducing the probability of contracting many infectious diseases as well as their severity. The immediate goal of a vaccination is to protect the vaccinated person from a disease. Achieving high rates of
vaccinated persons additionally results in the so called herd immunity.

The study found:

Vaccinated children aged 1-5 had 27% more infectious disease than unvaccinated children.
Vaccinated children aged 11-17 had 16% more infectious disease than unvaccinated children.

The conclusion, though, doesn’t even mention this! Instead, it states:

The prevalence of allergic diseases and non-specific infections in children and adolescents was not found to depend on vaccination status.

Of course, the researchers’ conclusion had little to do with the findings, but it’s what you must expect from a study led one researcher who was lead researcher for a major study funded by Sanofi Pasteur and GlaxoSmithKline, and another who’s employed by the Robert Koch Institute. What’s remarkable is that the study was published.

The Study

The Robert Koch Institute, Germany’s agency for vaccine policy and its vaccination promoter, produced The German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS). It was an interview and examination study that ran from May 2003 to May 2006, set up “to collect representative data on the health status of children and adolescents aged up to 17 years.” 17,641 children aged newborn to 17 years were selected randomly from 167 German locations. Parents were asked to participate and 66.7% did.

Children who had received no vaccines were classified as unvaccinated, and those who’d received even one vaccination were classed as vaccinated. Only 0.7% of the children were unvaccinated, making that group quite small. They included 48 girls and 46 boys, for a total of 94 unvaccinated children.

Four Vaccination-Related Diseases

The study found that children who had received no vaccinations were significantly more likely to come down with pertussis, measles, mumps, or rubella than those they determined were “sufficiently vaccinated” against those diseases. Notice that this is a different comparison than made in all other cases, where all those classified as vaccinated were compared against those who were unvaccinated. Instead, they picked subsets of the vaccinated children for making comparisons about these diseases.

Infections Without Associated Vaccines

When the number of infections was calculated, the story changed dramatically, as can be readily seen in the graph to the left. The infections considered included:

Cold/flu-like infection.
Tonsillitis, herpesvirus infection. bronchitis (not when asthma was present).
Gastrointestinal infection.
Cystitis and/or urethritis.
Purulent conjunctivitis (bacterial conjunctivitis).
Croup (in children up to age 11).

Notice that unvaccinated children aged 1-5 and 11-17 were significantly less likely to suffer from any infection than vaccinated children, while the unvaccinated aged 6-10 were only slightly more likely to to suffer from an infectious disease than the vaccinated—and the p-value for that age group is exceptionally high, indicating that the age 6-10 results could easily have been reached by pure chance.

One must wonder what the results might have been if only those children who’d been fully vaccinated had been compared with unvaccinated children—as they did when they produced their results for four vaccination-related diseases. I suspect that they’d have found a significantly greater distinction between vaccinated and unvaccinated children than they did. That they did a different sort of calculation here than they did for vaccination-related diseases makes me wonder if they actually did run the numbers, but didn’t like the results.

Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis, Atopic Eczema, & Bronchial Asthma

The results for allergic conjunctivitis, eczema, and bronchial asthma were quite mixed, as is apparent in the graph to the shown above. The results appear to be all over the place:

Allergic rhinoconjunctivitis seems to be more common in unvaccinated children aged 1-5, but becomes significantly less common as they age, until it’s twice as common in ages 11-17 in vaccinated children.
The rate of atopic eczema is nearly identical in ages 1-5, becomes more common in unvaccinated children aged 6-10, and then becomes nearly 2½ times more common in vaccinated children aged 11-17.
No cases of bronchial asthma were reported in unvaccinated children aged 1-10. Between the ages of 11 and 17, the unvaccinated had a slightly larger percentage of cases. However, the number is so small—just 2—that the comparison is fairly meaningless.

Analysis: Study Found Wanting

It’s good to see these results, but most interesting that they’ve been utterly ignored by the press and the agencies responsible for our vaccination policies. Considering the fact that the study is steeped in Big Pharma funds, the most amazing thing is that it was published. I can only imagine that there must have been some pre-arranged agreement that forced its publication.

It’s too bad, though, that the authors were allowed to get away with a conclusion that absolutely does not reflect the findings:

Unvaccinated children clearly suffered fewer infectious diseases than vaccinated children.
The trends in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis and atopic eczema as children get older clearly favors the unvaccinated. Only bronchial asthma might show a different trend, but that result is, as explained, questionable.

In terms of the selected vaccination-related diseases, the authors showed only numbers of cases. That, though, tells us little. It isn’t, after all, a serious matter getting these diseases in most cases. What would have been worthwhile noting is how many children suffered harm or death from them. Interestingly, the study is quiet on that.

They got only a two-thirds response from parents, but they don’t adjust for that. Could that have skewed their results. I would think so, since parents who don’t vaccinate their children tend to be suspicious of medicine and might fear taking part in such a trial.

The study did not lump all infectious diseases together, including both vaccination-related ones and non-vaccine-related conditions. That might have told a more interesting story.

They further failed to consider that only four of the vaccination-related diseases were considered, which means that each one could have been gotten by a child only once. So, from birth to age 17, they could have gotten ill only four times from those conditions, and two of those four diseases, mumps and rubella, are exceptionally mild. On top of that, they didn’t simply take note of all infectious diseases the children might have had, but only some of them. Pneumonia wasn’t considered. Are they suggesting that not a single child had pneumonia? What about encephalitis?

In terms of serious autoimmune disorders, which are the greatest concern nowadays, the study is entirely silent.

There is no investigation into the epidemic of autoimmune and neurological disorders. What about diabetes? Arthritis? Autism? Obesity? Cancer? These are all becoming more and more common in our children. Yet, the study didn’t even look at any of them.

Their claim that the study set out ”to collect representative data on the health status of children and adolescents” is demonstrably false, since the most common and worst diseases that today’s children are subject to were not even addressed.

The lack of morbidity and mortality information, the lack of any reference to autoimmune or neurological disorders, and the limitation to mostly mild infectious diseases and only four vaccination-related ones, are salient points.

If the authors had truly been interested in verifying whether vaccinated children’s health is improved orharmed, they surely would have focused on the modern plague of autoimmune and neurological disorders and accounted for all incidents of infectious diseases. It’s telling that they didn’t. It even suggests that they didn’t dare, that they had a good idea that, even though this study required some spinning, it would have been far worse, possibly unspinnable, if they’d produced an honest study.

In spite of themselves, the authors and their funders have provided information that supports the hypothesis that vaccines harm children’s health. What might have been found if they’d done an honest study investigating all aspects of health, not just a few select ones?

Any parent who presumes that agencies like the ones that produced this study actually care whether vaccines are beneficial or harmful need to think again. If they did, they’d do a genuine study comparing a large number of unvaccinated children with vaccinated ones, and they’d investigate all aspects of health, not just a few carefully selected ones.

But we can take heart in noting that, even when they tried to produce a study giving the false impression of vaccine safety, they bungled it!

Source:

Vaccination Status and Health in Children and Adolescents, Deutsches Ärzteblatt International; Roma Schmitz, Christina Poethko-Müller, Sabine Reiter, Martin Schlaud; DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0099

Tagged big pharma, compare vaccinated and unvaccinated, conventional medicine, modern medicine, science, vaccinated children suffer, vaccinated vs unvaccinated, vaccinated vs unvaccinated children, vaccination autoimmune disorders, vaccination measles, vaccination mumps, vaccination neurological disorders, vaccination pertussis, vaccination rubella, vaccination study, vaccine autoimmune, vaccine neurological, vaccine safety

The Plans

EU Hands Natural Historic Seeds Over to Monsanto

National Governments Stand Against the EU Commission

EU Commission: Not to Be Trusted

What You Can do

Sources:

Further reading

ASIA in Sheep

The Study

Weight Differences

Behavioral Differences

Tissue Differences

Aluminum and Mercury

Bluetongue Vaccine

Human Implications

Source:

Reason for the Study

The Experiments

Granulomas

Movement of Alum Surrogates

Preventing FLBs from Transporting to Organs

Blood-Brain Barrier

Confirmation: FLBs Correlate with Alum Adjuvant

Effect of CCL2 Cytokines in Alum Distribution

Implications

Source:

Economies of Scale

Food as a Commodity

Organic Food

The Study

Why Do Such a Study?

Sources:

Antigens and Adjuvants

Animal Abuse

The Real Goal

Sources:

The Trouble with Vaccines in Newborns

Inflammation

VTX-294 and Benzene Rings

Medical Hubris

Sources:

The Study

Why the Results Are Meaningless

How the Authors Unintentionally Show the Absurdity of Their Study

Other Factors that Tend to Discredit This Study

Conflating This Study with Whether Vaccines Cause Autism

Sources:

The Study

Four Vaccination-Related Diseases

Infections Without Associated Vaccines

Allergic Rhinoconjunctivitis, Atopic Eczema, & Bronchial Asthma

Analysis: Study Found Wanting

Source: