Shots for other viruses offer clues in race for Zika vaccine


A DNA vaccine could be the fastest to be developed, says Dr Barney Graham, of the Vaccine Research Center.

Scientists are racing to create a Zika vaccine, and while they’re starting from scratch against a poorly understood disease, copying shots for similar viruses offers a head start. A variety of potential candidates are being pursued: Simple DNA vaccines, made with only a few genes from the virus; some made from killed or inactivated virus, much like a standard flu shot; others made with live but weakened virus.

Zika vaccine, Vaccine Research Center

“We believe we can get a vaccine,” Dr Anthony Fauci, of the National Institutes of Health, said. He’s optimistic that the first small safety tests of at least one kind could begin by early fall. But that doesn’t mean a vaccine could come in time to help with the outbreak now rapidly spreading through Latin America. Here are some questions and answers about Zika vaccine research

Here’s What You Need To Know About ‘GMO Mosquitos’ And Zika Virus


Aedes aegypti mosquito, the species which transmits the dengue virus, chikungunya fever and zika is photographed on March 04, 2016 in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Scientists think a type of genetically modified mosquito could help stop the march of Zika virus, a disease that’s spreading in 37 countries and territories around the world.

The Aedes aegypti mosquito is the primary vector for Zika virus, and making genetic tweaks to the population could one day either stop the mosquitoes from reproducing or prevent them from carrying diseases that threaten human beings. 

Preliminary findings from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration indicate that using genetically modified mosquitos to fight Zika virus shouldn’t have a significant impact on the environment, Reuters reports. Those findings are in line with the environmental assessment submitted by Oxitec, the British biotechnology company that developed the modified mosquito.

Before the threat of Zika, Oxitec was having trouble getting FDA approval to test its GMO mosquitos in the Florida Keys, the Associated Press reports. Zika virus could change that.

The data seems to be promising in terms of reducing the mosquito populations in those small field trials, but we need to go through our process, and we are greatly expediting the process,” said FDA assistant commissioner Dr. Luciana Borio at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on Zika preparedness earlier this month.

1. How do GMO mosquitos work?

So far, genetically modified mosquitos have been tested in several forms. Oxitec reported exciting success in the field with its “self-limiting strain” — a male mosquito that reproduces baby mosquitoes that never make it past the pupae stage. Releasing this male, non-biting mosquito in the Cayman Islands in 2010 led to an 80 percent suppression of the Aedes aegypti in the test region, and releasing it again in the suburb of Juazeiro, Bahia, Brazil in 2011 resulted in an 81 to 95 percent suppression.

Scientists are also working on breeding mosquitos that are genetically resistant to diseases like dengue, malaria and — in the future — Zika virus.

2. Would eliminating an entire species of mosquito upset the environment’s delicate balance?

Aedes is generally an invasive species, so removing an invasive species shouldn’t have any negative ecological implications in terms of the environment,” Omar Akbari, an assistant professor at the University of California’s Center for Disease Vector Research, told The Huffington Post.

The Aedes aegypti most likely originated in Africa and spread throughout the world via trade and shipping activities, according to the CDC.

“I don’t think removing the species would be harmful in any way, and [the species] doesn’t serve any positive benefit in these areas where it’s invasive to,” Akbari said, noting that climate change has increased the Aedes’ habitable territory.

“This places many more countries now at risk of diseases transmitted by this vector, including Zika and dengue fever, than ever before,” he said.

3. Why don’t we use natural methods or insecticides to stop Zika-carrying mosquitos?

Many such methods are in use already. To combat its ongoing Zika outbreak, Brazildeployed national army troops to go door-to-door to hunt down mosquito breeding sites and raise awareness about mosquito bite prevention. Public health experts are advising Brazilians to make sure they’re dumping excess water from their flower pots. Other traditional mosquito control measures include repellant fogging, breeding mosquito-eating fish in stagnant water, and many kinds of poisons that address every stage of the insect’s life cycle.

Unfortunately, that’s not enough. In order to stop the spread of Zika virus, as well as make sure a widespread outbreak like it never happens again, Brazil is going to have to think bigger: total mosquito eradication. 

The South American country achieved mosquito eradication once before. In the 1950s, malaria and yellow fever prompted Brazil and several other nations to launch a campaign to kill mosquitoes with DDT, a toxic chemical that’s really good at killing insects, but, unfortunately, also good at killing birds and fish. The eradication campaign became less urgent with its apparent success, coupled with increasing concern over the environmental effects of DDT and the advent of the yellow fever vaccine. Pockets of the mosquitos became resistant to DDT, and the population roared back in the absence of this scorched earth approach, explained Akbari.

Because of DDT’s affect on the environment, as well as emerging evidence that the chemical and its byproducts are linked to cancer, decreased fertility,miscarriage and other health complications, DDT is no longer a realistic option for Brazil’s new war against mosquitos and Zika virus, Akbari said. Instead, the future of mosquito eradication means pitting mosquitoes against themselves.

4. Have insects ever been genetically modified in the past?

Yes. Oxitec has previously tested genetically modified pink bollworms, designed to reduce cotton pests in Arizona, the Associated Press reports. The company also has plans in the works for field trials of diamondback moths in upstate New York.

Despite the fact that genetically modified insects haven’t been proven safe, Akbari is on board with experimentation in the field.

“I think the future is leaning toward genetic control,” he said.

Astronaut Scott Kelly’s 12 Best Photos from His Year in Space


http://www.space.com/32189-astronaut-scott-kelly-best-space-year-photos.html?cmpid=514630_20160314_59324306&adbid=10153370829491466&adbpl=fb&adbpr=17610706465

Chocolate is actually GOOD for pregnant women (just make sure you find some that’s low in cadmium


Could that enticing chocolate bar be the key to a healthy pregnancy? A new study out of Canada suggests so, revealing that regular intake of both low- and high-flavonol chocolate may help reduce a woman’s risk of preeclampsia, a condition marked by an unusual jump in blood pressure that puts her and her unborn baby’s life at risk.

Chocolate bars

The study, which was presented at the recent 2016 Pregnancy Meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine in Atlanta, further found that chocolate may also help improve fetal growth and development, for reasons that aren’t yet fully understood. But one thing is clear: there are definite health benefits to be had from this sweet treat!

The randomized, controlled trial looked at 129 women who were between 11 and 14 weeks of gestation. All the women had double notching on their uterine artery Doppler pulsatility index at baseline – this just means that the women all had heavy resistance to blood flowing into their placenta, suggesting a high-risk fetal outcome such as hypertension of preeclampsia.

All the women were assigned to one of two groups given 30 grams per day of either low-flavanol or high-flavanol chocolate. At the end of 12 weeks, each woman’s uterine artery Doppler pulsatility was measured a second time, and follow-up evaluations were given to all the women until the time they gave birth.

Variances in rates of preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, placental weight and birthweight were virtually nonexistent between the two groups, however researchers noted significant improvements in the uterine artery Doppler pulsatility rates of women in both groups. This led them to speculate that an expectant mother who regularly eats either low- or high-flavanol chocolate could be helping to improve the growth and development of her unborn child.

“This study indicates that chocolate could have a positive impact on placenta and fetal growth and development and that chocolate’s effects are not solely and directly due to flavanol content,” stated study co-author Dr. Emmanuel Bujold from the Universite Laval in Quebec City.

Love chocolate? Just make sure your favorite brand is free of lead and cadmium

While this is good news for all the chocolate-loving, sweet-toothed women out there, it’s important to remember that not all chocolate is the same in terms of quality and purity. Some varieties of chocolate, as revealed by the Oakland, California-based non-profit group “As You Sow,” contain potentially dangerous levels of lead, cadmium and other toxic heavy metals.

As The Washington Post reported last February, some 26 different varieties of chocolate tested by As You Sow were found to contain levels of lead and cadmium exceeding the amounts currently allowed under California’s Proposition 65 toxic chemical law. The As You Sow testing sweep indicts major brands like Ghiradelli, Godiva, The Hershey Company, Mars, See’s Candies, Theo, Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods Market and more.

A complete listing of contaminated brands, as tested by As You Sow, is available here.

“We are getting [lead and cadmium] from multiple sources,” explained Eleanne Van Vliet, director of toxic chemicals research at As You Sow, during an interview following her group’s release of the findings. “The problem with those toxic heavy metals is they accumulate in the body. It’s terrible for adults, but especially for children.”

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/053297_chocolate_bars_cadmium_lead.html#ixzz42zkYXivX

Here’s Why You Should Add More Veggies to Your Diet ASAP


Vegetables can make your skin glow and help you shed pounds without dieting
I honestly can’t remember the last time I ate a meal that didn’t include vegetables. For me, they’re the main attraction at breakfast, lunch, and dinner. But I’ve worked with plenty of clients who can go days without eating an adequate amount of veggies. They might opt for a little lettuce on a sandwich, or a side of starchy potatoes, but too often vegetables tend to be an afterthought.

It isn’t that surprising considering the latest data shows vegetable consumption has dropped over the past five years, despite all the positive buzz about this food group. About half of the total U.S. population eats less than 1.5 cups of vegetables a day. And a whopping 87% don’t reach the recommended minimum goal of 2 to 3 cups a day.

As a Health reader, you may be hitting the daily mark. But if you are falling short—or you have a friend or family member who still doesn’t get why veggies are so important, check out the seven points below.

Health.com: 13 Veggies You Only Think You Don’t Like

Veggies make you more attractive

You may have heard that eating healthy foods gives skin a “natural glow,” and it’s very true. One University of Nottingham study found when strangers viewed photographs of people’s faces, they rated the people who ate more produce as more attractive than the people who had suntans. Another study from St. Andrews University concluded that people who ate three additional daily portions of produce for six weeks were ranked as better looking than those with lower intakes. Why the beauty benefit? Veggies have been shown to change skin pigment and improve circulation, which means more blood flow to the skin’s surface, giving you a glowing appearance. Plus they could ward off signs of aging: research shows certain veggies help keep skin firm and wrinkle-free.
Veggies can help you lose pounds without “dieting”

Research has shown that people who eat primarily plant-based diets tend to weigh less. One study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that over a five-year period, both men and women who ate more plant foods and fewer animal foods gained the least weight. Researchers have attributed this result, in part, to the antioxidants and fiber in veggies, which have been tied to weight loss. In fact, some studies have observed that the body boosts calorie burn after eating plant-based meals.

Another reason is veggies are both filling and low in calories. For example, two cups of spinach contain less than 15 calories. That’s almost 200 fewer calories than a cup of rice. So rather than filling your plate with go-to staples like pasta and rice, swap in veggies and stick to smaller portions of starches. Cup for cup you’ll shave about 200 calories, without having to eat tiny meals.

Let’s face it: If your gut doesn’t feel good, you don’t feel good. People have told me that they’ve cancelled fun plans, lost their sex drive and called in sick due to the discomfort of being “backed up.” Luckily, veggies can remedy digestive problems. The natural fiber in veggies helps strengthen gastrointestinal muscle (kind of like a workout for your digestive system), and push waste through the body faster. One client, who regulated her digestion by eating more veggies, said the dietary change improved everything from her mood to how her clothes fit, because she was no longer sporting a constipation belly bump.

Veggies help support workouts

For all of the reasons already mentioned, veggies help athletes perform at their best. And some specific veggies have been shown to help boost endurance and support recovery. For example, a study published in the Journal of Applied Physiology found that drinking 16 ounces of organic beetroot juice daily for six days helped men cycle up to 16% longer than they did with a placebo beverage. Meanwhile 100% tomato juice has been found to reduce exercise-induced stress on the body by as much as 84%. And watercress, a peppery green from the mustard family, could effectively counter the wear and tear of exercise, even after one serving. Veggie-loading, anyone?

Veggies boost happiness

One recent New Zealand study found that a higher produce intake helped people feel more energized, calmer, and happier—and the effects lasted through the following day. Another study, published in the journal Social Indicators Research, concluded that more produce boosted mental well being. So the next time you’re feeling down, skip the cookies and reach for some veggies and hummus instead.
Veggies lower the risk of chronic diseases

It may seem obvious that eating more veggies lowers the risk of heart disease, stroke and certain cancers, but you may not realize how much of an impact small changes can make. One recent study found that eating just over one extra serving of leafy greens a day reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes by 14%. A higher intake of plant-based foods also means a more alkaline diet, which has been tied to lower risk of diabetes.

Veggies boost everyday energy

Most of my clients say the main thing they hope to improve by changing their diet is their energy level. And guess what? Veggies can help meet this goal too, especially when they replace refined carbs and processed foods. The fiber, vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants in veggies improve circulation, immunity, mood, digestive health, blood sugar and insulin regulation—all of which translate into feeling lighter and more energized. The best part? These results can be pretty immediate. But don’t take my word for it: Try making veggies the star of every meal for one day, and monitor how you feel. Here are a few ideas:

Breakfast: Make a smoothie with spinach or kale, frozen fruit, a protein powder or Greek yogurt, almond butter and almond milk. Or whip up a veggie-heavy omelet with avocado, and enjoy with a side of fruit.

Lunch: Opt for a salad with lots of greens and veggies, dressed in an olive oil-based vinaigrette. Add salmon, chicken or beans. Top with quinoa or chickpeas.

Dinner: Cook up a stir-fry with lots of colorful veggies in a sauce made from brown rice vinegar and fresh squeezed citrus juice, seasoned with fresh ginger, garlic, and crushed red pepper. Serve over a small bed of brown rice, topped with sesame seeds.

If you stick to a daily plan like this one, you’ll eat well over the recommended minimum recommendation for veggies. And I bet you’ll notice a tremendous difference in your energy level—even after just one day.

How food affects your mood


Image: How food affects your mood

Mental illness is one of the greatest epidemics of modern times and is on par with cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Instead of seeking a cure, however, Big Pharma treats mental illness as just another disease, which can be mitigated by mind altering drugs. Meanwhile, effective nutritional and environmental therapies for mental illness are ignored.

Fortunately, people with mental health disorders aren’t doomed to a life of prescription drugs. In many cases, mental illness isn’t rooted in biology but is a product of nutrition and environmental factors. The below extract is taken from Gary Null and Amy McDonald’s book The Food-Mood Connection: Nutrition-based and Environmental Approaches to Mental Health and Physical Wellbeing, which – as the title suggests – illustrates how food affects your mood.

Chemicals and Other Environmental Factors

In 2006, scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health sounded a long overdue warning: industrial chemicals are responsible for a “silent pandemic” of brain impairment in millions of children around the world. By analyzing publicly available data, they determined that at least 202 chemicals are known to have the capacity to damage the brain. However, only a few [such] as lead and mercury are regulated with regard to children. Because developing brains are significantly more vulnerable to toxicity than adult brains, children are at great risk from common chemicals used in plastics, adhesives, aluminum, paint, nylon, nail polish remover, and more. In recent years, chemical exposure has increasingly been linked to a variety of “subclinical” mental health symptoms (behavior changes, cognitive decline) as well as neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism, attention deficit disorder (ADD), and mental retardation.

“The human brain is a precious and vulnerable organ,” says Philippe Grand-jean, adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health and the study’s lead author. “And because optimal brain function depends on the integrity of the organ, even limited damage may have serious consequences… We must make protection of the young brain a paramount goal of public health protection. You have only one chance to develop a brain.”

Clearly, the mainstream medical and political establishment has a long way to go in recognizing and addressing the serious problem of chemical toxicity. “The government agencies and the higher-ups in the medical political structure are not even half-aware of the complexity of these environmental toxins and their effect on our health,” says Dr. Richard Kunin. “They see it as very rare and therefore don’t include [it] as part of a routine medical checkup. In fact, doctors have been told not to test for toxins, even though these tests are the best way to screen for poisonous metals as well as to identify how much of various substances a person is accumulating in the tissues of his or her body.”

Nutritional and Environmental Influences on Mental States

Ignoring the nutritional and environmental influences on mental states is a costly and dangerous business. Both are getting worse. Eating a healthy, balanced diet is the most effective way to ensure that our bodies receive the nutrients we need. Unfortunately, the typical American diet does not meet many of the requirements for good health, and we are paying the price physically as well as mentally. Part of the problem relates to the types and proportions of foods people eat. Just as important is how the foods are grown and processed as they make their way to our grocery shelves and kitchen tables. Scores of people have allergies, sensitivities, or intolerances to foods that they often don’t even know about, all of which could be sources of emotional and mental distress. In the environmental arena, exposure to heavy metals and chemicals such as pesticides also can have devastating consequences for mental health in people of all ages.

Stop this one bad habit and increase your productivity 40 Percent


http://www.speakingtree.in/slideshow/stop-this-one-bad-habit-and-increase-your-productivity

Eye Lenses Regenerated Using Infants’ Own Stem Cells


Stem cells could help treat people with cataracts and even some who are blind by regenerating eye tissue and replacing flawed lenses, according to new experiments in children and rabbits.

In order for people to see properly, both the lens of the eye and the cornea — the layer of tissue that covers the eye in front of the lens — must be transparent. Current treatments for people who have clouding in the lens or cornea involve artificial implants or donor transplants, respectively, but these surgical procedures can be risky, researchers said.

In the new research, scientists performed minimally invasive surgeries on 12 infants under age 2 who all had congenital cataracts — a major cause of childhood blindness. They removed the children’s cataracts, but carefully spared certain cells in their eyes, called lens epithelial stem/progenitor cells (LECs), which could then go on to regenerate lenses.

They found that the infants’ incisions healed within one month, and the transparency of their line of vision was more than 20 times better, compared to infants with congenital cataracts who received the current, standard treatment. [5 Amazing Technologies That Are Revolutionizing Biotech]

The finding shows that “we can harness our own stem cells to regenerate a tissue or organ,” Dr. Kang Zhang, who led the study and is an ophthalmologist at the University of California, San Diego, told Live Science.

Researchers had not previously shown that LECs could be used to regenerate human lenses.

Cataracts involve clouding of the lens, and are the leading cause of blindness worldwide. The current treatment for cataracts involves surgically removing the clouded lens of the eye from its supporting capsule and replacing it with an artificial lens. More than 20 million cataract patients worldwide now undergo this procedure each year.

Zhang noted that only 4 in 10,000 cataract patients are infants. Still, “in principle, this approach should work for any age, because lens stem cells are present through life,” he said. The stem cells of older patients may need a bit of a boost to regenerate lenses, he added.

The current treatment for cataracts is artificial lens implantation, which requires a cut about 6 millimeters wide to the lens capsule. The treatment can lead to inflammation and the destruction of the LECs, which normally help protect the lens from damage. Moreover, this surgery can lead to scars or the abnormal growth of lens cells — either of which can result in cloudiness in a patient’s line of vision.

In early experiments, Zhang and his colleagues showed they could isolate LECs from mice, and that these cells could form transparent, lenslike structures. The scientists reasoned that minimally invasive surgeries, involving cuts of only 1 to 1.5 millimeters wide, could remove cataracts while also preserving LECs that could then go on to regenerate lenses, Zhang said. They achieved successful lens regeneration in rabbits and monkeys, before attempting the procedure in children.

In the study, the infants’ surgical wounds were only about 4.3 percent the size of those created by the current method. The scientists also moved the site of the incision to the periphery of the lens rather than its center, according to the findings published online March 9 in the journal Nature. [Top 3 Techniques for Creating Organs in the Lab]

The researchers noted that they only tested a small number of patients with their new method. They will need “much larger and longer-term clinical trials to show its safety and efficacy,” Zhang said.

When it comes to treating blindness due to problems with the cornea, the gold-standard treatment involves corneal transplants from donors. However, the immune systems of recipients can reject a transplanted cornea.

In a separate finding, also published March 9 in Nature, researchers tested out a promising strategy for avoiding such rejection that involves growing corneas from the cells of patients.

Researcher Kohji Nishida at Osaka University in Japan and his colleagues used induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which are mature cells that are chemically reprogrammed with the ability to become any tissue in the body, to grow new corneas.

During embryonic development, eye tissue is formed from three layers, and the cornea and lens emerge from the topmost layer. In the experiments, the scientists grew human iPSCs with a chemical that promoted the creation of a structure that resembled the developing eye. The researchers harvested stem cells from this structure, which generated molecules one might expect of the cornea. They grew sheets of corneal tissue from these cells, and found they could restore vision in rabbits that had corneal blindness.

It seems unlikely that growing a structure mimicking the embryonic eye is an economically viable strategy for treating corneal blindness, noted Julie Daniels, a professor of regenerative medicine and cellular therapy at the University of College London Institute of Ophthalmology, who was not involved in the study.

The real value of this research is how experiments with this kind of structure will help better understand eye development, and “such an understanding might eventually enable in situ manipulation of stem-cell populations throughout the eye” as Zhang and his colleagues accomplished, Daniels wrote in a commentary on this research.

Google’s next operating system is ‘Android N’


Google is previewing the next version of its Android operating system two months ahead of schedule in an effort to get the upgraded software on more mobile devices.

The upgraded software, known as “Android N” for now, offers a split-screen feature so users can toggle between apps more easily. Android N also enables users to reply directly to notifications, something already available on the software that Google makes for smartwatches running on Android Wear.

Another change is being made to reduce the battery power drawn by apps when the device’s screen turns off. Devices running on Android “Marshmallow,” a version released last year, shift into a battery-saving mode called “Doze” only when they’re stationary.

The new edition initially is being recommended only for mobile app makers and will only work on a few smartphones and tablets.

Google typically hasn’t released test versions of Android until its annual developers’ conference, which begins May 18 this year. The head start is designed to get Android N the hands of mobile device makers earlier than ever, according to a Google blog post , to give them more time to set up the new software on their latest models.

By the time phones running on the software hit the market this fall, Android N is expected to eventually be named after a sweet food beginning with “n” in the tradition of all the previous versions that Google has made.

Although other improvements could be added before the software is released to consumers later this year, Android N doesn’t appear to breaking any new ground. Both the split-screen and reply-to-notifications features, for instance, are already offered in the operating system running Apple Inc.’s iPhone.

The absence of a “gee-whiz” factor underscores the challenges facing the smartphone industry as its market matures and it becomes more difficult to come up with new ideas nearly a decade after Apple revolutionized mobile computing with the iPhone’s debut.

The decline in innovation extends beyond the mobile software to the devices themselves, reducing the incentive for consumers to buy new smartphones. That’s one of the reasons that Apple is bracing for its first-ever quarterly decrease in iPhones sales during the opening three months of this year.

Google doesn’t make smartphones, choosing instead to give away Android to device makers. The software is designed to highlight Google’s search engine, maps and other features, giving the company more opportunities to sell the digital ads that generate most of its revenue.

The strategy has established Android as the world’s most widely used mobile operating system, but it also has limited the amount of control that Google has over how the software is used.

Among other things, about 56 per cent of Android devices are still running on versions of the software that were released in 2013 and 2014, according to Google’s tabulations. Only 2 per cent of Android phones are on Marshmallow, last year’s model.

In contrast, about 79 per cent of iPhones are already running on iOS 9, the operating system that Apple released six months ago. Unlike Google, Apple exerts sole control over the software on its mobile devices.

The Truth About Vaccinations – History and Hoax


Many modern health “authorities” credit vaccines for the decline in disease and assure us that vaccines are safe and effective. But is that true? Take a close look at the following graphs and you will see the reduction in deaths from pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, polio and measles.

pic

Notice that these diseases were virtually wiped out before the introduction of their respective vaccines! Rather the decrease in these childhood maladies weren’t due to vaccinations (as you may have been told), but were mainly the result of improved public health and hygiene (including sanitation and cleaner drinking water) during that time.

An interesting side note concerning polio involves some “shady” behavior by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC); in 1958, after the introduction of the live polio vaccine, they changed the definition of “polio.” Cases of inflammation of the membrane that protects the brain and spinal neuron cells, causing muscular weakness and pain (but not paralysis) were no longer classified as “polio”;  they were now to be referred to as aseptic meningitis, even if the polio virus was present.

Reported cases of aseptic meningitis went from near zero to thousands, and polio cases dropped the same amount. Then, later in 1958, the CDC changed the definition of “polio” again!! All cases with classic polio paralytic symptoms were to be called acute flaccid paralysis. In 1960, the CDC triumphantly declared large parts of the world as “polio free,” while the newly created acute flaccid paralysis “mysteriously” became quite common.

In 1977, Jonas Salk, the creator of the polio vaccine, testified before a Senate subcommittee that “all polio outbreaks since 1961 were caused by the oral polio vaccine.” In 1985, the CDC reported that 87% of the cases of polio in the USA between 1973 and 1983 were caused by the vaccine and most of the reported cases occurred in fully immunized individuals.

Despite indisputable proof that vaccines do nothing to prevent disease, brainwashed pediatricians insist that it is unwise and a health risk to have unvaccinated children. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that vaccines have been a hoax from their inception. Edward Jenner, known as the “father of vaccines,” was not a scientist but a huckster and Louis Pasteur, the father of the germ theory of disease, was nothing more than a charlatan out to make a buck. I have heard these two men referred to as the “Barnum & Bailey” of medicine.

Contrary to popular belief, the scientific community is not 100% behind mandated vaccination laws in the US. Thus you have a consensus of thought rather than solid scientific evidence supporting vaccine mandates. . . which, for lack of a better term, translates into “junk science.” Real scientists and real science tell us that artificial immunity (aka vaccination) is “an emperor with no clothes on.”

As far as real science is concerned, there is no evidence that you should vaccinate yourself or your children, ever, for any reason. I am well aware that vaccines are considered “sacred” to most physicians. As a matter of fact, questioning them is tantamount to blasphemy. I can assure you that I would not challenge the efficacy and safety of something as “holy” as vaccines unless I were certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I am accurate when I state that vaccines are not safe (unless you change the definition of “safe” to include death, numerous diseases and brain damage).

The greatest lie ever told is that vaccines are safe and effective.
-Dr. Len Horowitz

But don’t take Dr. Horowitz’s word for it! Check out the statistics for yourself; from 1990 to 2008, the US Government recorded 238,755 vaccine related injuries and deaths, according to the VAERS database. Since the FDA estimates that 90% of vaccine reactions go unrecorded, we can extrapolate that during the past 18 years, there have actually been almost 2.4 million vaccine related injuries and deaths!!

Vaccine-Truth-History-and-Hoax

But that’s not surprising, considering the toxic ingredients in most vaccines. Oftentimes described as “toxic cocktails,” many vaccines contain XE “toxic cocktails” which are live and dead animal viruses that have been cultured in monkey kidney tissue, cow tissue, goat tissue, pig tissue, and even aborted human fetuses. Vaccines contain any combination of the following: thimerosal (a mercury derivative), aluminum, formaldehyde (carcinogenic embalming fluid), phenol, ethylene glycol (antifreeze), live viruses, bacteria, and acetone, among other things.

What if I were to take some mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum, antifreeze, and live viruses cultured in dead animal tissue, then mix them together with some peanut butter and spread it on a piece of bread for my children to eat for a snack? Would you think I was a good parent? What if I were to tell you, “This will keep them from getting sick”? Would you question my sanity? The odds are that I would be arrested for child abuse. However, when doctors inject our kids with the same ingredients (minus the bread and peanut butter) and tell us, “This will keep them from getting sick,” most of us don’t even give it a second thought.

What if you call your family physician and tell him you are going to inject your baby with mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde and that you are wondering what the “safe dosage” was for these ingredients? Well, right after he calls CPS, he will probably call the police! You see, there is no safe dosage because these are all lethal substances that are also potentially carcinogenic. But mercury derivatives, aluminum, and formaldehyde are ingredients in most vaccinations. How is it possible that they are safe?

The answer depends upon who is injecting them. If you or I inject our child with mercury or formaldehyde, we are going to jail. But if a pharmaceutical company and a doctor inject the same toxic poisons, then they are perfectly safe. What’s wrong with this picture? Unfortunately, most Americans follow the masses, believe what we’re told, don’t ask questions, and place blind faith in our doctors.

What about Autism?

In the 1970s, only 1 child in 10,000 was autistic. In the 1990s, there was a “stepped-up vaccine schedule” where the amount of thimerosal was drastically increased in most childhood vaccines, including the MMR and DPT. Now, in the year 2009, autism affects 1 in 67 children! It is a well-established fact that exposure to mercury can cause immune, sensory, neurological, motor, and behavioral dysfunctions – all similar to traits defining, or associated with, autism. My cousin’s second boy is autistic and he first showed autistic behavior less than 24 hours after receiving the MMR vaccine. The evidence linking vaccines to autism is overwhelming.

Interestingly, in March of 2008, the U.S. government conceded that childhood vaccines were responsible for the autism in 9-year-old Hannah Poling. This unprecedented concession was in response to one of three test cases that allege thimerosal caused autism in children.

I am no longer “trying to dig up evidence to prove” vaccines cause autism. There is already abundant evidence…. This debate is not scientific but political.
—Dr. David Ayoub, M.D.

I know we were all taught to blindly trust our doctors, but the fact is that they no longer deserve that trust. Physicians take an oath to “First, do no harm,” but today, what gets injected into your child is being decided not by physicians but by multinational pharmaceutical companies which have a financial incentive to sell as many vaccines as possible. Only by keeping people in the dark can they continue their absurd profiteering from the vaccine industry. We assume that because vaccines are mandated by US law that the government is verifying their safety and effectiveness. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Every day, millions of children are lined up and injected with toxic, putrid substances called vaccines. Before they begin first grade, children can get as many as 36 vaccines! There are about 200 more vaccines in the pipeline. Scenarios for the future even include consuming vaccines in nose sprays, ointments and fruits and vegetables. This “Vaccine Obsession” has gone beyond what anyone can possibly defend on scientific grounds. Pumping more vaccines into our precious children borders on the criminal.

With every child on the planet a potential “required recipient” of multiple vaccines, and with every healthcare system and government a potential buyer, it is little wonder that billions of dollars are spent nurturing the vaccine industry. Without public outcry, we will see more and more new vaccines required of us and our children. And while profits are readily calculable, the real human costs are being ignored. According to Dr. James R. Shannon, former director of the National Institute of Health reported in December, 2003 that “the only safe vaccine is one that is never used.”

Keep this in mind when you’re attempting to make up your mind “to jab or not to jab.”

God bless.

—Ty M. Bollinger