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

Tetanus Vaccine Causes New Disease: New Vaccines Worse?

The vaccine junta is not only unconcerned with vaccine-induced diseases, it’s massively gearing up this vaccine arms race against the human race. It’s known that tetanus vaccine causes a new disease, antiphospholipid syndrome. New adjuvants are composed of phospholipids, a potential disaster.

by Heidi Stevenson

The tetanus vaccine causes a new disease known both as Hughes syndrome and antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). It’s an autoimmune condition that can attack any part of the body, though is best noted for heart attacks and killing fetuses. It’s likely that APS will become more common with the new generation of vaccine adjuvants now being produced.

The sufferers of (APS) are mostly women, and its diagnosis is often made as a result of multiple pregnancy losses. As is typical of new diseases, research is focused on finding a genetic cause, in spite of the fact that the connection with vaccines is well known and documented.

As the name implies, APS is a condition in which phospholipids, natural and necessary substances required by every part of the body, is seen as an infectious agent by the immune system. So, this substance that exists in every cell becomes subject to attack. Symptoms include:

Blindness
Cardiovascular:
- Deep vein thrombosis (clots in veins)
- Phlebitis
- Thrombocytopenia (deficiency of blood platelets, causing bleeding & bruising)
- Atherosclerosis
- Pulmonary embolus (clots in the lungs)
- Heart valve abnormatilies
- Stroke
Headaches & migraines
Miscarriages
Neurological disorders:
- Epilepsy
- Chorea (sudden uncontrollable jittery movements)
- Transverse myelitis (inflammation of the spinal cord)
- Multiple sclerosis
- Cognitive dysfunction
Skin disorders, including mottling, ulcers, and necrosis

APS can also be diagnosed—more accurately, misdiagnosed—as lupus erythematosus, which is another vaccine-induced condition.

APS and Vaccines

One study calls Hughes syndrome the “classical antiphospholipid syndrome”^[1]. That study refers to similarities between plasma protein beta-2-glycoprotein-I (ß2GPI), which is attacked in APS, and the tetanus vaccine. That is, the tetanus antigen has parts that are virtually identical to ß2GPI, which is found virtually everywhere in the body.

Another study documents how APS can be induced in laboratory animals with tetanus vaccination^[2]. Many large number of other studies document and investigate the connection between vaccines and antiphospholipid syndrome^{[3,4,5,6,7,8]}.

These studies leave little doubt that APS is caused by vaccines. That should come as little surprise, since it was first identified as a disease during the 1980s. If this disease existed prior to vaccines, it was so rare that it was unknown. Now, it can take its place among a growing list of vaccine-induced conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, macrophagic myofasciitis, multiple sclerosis, autism, and siliconosis. The list keeps growing and many believe that all these conditions should be included under a single name, autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, or ASIA.

Article Addendum

In a rather humorous exchange, the head of the APS Foundation of America objected to the use of their website as a reference—though it was, as it was heavily referenced for the effects of APS, though not for its focus on anything but vaccines as the cause. I removed the reference, as demanded, but a new one to the site is now going up. It’s number 9 in Sources. She offered it as proof that APS goes back to 1906, so therefore could not be caused by vaccines. So what does the article state?

In discussing the history of APS, the article states that in 1906 Wasserman and coworkers “developed serological reactions for the diagnosis of syphilis utilizing phospholipid-rich tissues as antigens^[9]“. In other words, they developed symptoms as a result of the injection of phospholipids in 1906. It now stands as the earliest proof of the likely causal link between vaccines and APS.

A tip of the hat to the head of the APS Foundation of America, unintentional though the offer of documentation is!

Why New Generation Vaccines Are Especially Worrisome

Phospholipids are a primary part of your body, forming part of the membrane of every cell, among other functions. They’re under attack in APS. As can be seen with regard to tetanus vaccine, APS can be induced by the antigen when the epitope—the part of the antigen forming the pattern that autobodies are designed to attack—is similar to a particular part of the body.

What’s frightening is that phospholipids are becoming a primary ingredient of vaccines in the form of a new generation of adjuvants made via recombinant DNA by diddling with a part of pathogenic bacteria called outer membrane vesicles (OMVs). You can read more about them in New Generation of Vaccine Adjuvants: Worst Ever?

OMVs allow for designer vaccine antigens and adjuvants. OMV adjuvants are, of course, being promoted as the safest ever developed. That safety claim is based on the fact that they’re so much like the body already. This is the same claim that’s been used to promote squalene, which, as we’ve recently seen with the tragic cases of narcolepsy in children after the squalene-laced flu vaccine, Pandemrix, was unleashed in Europe, can devastate lives. Gaia Health explained the issue in How the Flu Vaccine Causes Narcolepsy.

Squalene is a lipid. That’s what makes it so dangerous. OMVs are even more precisely analogous to human tissue, because they are not only lipids, they are phospholipids—which are precisely what the body attacks in APS. Therefore, we can anticipate that there will be ever-more cases of APS as we see the approval of ever-more OMV-based vaccines, which are in the pipeline now.

Have no doubt: these vaccines will be approved. The first one, Cervarix, is already out there—and it’s been deemed safe, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

People with APS are suffering from phospholipid antibodies that are erroneously destroying parts of the eye, cardiovascular system, brain, nerves, skin, reproductive system—in short, any part of the body. This self-destruction is induced by vaccine technologies. These technologies are presumed safe without adequate, if any, testing. Just how many people must suffer before this travesty is ended? When will the clearly mad purveyors of these technologies step back and question what they’re doing?

The fact is that there are not just one, but several generations of people who don’t even know what good health is. Worse, each successive generation is growing sicker than the previous one. And worst of all, the vaccine junta is not only unconcerned, it’s massively gearing up this vaccine arms race against the human race.

Sources:

When APS (Hughes syndrome) met the autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA)”, Lupus, M Blank, E Israeli, Y Shoenfeld, doi: 10.1177/0961203312438115.
Vaccine model of antiphospholipid syndrome induced by tetanus vaccine, Lupus, L Dimitrijevic, I Živkovic, M Stojanovic, V Petrušic, S Živancevic-Simonovic, doi: 10.1177/0961203311429816.
ß2 glycoprotein 1 (ß2GPI), the major target in anti phospholipid syndrome (APS), is a special human complement regulator, Blood, Katharina Gropp, Nadia Weber, Michael Reuter, Sven Micklisch, Isabell Kopka, Teresia Hallström and Christine Skerka, doi:10.1182/blood-2011-02-339564.
Anti-ß2 glycoprotein I (ß2GPI) autoantibodies recognize an epitope on the first domain of ß2GPI, PNAS, G. Michael Iverson, Edward J. Victoria, and David M. Marquis.
Anti-phospholipid antibodies following vaccination with recombinant hepatitis B vaccine, Clinical and Experimental Immunology, J Martinuc Porobic, T Avcin, B Božic, M Kuhar, S Cucnik, M Zupancic, K Prosenc, T Kveder, and B Rozman, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2005.02923.x
Immunomodulatory and physical effects of phospholipid composition in vaccine adjuvant emulsions.
‘ASIA’ – autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants.
Infections and vaccines in the etiology of antiphospholipid syndrome.
The Antiphospholipid Story, from the APS Foundation of America website
Hughes Syndrome Foundation
Antiphospholipid syndrome
Learning About Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS)
The antiphospholipid syndrome (Hughes’ syndrome)

Vaccines cause autoimmune disorders!

Tagged antiphospholipid syndrome, antiphospholipid syndrome vaccines, aps autoimmune disease, aps autoimmune disorder, aps vaccines, hughes syndrome autoimmune disorder, hughes syndrome vaccines, OMV autoimmune disorder, omv vaccines phospholipids, outer membrane vesicles phospholipids, science, squalene aps, squalene autoimmune disease, squalene phospholipids, tetanus vaccine antiphospholipid syndrome, tetanus vaccine aps, vaccine, vaccine diseases, vaccines, vaccines autoimmune disorder, vaccines cause autoimmune disorders, vaccines cause disease

New Generation of Vaccine Adjuvants: Worst Ever?

A new generation of vaccine adjuvants is being rolled out, literally mass produced. They’re touted as safe, but they share a dirty secret: They’re oil-based, which could make them the most dangerous yet in a product line that is, by definition, toxic.

Lipid Splashing over Syringe

by Heidi Stevenson

All vaccine adjuvants are, by definition, toxic. Their function is to stimulate the immune system, that is, to initiate a response to a toxic agent. So, a new generation of adjuvants is being promoted as less toxic than any that have come before, while at the same time doing an even better job of priming the immune system so it will react to weak antigens. This leads to the question of how an adjuvant can be both safer than previous adjuvants and also more capable of agitating the stronger immune system response required to promote antibody creation to weaker antigens.

These new adjuvants are made from outer membrane vesicles (OMVs). A vesicle is a cavity, or sac. In a bacterium, OMVs are sacs that protrude from the exterior—membrane—of its body to protect itself in hostile environments. An OMV’s function is to be toxic.

Recombinant DNA technology is used to engineer bacteria so that they make OMVs to be used as antigens or adjuvants, which are then processed and added to vaccines. All of these products that are grown on the surfaces of microbes have one thing in common: they are proteoliposomes:

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

And that makes these new adjuvants, or antigens with adjuvants built in, particularly worrisome. Fats and oils are known to be exceptionally dangerous when injected. Their similarity to normal body tissues is the reason. Fats do not normally enter the body through injections. They are either digested or created by the body, in which case there’s no problem. However, injection is not a normal means for lipids to enter the body.

Therefore, an injected lipid can be seen by the immune system as an invader. Of course, the response to an invader is to create antibodies against it. Since lipids normally exist throughout the body, when the immune system is radicalized into seeing a lipid as the enemy, it’s attacked—wherever it’s found, even when it’s a normal part of the body.

That’s the definition of an autoimmune disorder: the body’s own immune system starts attacking itself.

It’s not a secret that injection of lipids causes autoimmune disorders. In fact, it’s so well known that lipid injection is a standard technique for creating autoimmune disorders in laboratory animals for study. In particular, the active ingredient in Freund’s adjuvant, a lipid, is used to create an analog of human rheumatoid arthritis in lab rats.

Yet, lipids, in the form of recombinantly-created OMVs, are being added to vaccines for injection into humans!

Why Move to OMV Adjuvants?

The push for OMV adjuvants is happening because vaccine antigens—the part of a vaccine that’s supposed to trigger an autoimmune response that results in antibodies—need to create a strong immune response. But that’s not an easy task unless the antigen is a live microbe, which could cause a full-fledged disease. That’s why weakened or killed microbes have traditionally been used.

However, such weakened and killed microbes are not easy to produce, nor can the process be hurried. It is, therefore, expensive and, in the case of influenza, can take too long to respond to an ongoing outbreak. So, the modern approach is to utilize bits of microbes, or better yet, to grow those bits through recombinant DNA, such as in tobacco plants. The problem with this method is that these protein bits don’t create much of an immune response. Therefore, since the old standard, aluminum, doesn’t accomplish the job well enough, stronger adjuvants are required to initiate that response.

That’s why there’s a rush to implement OMV antigens and adjuvants. Once the process for a particular antigen or adjuvant is worked out, it becomes a relatively inexpensive process to grow it on a large scale for vaccines.

At this point, there is one vaccine with an OMV adjuvant on the market, Cervarix. Its adjuvant is marketed as AS04. It contains aluminum and OMV-derived 3-O-desacyl-4’-monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL). You can see from the chemical name that MPL is a lipid.

OMV Adjuvant Safety?

Adjuvants were discovered by accident when it was noted that dirty—literally dirty, contaminated—vaccine containers produced better results in terms of a vaccine’s ability to create antibodies. It was literally the dirty secret of vaccinology, and led to the intentional contamination of vaccines. The contaminants were relabeled as adjuvants.

Of course, there are side effects to adjuvants. The one that became standard, aluminum, is a known toxin. But, as long as it made the vaccine more effective at producing antibodies, the toxic properties of aluminum were—and still are—swept under the rug.

Other adjuvants had been tried, but all were even more toxic. Among the very worst were ones based on oils, Freund’s adjuvants. These were quickly determined to be far too toxic for use in vaccines, though they did find another marketable use. Freund’s adjuvants are now routinely used in medical research because they create the equivalent of human autoimmune disorders, such as rheumatoid arthritis, in laboratory animals, which are then studied to find treatments for the human disorders.

Now they have found OMV adjuvants, which are being promoted as the safest yet. A recent report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), discusses “a less toxic mixture of monophosphorylated lipid A species (MPL)” made through the OMV methodology. Notice that the emphasis is on “less toxic”.

The fallacious claim that OMV lipids are safe is based on their being natural. It’s that very fact, that they’re natural—literally analogs of normal body chemistry—that makes them so dangerous. Their injection can cause them to be seen as toxins—which, of course, in this context they are—which can result in antibodies being developed against chemicals that are naturally found in the body. An autoimmune disease is the body’s immune system turning on itself.

There is, though, a great deal of emphasis on OMV lipids’ ability to elicit a strong immune system response to create antibodies. Just how something can be less toxic, yet cause a stronger response to toxicity is not explored.

Apparently, it’s to be taken on faith that these lipids are safe, when all other lipids are too dangerous for use in humans. But where are the trials to prove it?

Slipping Around the Approval Process

The FDA has made clear that they don’t approve adjuvants. Their logic is that adjuvants are not produced for end users. They’re produced for use in products that go to end users. The FDA doesn’t focus on individual ingredients in medical products. So they approve vaccines that include adjuvants, thus evading the issue of adjuvants’ toxicity.

Obviously, you cannot run tests of products that are intended to do harm, which is the case with all vaccine adjuvants, and hope to demonstrate safety. So, you won’t see safety trials of them. It would, of course, be considered unethical.

But apparently not so unethical that there’s any reason to stop their use in vaccines.

OMV adjuvants are now being promoted as “designer bacteria”. They’re being touted as safe, yet better able to elicit a response from weak antigens—a process that, by definition, requires more toxic adjuvants, not less toxic ones.

So, are the new generation of OMV adjuvants the worst ever? Is there any reason to assume otherwise?

Of one thing we can be certain: We’ll find out on the bodies of our children. These adjuvants are now being rolled out in a big way. They’re the basis of the enormous number of vaccines in the pipeline.

Sources:

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

Tagged adjuvant immune response, adjuvant lipid danger, adjuvant lipid risks, adjuvant lipid safety, adjuvant lipids, adjuvant toxicity, adjuvants, cervarix mpl adjuvant, designer bacteria adjuvants, fat adjuvant toxicity, fda, fda adjuvant approval, gmo, lipid adjuvant toxicity, new generation adjuvant safety, new generation adjuvants, omv adjuvant antibodies, omv adjuvant lipids, omv adjuvant production, omv adjuvant safety, omv adjuvants, omv mpl, omv recombinant dna, outer membrane vesicles, recombinant dna adjuvant, vaccine, vaccine adjuvant antibodies, vaccine antibodies, vaccines

Infanrix Kills and Maims, but GSK Hid It from Doctors & Parents

GSK wanted to keep the public from knowing about the adverse effects of their Infanrix vaccine. The secret report slipped out, and it’s revealing. It validates the recent study showing that multiple vaccine doses increase the death rate by 50%—but there’s no real change to the safety advice.

by Heidi Stevenson

Infanrix is a vaccine that was released without any serious testing for safety, in spite of the fact that it contains antigens of six diseases for injection into babies as young as two months. In a cozy relationship with government, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) was able to keep information about harm from the public. Fortunately, that secrecy was broken with the leak of a report given to the Belgian government. It delineates 1,742 adverse events associated with Infanrix^[1].

Adverse Events

These are adverse effects that were reported to GSK. The information is not pretty—especially when you realize that the vast majority of vaccine injuries are never reported and that deaths counted included only sudden death. First, though, let’s just take a quick look at what the report admitted happened over the two-year period from 23 October 2009 through 22 October 2011:

That silly ol’ document showing all that nasty stuff that could happen? Don’t fret your little head over it! After all, you really weren’t supposed to know, anyway. Don’t worry. Trust us!

825 adverse effects were identified.
36 deaths occurred.
Adverse events include autism, encephalitis, heart failure, gaze palsy (indicative of neurological damage), gastrointestinal hemorrhage, jaundice, mental retardation (classed as not serious!), removal of part of the intestine (also defined as not serious!), opisthotonos (yet again labeled as not serious!), paralysis. Guillain Barré syndrome, convulsions, and many others.

Naturally, not all the reported events were actually caused by Infanrix. GSK reported that the number of reported adverse events was only 14.6 per 100,000. However, as reported by Initiative Citoyenne, the doctors’ publication, Revue française du Practicien, reports that this figure is likely only 1-10% of the reality^[2].

Spinning and Twisting the Results

On page 11 of the report, GSK unequivocally states that they are the arbiters of what constitutes a serious event^[1]. As noted above, though, they classed mental retardation, opisthotonos, and removal of part of the intestine as not serious!

You have to wonder just how twisted other aspects of the report might be—and we don’t need to go far to see. GSK decided to add only one reference of additional risk to their Reference Safety Information. The only thing they decided to add was syncope (fainting), and even then they attempted to minimize it by stating:

Syncope (fainting) can occur following, or even before, any vaccination as a psychogenic response to the needle injection. It is important that procedures are in place to avoid injury from faints.

They deprecate the seriousness of fainting, which can be indicative of severe adverse effects, such as neurological damage, by saying that any vaccination can cause it and, worse, that it’s just an emotional reaction. There seems to be no limit to the degree that GSK will go in its effort to whitewash Infanrix.

Gaze Palsy

Gaze palsy is a condition in which the eyes cannot track together. It’s generally indicative of brain damage. The report states that the European Medicines Agency has expressed concern about reports of Infanrix in association with this disorder. Therefore, the report specifically covers the problem.

The first question that comes to mind is: Why didn’t the EMA notify the public that there is some concern about Infanrix and this disorder? Surely, if the agency exists to protect the public, then any concern it has about Infanrix would be expressed so that parents could decide how to proceed. That, though, hasn’t happened.

GSK provides a large table listing 70 reported gaze palsy cases with associated symptoms. These include loss of consciousness, convulsion, spasms, cyanosis, opisthotonos, extrapyramidal disorder, and epilepsy. Most of these symptoms showed up in many cases. 45 of the 70 cases occurred on the day of vaccination.

They indicate that most of the cases cleared up without sequelae. Of course, they don’t spend any time on follow-up. What would have shown up if they’d watched these children for 2-5 years? Would brain damage then become more obvious?

Implications

It is now clear from a recent study that more doses of vaccines at one time result in significantly greater risk to health. As reported in Gaia Health, the mortality rate in children who have 5-8 vaccine doses at one time have a death rate that’s 50% greater than those who are given 1-4 vaccine doses^[3].

That’s a highly significant risk. The study doesn’t focus on the specific causes of death, but instead clarifies that multivalent vaccines equate to seriously damaged health. The study also revealed that children with double the number of vaccine doses were twice as likely to be hospitalized.

The five antigen doses of Infanrix are in the range of the 5 to 8 doses that the study found cause 50% more child deaths and double the hospitalizations.

Your Right to Know?

Do you think there’s a right to know the risks of a vaccine before it’s administered? Do you think you should be informed that Infanrix can cause convulsions, epilepsy, autism, and a wide range of other devastating and life destroying damage?

In fact, the official document for the public goes to great lengths to indicate that there’s no excess risk with Infanrix. Aside from the standard boilerplate type of commentary, here’s what it says^[4]:

A history of febrile convulsions, a family history of convulsions or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) do not constitute a contraindication for the use of Infanrix hexa. … [Emphasis mine]

… HIV infection is not considered as a contraindication. …

… Limited data in 169 premature infants indicate that Infanrix hexa can be given to premature children …

… Infanrix hexa should be administered with caution to subjects with thrombocytopenia or a bleeding disorder since bleeding may occur following an intramuscular administration to these subjects.

Of course, they may add a little note about the possibility of fainting, but there’s no need to worry! It’s just a psychological thing, something that could happen with any vaccine.

The approach is little more than a come-one-come-all carnival-like bid to get you in the door with Jen’s or Jeff’s arm, leg, or other body part sticking out, ready for administration of yet another toxic assault on your child.

That silly ol’ document showing all that nasty stuff that could happen? Don’t fret your little head over it! After all, you really weren’t supposed to know, anyway. Don’t worry. Trust us!

You surely don’t want to wander through GSK’s Garden of Secrets, do you?

Sources:

Tagged adverse events reported to gsk, autism, autism vaccines, big pharma, glaxosmithkline infanrix, gsk infanrix secret document, infanrix adverse effects, infanrix adverse events reported, infanrix autism, infanrix dangers, infanrix epilepsy, infanrix fainting, infanrix gaze palsy, infanrix hexa, infanrix kills, infanrix multivalent, infanrix opisthotonos, infanrix secrets, infanrix spasm, infanrix syncope, vaccine, vaccines

Mercury Treaty Finalized: Mercury Stays in Vaccines

Mercury will continue to be used in vaccines. So sayeth a UN treaty. As Gaia Health has said, ‘The upcoming mercury treaty will not ban mercury in vaccines. Instead, it will most likely have the opposite effect. It will probably prevent nations from banning mercury-laden vaccines.’

by Heidi Stevenson

Some time back during a flurry of hopeful claims saying that Africa would resist mercury in vaccines, Gaia Health resisted the urge to jump on the bandwagon. Rather than tell people what they wanted to hear, the reality was explained. And now, that reality has come real. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has finalized a mercury treaty that leaves those most at risk fully exposed. Vaccinated children will receive no protections whatsoever.

Mercury in the form of thimerosal (also called thiomersal) will continue to be used in vaccines.

You can read the original article here.

This treaty, though, could spell even worse. Trade laws require so-called harmonization, which means that any country that signs this treaty must acquiesce to it. Therefore, the countries, like the US, that have largely phased mercury out of vaccines can expect to be sued by corporations insisting that it puts an unfair burden on them in producing vaccines.

Gaia Health explained that, in spite of an impassioned and informed argument put forth by CoMeD, Inc to a UNEP meeting, and despite that agency’s press releases indicating a presence at UNEP’s meetings, the reality is that a report issued shortly after their presentation effectively dismissed CoMeD’s representatives, Geier and Geier. Here’s what was stated:

GACVS [Global Advisory Committee on Vacine Safety] also reviewed a series of studies by Geier and Geier alleging reduction of neurodevelopmental disorders in the United States of America following discontinuation of thiomersal-containing vaccines in the national immunization programme. The Committee found a number of limitations, including: … The Committee therefore found the conclusions made by these authors unconvincing.^[1]

The topic of banning mercury in vaccines was effectively dead. No amount of argument about the Geiers being right mattered. The vaccine industry won. And today, that fact is clear as the mercury treaty agreement is announced.

A Weak Treaty

The truth is that the treaty is weak. Another extremely serious source of mercury is the coal industry. However, the treaty requires only that mercury emissions be reduced “where feasible”. Small gold mining operations, another highly significant source of mercury pollution, will have no limitations placed on them. The now-ubiquitous fluorescent light bulb, which contains mercury, is also given a pass.

Countries are not required to create plans to reduce mercury. With the exception of a gradual phase-out of dental amalgam that includes mercury and a ban on mercury in cosmetics, little of value will come from UNEP’s mercury treaty.

Strong Treaties for Corporate Will

There is one probable exception to the power of UNEP’s mercury treaty. Eventually, we can expect that any government that has banned mercury in vaccines will be sued for creating a barrier to free trade. It has already happened in regard to country-of-origin labeling on products. The World Trade Organization (WTO) insists that such labels interfere with trade. You can read about that here.

Treaties once functioned primarily as instruments insuring peace between nations. Now, though, they’re the primary tool of corporations to force nations to bow to their will. The people are rapidly losing their right to determine their own destiny. If what the people want conflicts with what a corporation wants, then you can be sure that a treaty will be written to enforce its will over that of the people.

Therefore, there is little good that can come of this treaty. Perhaps, one day, dental amalgams with mercury will be phased out as a result, and there are already signs that the FDA is addressing mercury in cosmetics. However, an unintended side effect could very well be the removal of restrictions against using mercury in vaccines. Don’t be too surprised if your right to even know what’s in vaccines is also eliminated, just as your right to know where your food comes from is nearly gone.

Sources:

Tagged banning mercury, big pharma, harmonization treaties, mercury ban, mercury treaty, mercury treaty thimerosal, mercury treaty thiomersal, mercury treaty vaccines, mercury vaccines treaty, politics, unep mercury treaty, vaccine, vaccines, wto harmonization

Mortality Rate 50% Higher with More Vaccine Doses

The deaths of children from multiple vaccine doses can only be called carnage. This study demonstrates that giving 5-8 doses instead of 1-4 doses at a time has resulted in an extra 51,750 to 103,500 child deaths in the last 20 years.

by Heidi Stevenson

A new study using data from the US government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) shows that the more vaccines given, the more likely children will die or be hospitalized. The increased rates are highly significant, with a 50% greater chance of death with doubling the number of vaccines and more than 100% increase in hospitalizations—that’s double the number of hospital visits!

VAERS is recognized to contain only a small percentage of all adverse vaccination events. As GS Goldman and NZ Miller point out,

[A] confidential study conducted by Connaught Laboratories, a vaccine manufacturer, indicated that ‘‘a fifty-fold under-reporting of adverse events’’ is likely. According to
David Kessler, former commissioner of the FDA, ‘‘only about one percent of serious events [adverse drug reactions] are reported.

Thus, the increased mortality and hospitalization suffered by children as a direct result of the aggressive vaccination schedule, with as many as 9 vaccines given in one day, is a huge number of children. If, according to the study’s report above, only 1 to 2 out of 100 adverse events is reported, then the numbers reported by VAERS need to be multiplied by 50 to 100!

Nonetheless, as this study has demonstrated, significant information about the hazards of vaccines can still be ascertained by running statistical analyses of the data given.

The graph on the right, produced by the study, displays the hospitalization rate charted against the number of vaccines. The solid diagonal line plots the linear regression calculated for the data. You can see that it’s a close match for the specific number of hospitalizations for each year.

The outlier references the hospitalizations for a single vaccine dose. This is likely explained by a combination of factors. One is that the earliest vaccines are generally given singly in the hospital shortly after birth. Newborns are at greater risk. Also, many parents will refuse to continue vaccinations, or will refuse multiple vaccines, after an early severe reaction.

R² refers to the likelihood that the regression line is a good fit for the data. R² of 0.91 is quite good. Perfect would be 1.00. Thus, it’s likely that the graph is showing the reality: When the number of vaccine doses increases, the number of hospitalizations increases dramatically, from 10% of VAERS reports with 2 doses to more than 20% with 8 doses.

Below is the table for the death rate by number of doses:

Interestingly, the number of child deaths due to number of vaccine doses increases dramatically with 5. The reasons for this are unknown, but it may have to do with the particular vaccines given or simply be related to additive effects of toxins in the vaccines. That wasn’t analyzed in this report.

I’ve circled the salient data in red. They show the actual numbers of reported deaths, the numbers of reports of adverse events, and the rates of mortality for 1-4 vaccines added together and all adverse event reports of 5-8 vaccines added together.

Note: In reviewing the figures, I noted a possible small error. In my calculation, the circled 3.6% mortality rate should be recorded as 3.5%. It’s probably nothing more than a difference in method of rounding. I’ve written to the authors to ask about this and will report back on their response.

Update: Dr. Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D. responded quickly and frankly within a few hours:

Dear Heidi,

Yes, your calculation looks correct. The paper went through several revisions and what I think happened is that initially we showed the percentages accurate to the nearest hundredths, so 3.546… was shown rounded to 3.55, then at some point we decided to round only to the nearest tenths. Unfortunately, we likely rounded the 3.55 to 3.6 when we should have gone back to the original data. Sorry about that! Thank you for your find!

In looking at the table, it’s quite clear that something is going on with increasing doses of vaccines given at the same time. You can see that there’s a huge jump in mortality with the fourth vaccine, jumping by a factor of 3.88, from 42 to 163 deaths. The statistical method of reporting doesn’t clarify this fact, nor does it show that the increase is almost as great with the fifth vaccine dose, from 163 to 523, 3.21 times more children dying.

The second four vaccine doses, 5-8, are resulting in 50% more deaths than the first four doses, 1-4. When we also consider the likelihood that there are 50-100 times more adverse reactions than reported, what this study reveals is frightening:

1,458 deaths at 5-8 doses – 423 deaths at 1-4 doses = 1,035 extra deaths for doubling the number of doses.

Multiply that by 50 and you have 51,750 extra deaths simply for giving 5-8 vaccine doses, instead of 1-4 doses, at one time.

If the true underreporting is double that (only 1% adverse reactions reported), then the real number of excess child deaths would be 103,500.

That’s only considering the deaths caused by the fifth through eighth doses. It eliminates the deaths caused by the first four doses. Those would add up to 21,150 if VAERS includes 2% of actual adverse effects, and 42,300 if it includes 1%. Adding those numbers together gives us a total of 145,800 children who’ve died as a direct result of vaccines from 1990 to 2010.

This is carnage that can be laid directly at the doorstep of our aggressive vaccination program.

If you do want to have your children vaccinated, at least insist on only single doses separated by enough time to assure that there’s no cumulative effect. It’s clear from the evidence here that multiple vaccine doses, which have become standard, are responsible for a huge number of deaths in children.

Source:

Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990–2010, Human and Experimental Toxicology, GS Goldman and NZ Miller, DOI: 10.1177/0960327112440111

Tagged double vaccine doses death, double vaccine doses mortality, goldman miller vaccine mortality, goldman miller vaccine study, more vaccines equals more deaths, science, vaccine, vaccine carnage, vaccine doses death, vaccine doses mortality, vaccines, vaers death rate, vaers hospitalization

Study Finds that the Average Child Is Now Chronically Sick

What hope is there for the future when the average child is sick? We’re going to find out, because that’s today’s reality—thanks to the vaccines of rapacious pharmaceutical corporations that couldn’t care less.

Sick Boy, by Justus Thane (Background touched up to remove objects)

by Heidi Stevenson

Many of us have known, simply because of observation, that children are no longer healthy. Now, a scientific study documents what we’re seeing. The average child is now sick, chronically ill. It doesn’t bode well for the future of the United States, and is almost certainly true of other developed nations.

The nature of illness now isn’t the sort of thing that once brought temporary discontinuation of play for a minor childhood disease. Now, the illnesses plaguing children are ones that will likely dog them for the rest of their lives, making their lives both poorer and shorter. This is the gift that modern medicine has brought us—and this is the issue on which it needs to be judged.

The big question is why hasn’t this been headline news? Wouldn’t people want to know? But the fact is that the study isn’t new. It was published in 2010. Everything about it is clearly intended to hide the truth.

The study’s title, “A National and State Profile of Leading Health Problems and Health Care Quality for US Children: Key Insurance Disparities and Across-State Variations” gives the impression that the issue is primarily insurance variances.

The study’s conclusion doesn’t mention this disastrous news:

Findings emphasize the importance of health care insurance duration and adequacy, health care access, chronic condition management, and other quality of care goals reflected in the 2009 CHIPRA legislation and the ACA. Despite disparities, similarities for public and privately insured children speak to the pervasive nature of availability, coverage, and access issues for mental health services in the United States, as well as the system-wide problem of care coordination and accessing specialist care for all children. Variations across states in key areas amenable to state policy and program management support cross-state learning and improvement efforts.

There isn’t a single word about the epidemic of ill health in children! Yet, that’s precisely what the study clearly documents. It most assuredly does show the disastrous state of American children’s health.

Overall, the study reported that 43% of children suffer from at least one of the 20 conditions considered—when obesity and developmental delays are not included. That is is over 32 million children whose health is damaged!

If you add in all those children they’ve classified as obese or “at risk for developmental delays”, as the study states, the number is 54.1%. The conditions they considered are shown in the graph to the right, which was produced for the study.

And notice that those figures do not include children with lupus, or gut diseases like ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s, or multiple sclerosis (not well known but noted as starting during the teens in many cases), or arthritis. And note, too, that it doesn’t include the excessive number of deaths among babies that happen in America, including sudden infant death syndrome. The reality is even worse than this study has documented.

Why?

The real question, though, is why is this happening? And why isn’t it well reported? Surely a society that hopes to have a future recognizes that the health of children is critical. Yet, this society is ignoring it—head-in-sand willfully pretending that nothing is wrong.

This won’t surprise parents of autistic children. They live with this reality every single day. They know that children are sick. So do teachers and anyone else who works with children on a regular basis. They see the carnage. They see the asthmatics whose breath has been stolen. They see the diabetics injecting themselves everyday. They see the results of allergies and neurological disorders and, most of all, they see all the children who simply cannot function in a manner that was considered normal just a couple of decades ago.

Certainly, there are issues of pollution and toxin exposures. But the fact is, as most parents of autistic kids fully understand, there’s an elephant in the room that isn’t being considered: vaccinations.

The fact that vaccinations have been clearly tied to diabetes is deniable only to those whose incomes depend on Big Pharma and their lackeys.

The fact that vaccinations cause autoimmune disorders is now documented, along with the mechanism of how they do it.

The fact that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines trigger autism is now well studied.

The fact that countries that vaccinate more have higher rates of infant mortality is well documented.

There is no credible explanation for sudden infant death syndrome other than vaccinations.

In the face of all that evidence, there can be little doubt that the primary cause of our children’s chronic ill health is vaccines. Yet, our so-called health agencies—that alphabet soup of FDA, CDC, NIH, and so forth—completely deny any possible connection. They blame anything and everything else, from the age of parents to genetics to the environment, about which they do nothing, anyway. They refuse to do the studies that would document, once and for all, whether vaccines are at the root of this epidemic of chronic disease.

There can be no reason other than not wanting to find out. They’re comfortable in their cozy offices and fine homes, all gained off the backs of our children:

The scientists who happily accept grants for useless genetic studies, providing exactly what they know they must to keep the gravy train rolling in.
The medical journals that publish the pseudo science of Big Pharma’s bought-and-paid-for scientists just so they can keep the Big Pharma income coming in.
The Big Pharma executives whose wealth stands in horrific contrast against the destruction of ordinary people’s lives by their toxic vaccines.
The elected officials who act as front men for Big Pharma.
The agencies that take money from Big Pharma and their employees who focus on gaining higher-paying jobs with Big Pharma after doing their tour with the agencies.
The doctors who keep injecting our children with these poisons and coerce parents into doing it.

All these and more are involved in the coverup and promotion of vaccines and, therefore, the destruction of the health of our children and, thereby, the future of us all.

Source:

A National and State Profile of Leading Health Problems and Health Care Quality for US Children: Key Insurance Disparities and Across-State Variations, Academic Pediatrics; Christina D. Bethell, PhD, MBA, MPH; Michael D. Kogan, PhD; Bonnie B. Strickland, PhD; Edward L. Schor, MD; Julie Robertson; Paul W. Newacheck, DrPH; doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2010.08.011

Tagged autism vaccines, average child is sick, big pharma, children chronic illness, children chronically ill, children illness, chronic illness vaccines, chronically sick vaccines, conventional medicine, modern medicine, parents of autistic children, vaccine, vaccines

Pakistani Children Die of Malnutrition: Measles Blamed

Even the WHO admits that it was malnutrition from the ravages of floods that killed Pakistani children who’d contracted measles. But it’s a great excuse for a vaccination campaign.

by Heidi Stevenson

It’s now being reported that 306 Pakistani children died of measles last year, a record number. The truth, though, is that these children died of malnutrition following three years of record flooding.

If your child is hungry, are you more interested in food or vaccines?

Most, if not all, of the deaths happened in the flood-ravaged areas. Even the World Health Organization (WHO), a major vaccination promoter, acknowledged that the deaths happened in children suffering from malnutrition. That is, if these children had not been suffering from a lack of food, they wouldn’t have died. So how can the disease be blamed? To blame a disease that leaves healthy people unscathed for these deaths, other than permanent immunity from measles, is either an enormous misunderstanding or intentionally misleading.

It should also be noted that WHO spokesperson Maryam Yunus refers to the cause of death as “suspected measles”. In truth, they aren’t even sure that the children who died suffered from measles—but it certainly sounds good if you’re pushing vaccinations.

Another interesting point is that the reference to this being a record number of deaths is based on absolutely nothing. The previous year, 2011, the reported number of measles deaths in Pakistan was 64. However, the WHO was unable to provide records for measles deaths for any years before then. So how could they possibly know that the 2012 measles deaths were a record? Then again, perhaps it’s not such a record, since other sources state that the annual number of deaths was around 20,000 per year prior to a vaunted vaccination campaign completed in 2008.

That measles vaccination campaign bears a more careful look. Let’s ask a simple question: What is the point of a massive one-time-only vaccination campaign for a single disease? Does a nation as a whole truly benefit from a single campaign like that? Such vaccination campaigns must be ongoing if they’re to work. Otherwise, why do the industrialized nations keep their vaccination campaigns going year after year?

Who benefits from a one-time vaccination campaign? We know that no vaccine provides lifetime protection, so you’d think there’d have been a plan in place to provide ongoing vaccines. Apparently, though, there wasn’t. This was quite literally a one-shot deal. So what was the point?

Could it possibly be that the purpose was as a boon for Big Pharma? The vaccine doses were not donated—and the usual suspects were behind the campaign: GAVI, the Gates Foundation, the WHO, the CDC, and the Red Cross, which is deeply tied to GAVI. GAVI is an organization dedicated to one thing: vaccinations for everyone everywhere. Board members include current and former representatives from the Gates Foundation, Goldman Sachs (responsible for the current disaster in Greece), Chase Manhattan Bank, the US’s NIH, Man Group (one of the biggest hedge funds), the World Bank, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals. Finance-related corporations are interested in one thing only: increasing their income.The other organizations are neck-deep in Big Pharma money. The Gates Foundation is invested in the same corporations that it promotes.

It certainly looks like the one-shot Pakistan measles vaccination campaign existed primarily to funnel money to Big Pharma. What other reason could exist for a one-shot measles vaccination campaign? The stated goal of measles eradication cannot possibly be reached that way, so it doesn’t even fit within the stated goal of the Measles Initiative campaign.

The response to the measles-blamed deaths is, as always unassociated with the true problem: malnutrition or other causes of poor health. Instead, the intent is to force measles vaccinations on everyone in the hardest-hit areas. Rather than putting extra effort and resources into feeding starving children, they plan to jab them with vaccinations, to create excessive immune system responses—the goal of every vaccine—in children with malnutrition-weakened immune systems.

If your child is hungry, are you more interested in food or vaccines? Answer that question and you’ll know the truth. The vaccine profiteers are moving in on the flood-devastated people of Pakistan and presenting it to the world as charity.

Sources:

Tagged children die of measles in pakistan, food or vaccines, gates foundation measles vaccination, gavi measles vaccination, malnutrition vaccines, pakistan flood malnutrition measles, pakistan malnutrition, pakistan measles campaign, pakistan measles death, pakistan vaccines, vaccine, vaccines, who measles vaccination

The Autism Epidemic and The Broken Window Fallacy

The lives of autistic children are treated as nothing more than an economic stimulus, like a hooligan-broken window providing more business for business. Destroyed human lives become profit centers.

by Ginger Taylor

At the behest of a good friend, I am currently reading “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt (because who wants to spend that much time in lessons in economics) and I am struck by the parallels between bad economic policy and bad medical policy. I firmly believe that once you see corruption in a system that is close to you, that you are a part of, then it becomes difficult not to see it in all the systems you come in contact with, if, of course, you are willing to deal with so much harsh reality all at once. Such has been my experience in … well every system I see since having my rose colored glasses ripped off after Chandler regressed.

I am also struck at how parsimonious and cogent Hazlitt is in his lesson in economics. Only made more impressive as he wrote the lesson in 1946, yet so applicable is it that, but for the lofty language, one would think it was written yesterday.

Hazlitt’s basic lesson in economics has merely two points:

That bad economic policy stems from pressing agendas that benefit one group, but do not consider the outcomes for other groups (usually pushed through by moneyed/powerful interests that “will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time presenting its case.”)
That bad economic policy stems from short term thinking and ignores the long term consequences of such policies.

At this point you can see where I am going with this, so I won’t insult you by a lengthy explanation, but merely say:

PHARMA
“Good news, Dr. Gerberding … measles cases are down. Sure 18% of children are permanently disabled or delayed, half of children are suffering from autoimmune/chronic illness and more than 1% have this neurological condition called “Autism” that didn’t exist 70 years ago and that we know is caused by vaccines, but hey … less of easily treatable measles!!

The point comes shining through. Both the economy and the human body are complex systems with mega trillions of working parts, and when we become so arrogant to believe we can understand, control and conquer them without consequence … well there are serious consequences to that serious lack of humility and wisdom.

He writes that:

[T]herefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

I have never had an economist reduce me to tears before.

But it is when we get to Hazlitt’s application of that lesson that it becomes truly difficult for me. He
shares Frédéric Bastiat’s broken window illustration to point out how short sighted economists can be.

A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $50 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $50 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.

Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $50 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $50 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.

The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the ransaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.

The “broken window theory” will be immediately recognizable to any Fifth Element fans, as it is used by Gary Oldman’s villain character, “Zorg,” to justify being in league with an entity that wants to destroy the planet, to Sir Ian Holm’s priestly character, Father Vito Cornelius. This scene contrasts the character and motivations of the two men, showing one to be a heartless (and sociopathic) pragmatist out for his own gain, and the other to be one who cares about the lives of people, even “Loving his enemy,” when the evil man’s life momentarily falls into his hands.

For subscribers to the broken window theory, war is good, natural disasters are “stimulus”, disease is profit, and shattered lives are economic opportunities.

The broken window story is hard for me, first, because my son is the young hoodlum who has broken the window. Several windows in fact. If you drive by our house, you will note that the windows on either side of our door are broken. One side is held together with duct tape, and the other is boarded up on the bottom. If you stand in our back yard, you will note that the garage windows are boarded up. They were casualties of Chandler’s 2008/2009 “I apparently love the cool sound of breaking glass” phase. We fixed the window panes in the basement, my bedroom and our office, because … well … don’t wanna look completely white trash and all, but left the ones that were most vulnerable to re-assault as they were, vowing to fix them once he got past the fixation. I suppose now it would be safe to fix them this summer. But then again what autism family has extra money to fix broken windows?

But I will never forget the panic of chasing him from room to room as he held a large glass juice bottle and tried to throw it at any window he could get close to. Or the anger at those who did this to him, when I heard a crash and ran into the entry way to see him reach out to grab the large shards left in the window frame and slice his fingers open before I could grab him. Or the heart failure I experienced the following morning when I was scared shitless awake by the sound of Chandler throwing a chunk of metal at a different pane in the same window in the entry, and begging God to let me fly down the stairs to stop him before he opened up an artery.

But the hardest thing about reading the broken window theory is knowing that to many out there, Chandler is the broken window and Dr. Julie Gerberding is the hoodlum turned “public benefactor.” That our children are an economic opportunity that has opened up a 137 billion dollar per year industry (that Pharma is rushing to make bank off of with more psych meds). That Autism Speaks represents that they serve our families, when in truth Bernie Marcus set it up to funnel private and corporate donations back to the CDC and the CDC Foundation to fund CDC research for a condition unrepentantly caused by the CDC.

Need your work on robots financed? Put the word “autism” in your research grant and your department can be funded for another year. Don’t worry if it’s silly, or ineffective, or doesn’t improve the lives of people whose central nervous system is on fire. All you have to do is, “Think it’s a good area to explore.” Hell! Make your DNA research about autism, and you can get funded for decades without ever coming up with a treatment or even reproducible results!

This year I talked to a Mother Warrior/Medical Professional who attended a hospital board meeting where the CEO, not considering that it was an open meeting, lamented their low profits to the audience, and opined that what they really needed was a good epidemic.

And of course, the master of doing nothing about autism, the man who has managed to look busy for six years while getting paid to allow the autism rate to double, is Thomas Insel.

Insel heads the Federal Government’s Autism efforts, fully admits that greater than 80% of autism cases are environmental, and yet wasted more than seven hundred million dollars on genetic and non-environmental research. Can we come to any other conclusion than Insel and Zorg hold the same economic theory and contempt for humanity?

Boy … that $700 million+ sure has funded a lot of busy work in the name of servicing those broken windows. No autism preventions of course. And no treatments. We need those windows to keep breaking and stay broken. Industry and the economy depend on it, right?

But the Grand Prize has to go to the APA, for DSM 5, which will make every person in this country diagnoseable with a mental illness and “treatable” via psych meds with horrible and sometimes deadly “side effects.” What could possibly go wrong there?

Read the original here.

Ginger Taylor is an author, speaker, new media writer and activist; and is the Vice President of The Canary Party. She blogs on the politics of autism, health, vaccination, informed consent and both corporate and government corruption. Ginger is a former Marriage and Family Therapist specializing in adolescent and family therapy and holds a Masters degree in Clinical Counseling from Johns Hopkins University. She currently carries a caseload of one—her son Chandler who regressed into autism following his 18 month vaccinations.

In 2009 she served on the steering committee of the first Maine CDC Autism Conference to educate medical professionals on the current state of research and treatment of autism. Ginger is the founder of Greater Brunswick Special Families, a support organization for families supporting loved ones with developmental disabilities in Mid-Coast Maine. She is a co-author and contributing editor of the recently published book Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed Biased Science and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human Rights Our Health and Our Children.

Tagged autism, autism broken windows, autism cdc, autism economic policy, autism genetics, autism gerberding, autism ginger taylor, autism insel, autism nimh, autism profits, autism research, autism science, autism speaks, autism vaccination, autism vaccines, big pharma, broken window fallacy, cdc, economics in one lesson, nimh, science, vaccines

Vaccines Make Malaria More Virulent: PLoS Study

As we’ve seen in so many other areas of modern medicine, the standard treatments are playing with fire, resulting in more virulent diseases and loss of ability to treat them. Malaria vaccines make the disease more virulent.

by Heidi Stevenson

Is there any sense in vaccinating people against a disease if the vaccines will result in a more virulent form of the disease? That’s exactly the case with malaria vaccines, as demonstrated in a PLoS study.

It should come as no surprise that the malaria parasite, Plasmodium chabaudi, becomes more virulent as a result of vaccination. The bane of eradication and treatment attempts has proven to be its ability to rapidly evolve in response to such pressures. Now, a study on malaria vaccines in mice has documented the likelihood of both more virulent and infectious malarial infections as a result of attempts to immunize against it.

The study summarized^[1]:

We found that a more virulent parasite clone was less well controlled by vaccine-induced immunity than was its less virulent ancestor. We then passaged parasites through sham- or vaccinated mice to study how the parasites might evolve after multiple rounds of infection of mouse hosts. The parasite molecule targeted by the vaccine did not change during this process. Instead, the parasites became more virulent if they evolved in vaccinated hosts. Our data suggest that some vaccines can drive the evolution of more virulent parasites.

Therefore, though it’s possible that malaria might temporarily be improved by vaccination, ultimately the situation would be made worse. The only questions are how much worse and how long.

The good news is that no malaria vaccine has yet been licensed. The bad news is that Bill Gates of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation apparently is bound and determined to get one developed. Considering how little efficacy he seems to require of the cholera vaccine, which he promotes—only 65% in studies performed by employees of the manufacturer & financed by the Gates Foundation, which is invested in the manufacturer’s parent corporation—it shouldn’t be too long before at least one is marketed.

Prior to the study titled “The Evolutionary Consequences of Blood-Stage Vaccination on the Rodent Malaria Plasmodium chabaudi“, it was known that worsening of virulence could occur from a vaccine that uses the whole parasite. However, this study demonstrated that the same thing is true when only a single protein from the parasite is used.

By the time the plasmodium parasites had cycled through 20 vaccinated mice, they had grown far more virulent, resulting in much faster growth of the pathogen and destruction of 20% more red blood cells. Control mice did not develop the more virulent malaria.

As pointed out by researcher Andrew F. Read, the concept has not been documented in human malaria hosts. However, to base any vaccine program on an assumption that it won’t happen would be foolish in the extreme. The fact is that we do know that pertussis (whooping cough) has become more virulent as a direct result of the vaccine, and has been infecting primarily vaccinated people. With the information we now have, surely the cautionary principle should be used—though there’s no indication that’s likely to happen.

Leaky Vaccines

A leaky vaccine is one that does not kill all of the pathogens. Malaria vaccines are definitely leaky. These leaky vaccines let some of the pathogens survive. The pathogens that survive are, by definition, stronger. Thus, malaria vaccines can be expected to directly and quickly produce worse disease.

Historically, it’s been well known that vaccines can result in pathogens that are resistant to the antigen used in a vaccine. Therefore, different antigens must be developed and used in vaccines to be able to continue the vaccination program. However, this study has shown that the situation is worse with malaria. No antigen resistance develops. However, because malaria vaccines are leaky, there will always be some pathogen survival.

The surviving pathogens are apparently selecting for more rapid reproduction and growth, resulting in overwhelming the host more readily. Researcher Read has stated that a change in the plasmodium genome must be occurring.

Playing with Fire

There is no question that malaria is a serious disease. That, though, does not mean it’s rational to opt for vaccines as the best method to deal with it. There are other approaches that help tremendously. Mosquito nets help keep infected mosquitoes from getting to sleeping people, which is when most mosquito bites happen. There are mosquito abatement programs that can help. There are treatments for it, and alternative medicines have had significant success in malaria treatment.

However, as Sayer Ji recently pointed out in “8 Ways Microbes Can Save Us From Ourselves“:

Thankfully, we are not alone. We have helpers all around and within us. Friendly bacteria (and beneficial yeast), with which we co-evolved, and have formed symbiotic alliances with, outnumber our own cells 10 to 1, numbering in the trillions. It has been proposed that our very definition of self should be updated to include these “others,” and that humans are truly a “meta-organism.”

Microorganisms are not necessarily our enemy. We can even coexist with those that we consider to be particularly harmful if we keep ourselves genuinely healthy. That, of course, doesn’t mean trying to keep sickness at bay with drugs. It means encouraging a healthy internal and external biota, which are the focus of our immune system and even necessary for assimilation of food.

Playing with fire—attempting to burn out anything that we consider to be disease-inducing—is a dangerous game. We’re seeing the results in drug-resistant diseases like MRSA and C. difficile. We’re seeing the whooping cough vaccine lose effectiveness as a more virulent form of the disease is now being passed around. The dreaded E. coli exists as a pathogen only because of modern medicine’s drugs. Through vaccinations, we’ve induced unbalanced gut biota in nearly every person alive today, and we’re seeing chronic disease epidemics the likes of which have never before been seen.

No, malaria is no walk in the park, but before we continue on this mad vaccine venture in a vain attempt to wipe it from the face of the earth, perhaps it’s time to take a step back, take a deep breath, and think about this insane modern medical paradigm. We haven’t become healthier. We’ve grown sicker and sicker, spending our lives in states of debility and misery. It’s time to step back from the brink.

Sources:

The Evolutionary Consequences of Blood-Stage Vaccination on the Rodent Malaria Plasmodium chabaudi, PLoS Biology, Victoria C. Barclay, Derek Sim, Brian H. K. Chan, Lucas A. Nell, Maia A. Rabaa, Andrew S. Bell, Robin F. Anders, Andrew F. Read. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001368
Malaria parasites evolve in vaccinated mice to cause more severe disease
Dangerous Malaria Gives Researchers Concern
Vaccine Research Shows Vigilance Needed Against Evolution of More-Virulent Malaria

Tagged leaky vaccine malaria, leaky vaccines, malaria antigen resistance, malaria evolution, malaria immunization, malaria vaccine, malaria vaccine evolution, malaria virulence, malaria virulence vaccination, plasmodium virulence, plos malaria immunization, plos malaria vaccine, plos virulent malaria, pseudo-science, vaccine, vaccines, virulent malaria vaccination, virulent malaria vaccine

Autoimmune Disorders Caused by Vaccines: A Smoking Gun

Autoimmune disorders—chronic diseases—have become a way of life for children and young adults, yet the cause is not being addressed. Here is clear and strong evidence that the cause is the massive number of vaccinations.

Photo by Phil Dragash

by Heidi Stevenson

A PLoS study has documented that, given enough vaccine injections, everyone will develop an autoimmune disorder. The study was performed on mice developed for their ability to withstand such chronic disease. It found that the immune systems of all these autoimmune disease-resistant mice become deranged by the time they’re given an eighth injection of antigens alone. That is, injection of adjuvants was not required to cause autoimmunity. Antigen injection alone was enough to cause autoimmune diseases.

Smoking Gun, by The Knowles Gallery

Combine that information with the massive increase in autoimmune disorders in humans over the last couple of decades and we have a smoking gun pointing directly at the massive number of vaccinations routinely given to children.

What more is needed to demonstrate that routinely injecting people is not an acceptable way to engender disease immunity? Such immunity has long been known to be far from the same quality as naturally-obtained protection. Unlike natural immunity, it’s far less effective, resulting in many who have been vaccinated to succumb to chronic disease. What immunity that is provided doesn’t last a lifetime, as does occur with most childhood diseases.

For this limited protection, we can now see that there’s a virtually 100% surety that nearly everyone will suffer from chronic diseases, such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis, lupus, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), allergies, autism, and now even new diseases, such as macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF).

Where’s the sense in that? Even if vaccines were completely effective, how can inducing autoimmune disease in most people be justified?

The Science

The study in question, called “Self-Organized Criticality Theory of Autoimmunity”, found that overstimulationof a particular type of T-cell results in the development of autoantibodies. These are antibodies that attack the self, not invaders. The immune system is turned inward.

The authors concluded:

Systemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host’s immune ‘system’ by repeated immunization with antigen, to the levels that surpass system’s self-organized criticality.

The authors set out to determine whether the integrity of the immune system is compromised by repeated injections of antigens, foreign substances that induce an immune response—in particular, the development of antibodies.

Strong stimulation by an antigen, which is the goal of every vaccination, initially results in the incapacitation of T-cells. However, the T-cells recover, divide (reproduce themselves), and create antibodies. But they also start creating interleukin-2 (IL-2), which are associated with autoimmune disorders.

By the eighth injection of antigens, every autoimmune disease-resistant mouse developed:

Autoantibodies
Immunoglobulin G and Immunoglobulin M (IgG and IgM) rheumatoid factor (RF)
Anti-smooth muscle (Sm) antibodies
RF reactive against galactose-deficient IgG

The last item, RF reactive against galactose-deficient IgG, is typically found in human autoimmunity, and all are associated with autoimmune disorders.

One point to be noted is that the research utilized the same antigen over and over. That could very well be related to the current proclivity to give the same vaccines over and over because of their inadequacy in producing adequate antibodies to prevent disease transmission. The DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) vaccine is scheduled to be given five times by age six! That’s three different antigens given 5 times over. That alone could easily explain the massive increase in autoimmune diseases.

But then you must add in the Haemophilus influenza, pneumococcal, and poliovirus vaccines, each given 4 times; rotavirus and hepatitis B given 3 times; and meningococcal, MMR (measles, mumps, rubella), varicella, and hepatitis A given twice, and all of these given by age 6! That’s a tremendous burden on a developing immune system.

And all that doesn’t even take into account the harm done by adjuvants or the annual flu vaccines! Just imagine, if parents go along with the CDC’s recommendation, their child will receive 6 flu vaccines—each with at least three different antigens—before their seventh birthday!

The Question

This study is a smoking gun tying vaccines to the massive upsurge in life-destroying chronic autoimmune diseases. That leaves only one question, with some corollaries:

Why do our public health agencies insist on pressing all these vaccinations?

Why are there no studies to determine the effects of the full schedule of vaccinations?
Why are there no studies to determine the effects of multiple antigens in single vaccines?
Why are we even losing our right to refuse?

It’s obvious that public health agencies have something other than our health at the forefront of their deliberations. It’s equally obvious, with the revolving door between agency employees and Big Pharma/Agribusiness, that far too many employees in the most responsible positions are beholden to the companies they’re supposed to regulate. Agencies like the FDA, CDC, NIH, EPA, and USDA do not exist to protect the public. They exist as little more than marketing fronts for Big Pharma and Agribusiness.

A more in-depth examination of this study can be found in Vaccinations Inevitably Cause Autoimmune Diseases: PLoS Study

Sources:

Self-Organized Criticality Theory of Autoimmunity, by Ken Tsumiyama, Yumi Miyazaki, Shunichi Shiozawa
The role of interleukin 2 in autoimmunity.
Recommended Immunization Schedules for Persons Aged 0 Through 18 Years UNITED STATES, 2012

Tagged autoantibodies autoimmune disorders, autoantibodies vaccines, autoimmune disorders antigens, autoimmune disorders number vaccines, big pharma, cdc vaccination schedule, cdc vaccines, chronic autoimmune disease, chronic disease, fda vaccines, increase in autoimmune disease, nih vaccines, overstimulating immune system, science, vaccination schedule, vaccine, vaccines, vaccines autoimmune disorders, vaccines cause autoimmune disease