‘Vaccine’ Developed That Could Eliminate All Traces of Cancer

A vaccine that has the potential to eliminate all traces of cancer has been revealed by scientists.

The team at Stanford University injected minute amounts of the vaccine into mice and found that all forms of cancer were destroyed—even those that arose spontaneously.

With just one injection, the body’s defenses attack all other tumors that may exist.

The scientists injected two agents directly into tumors, causing the body’s immune system to fight the cancer.

Close up of cancer cells in the cervix.

“When we use these two agents together, we see the elimination of tumors all over the body,” senior author Ronald Levy, M.D., professor of oncology, said in a statement.

“This approach bypasses the need to identify tumor-specific immune targets and doesn’t require wholesale activation of the immune system or customization of a patient’s immune cells,” he said.

The treatment could have wide-reaching implications for cancer therapy and doesn’t have the side effects often seen in other kinds of treatments.

The new research follows immunotherapy approaches that all have downsides such as difficult-to-handle side effects, high cost, or lengthy treatment times.

‘Amazing, Bodywide Effects’

Levy said, “Our approach uses a one-time application of very small amounts of two agents to stimulate the immune cells only within the tumor itself. In the mice, we saw amazing, bodywide effects, including the elimination of tumors all over the animal.”

Levy’s method works by reactivating cancer-specific T cells that play a central role in immunity.

T cells recognize the abnormal proteins often present in cancer cells and attack them. But as the tumor grows, it often finds ways to suppress the T cells.

Doctors study scans of a patient being treated at the Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Aug. 15, 2005, in Baltimore.

The two agents that Levy injected were firstly a short stretch of DNA that works with nearby immune cells to “amplify the expression” of a receptor on the surface of T cells.

Secondly, an antibody binds to this receptor, activating the T cells so that they attack the cancer cells.

And because the agents are injected directly into the cancerous tumor, they are prescreened to recognize only cancer-specific proteins.

“This is a very targeted approach,” Levy said. “Only the tumor that shares the protein targets displayed by the treated site is affected.

“We’re attacking specific targets without having to identify exactly what proteins the T cells are recognizing,” he said.

Remarkably, these newly activated T cells then leave the original tumor to find and destroy other identical tumors throughout the body.

The Stanford team’s approach has so far only been tested on mice, but the results have been startlingly positive, with 87 out of 90 mice cured of cancer. Although the cancer returned in three of the mice, they were cured after a second treatment.

Similar results were found in mice with breast, colon, and melanoma tumors.

Levy is now recruiting 15 patients with low-grade lymphoma to trial the treatment. If successful, he believes it could treat many types of tumors.

It could, for example, be used prior to surgical removal of tumors as a way to prevent reoccurrence of the cancer.

“I don’t think there’s a limit to the type of tumor we could potentially treat, as long as it has been infiltrated by the immune system,” Levy said.

Donald Trump Warns Flu Shots Are The Greatest ‘Scam’ In Medical History

The flu shot is the greatest scam in medical history, created by Big Pharma to make money off vulnerable people and make them sick, warns President Donald Trump. In an interview with Opie and Anthony on Sirius XM, Trump slammed flu shots as “totally ineffective” and declared that he has never had one. “I’ve never had one. And thus far I’ve never had the flu. I don’t like the idea of injecting bad stuff into your body. And that’s basically what they do. And this one (latest flu vaccine) has not been very effective to start off with. I have friends that religiously get the flu shot and then they get the flu. You know, that helps my thinking. I’ve seen a lot of reports that the last flu shot is virtually totally ineffective.” Trump is right on this – flu shots are the greatest medical fraud in history. They are full of “bad stuff” including formaldehyde and mercury – two powerful neurotoxins – and the vaccine industry even admits that laboratory tests prove the popular jab does not work.

Donald Trump Warns Flu Shots Are The Greatest ‘Scam’ In Medical History

Why is a toxic, medical hoax, backed by nothing but voodoo faith-based dogma and clever marketing, pushed on the whole population every year? Vaccines are the one medicine where no scientific evidence of safety or efficacy is required by anyone: not the FDA, not the CDC and not the media. Congress even passed a law protecting the vaccine industry with absolute legal immunity, even when they manufacture and sell defective products that injure and kill people. And vaccine manufacturers have been lying to us for years about toxic levels of mercury in flu shots. Everybody knows mercury is toxic to inject into the human body. That’s not debated except by irrational anti-science denialists. So why won’t manufacturers remove the mercury? And why does Big Pharma continue to push a product that the vaccine industry admits does not even work?

Watch the video. URL:https://youtu.be/cDARZJxzeoY


How CDC Uses False Fears to Promote Vaccine Uptake

CDC promotes vaccination

Story at-a-glance

  • According to the CDC, about 36,000 Americans die from influenza each year. But this includes deaths from both influenza and secondary pneumonia. When separated out, flu deaths do not number in the tens of thousands
  • A 2004 slide presentation reveals CDC “recipe” for maximizing vaccine uptake is to use media to promote alarm by predicting dire outcomes and concern about lethality of influenza
  • Recent studies found links between vaccination and emotional disturbances and psychiatric disorders such as anorexia, OCD and anxiety. Research also shows stimulating a woman’s immune system during pregnancy — which both natural infection and vaccination does — raises the risk of autism

Five years ago, political lobbyist Jack Abramoff shocked the nation when, in a 60-Minute Report, he revealed just how corrupt the U.S. political system really is. As it turns out, it’s actually worse than most critical outsiders could have imagined.

Now, the downfall of yet another high-powered corporate lobbyist is shedding light on tactics used to promote drug industry interests.

Other recent news reveals how the CDC uses scare tactics to incentivize people into getting an annual flu shot — despite studies repeatedly showing that flu shots have been from zero to less than 50 percent effective in preventing type A or B influenza over the past decade.1

For this flu season, the CDC estimates the vaccine has failed about 60 percent of the time to prevent infection with the most prevalent A strain circulating this year.2

The Rise and Fall of a Roche VP

In “The Rise and Fall of a K Street Renegade,” published in The Wall Street Journal,3Brody Mullins details the suspected wrongdoings of Evan Morris, who at age 27 became a top Washington lobbyist for Roche Holdings AG, one of the largest drug companies in the world.

In July, 2015, he came under federal investigation, suspected of embezzling millions of company dollars through various schemes. Part of Morris’ genius was his ability to capitalize on and shape public sentiment through the use of media, advertising, opinion polls, focus groups and the creation of front groups.

According to Mullins, “He sponsored nonprofits that engaged in letter-writing campaigns and organized patient groups that demanded Medicare reimbursement for his firm’s drugs.”

When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considered banning the cancer drug Avastin, Morris created the non-profit group, Patient Care Action Network. Morris recruited doctors and patients who then did Morris’ work for him, urging their congressional representatives to oppose the FDA.

How Morris Turned Tamiflu Into a Blockbuster Drug

In the article, Mullins also reveals how Morris made Roche’s influenza drug Tamiflu into a massive blockbuster by seeding and feeding public fear during the 2005 avian flu outbreak:

“Roche produced the leading treatment, a pill called Tamiflu. Sensing opportunity, Mr. Morris adopted an emerging lobbying tactic: build support among a lawmaker’s constituents to supplement the traditional glad-handing of elected officials with dinners and campaign donations.

Mr. Morris contracted consultants who promoted news stories that stoked fears about an avian-flu outbreak. The goal was to sell more Tamiflu.

In October 2005, 32 Democratic senators wrote a letter to President George W. Bush expressing their ‘grave concern that the nation is dangerously unprepared for the serious threat of avian influenza.’

Within weeks, Mr. Bush created an emergency stockpile of avian flu treatments that eventually included more than $1 billion worth of Tamiflu pills. His administration offered subsidies that led to millions of dollars of additional Tamiflu sales to state governments.”

Reported Flu Deaths — Another Giant PR Sham

While we’re on the topic of fearmongering to boost corporate profits, a paper4published in the BMJ in 2005 by Peter Doshi deserves a second look. In it, Doshi argues U.S. flu death figures are based more on PR mandates than actual science.

“U.S. data on influenza deaths are a mess,” he writes. “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledges a difference between flu death and flu associated death yet uses the terms interchangeably.

Additionally, there are significant statistical incompatibilities between official estimates and national vital statistics data. Compounding these problems is a marketing of fear…”

According to the CDC, about 36,000 Americans die from influenza each year. This statistic is reiterated by most mainstream media sources and government health officials, thereby impressing you with the suggestion that if you or someone you care about gets influenza, you are likely to die from it.

The answer, they say, is to make sure you get vaccinated at the onset of flu season each and every year.

Rarely does anyone question this 36,000-annual flu death number. But everyone really should. As noted by Doshi, the “CDC states that the historic 1968-9 “Hong Kong flu” pandemic killed 34,000 Americans. At the same time, CDC claims 36,000 Americans annually die from flu. What is going on?”

Indeed, is the annual death toll from influenza really GREATER than the well documented 1968-69 influenza pandemic? The answer is no, and Doshi goes on to reveal a number of statistical tricks used to artificially inflate influenza death numbers.

How Influenza Death Numbers Are Inflated

For starters, the CDC bundles influenza and pneumonia deaths together, even though influenza is by far not the sole cause of pneumonia. To quote Doshi:

“David Rosenthal, director of Harvard University Health Services, said, ‘People don’t necessarily die, per se, of the [flu] virus … What they die of is a secondary pneumonia. So many of these pneumonias are not viral pneumonias but secondary [pneumonias].’

But … Rosenthal agreed that the flu/pneumonia relationship was not unique. For instance, a recent study5… found that stomach acid suppressing drugs are associated with a higher risk of community acquired pneumonia, but such drugs and pneumonia are not compiled as a single statistic.”

In other words, anyone dying from pneumonia — whether contracted as a result of influenza infection, post-surgical complication, the side effect of acid blocker use or any other reason — end up being reported as a “flu death.” When you separate out pneumonia deaths, you end up with a very different picture of influenza mortality:

“[A]ccording to the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), ‘influenza and pneumonia’ took 62,034 lives in 2001 — 61,777 of which were attributed to pneumonia and 257 to flu, and in only 18 cases was flu virus positively identified.

Between 1979 and 2002, NCHS data show an average 1,348 flu deaths per year (range 257 to 3006),” Doshi writes, adding:

“The NCHS data would be compatible with CDC mortality estimates if about half of the deaths classed by the NCHS as pneumonia were actually flu initiated secondary pneumonias.

But the NCHS criteria indicate otherwise: ‘Cause-of-death statistics are based solely on the underlying cause of death… defined by WHO as `the disease or injury which initiated the train of events leading directly to death.'”

This Year Only 10 Percent of Flu-Like Illnesses Caused by Influenza A or B

It’s also worth noting that only 10 to 30 percent of flu-like respiratory illnesses at any point in a given flu season are actually caused by influenza type A or B,6 which is what the flu shot is supposed to prevent.

As Barbara Loe Fisher at the National Vaccine Information Center points out, “According to a recently released CDC report, in this 2016-2017 flu season the odds are only about one in 10 that flu like illness symptoms are, in fact, caused by type A or B influenza.

Between October and February 2017, out of nearly 393,000 respiratory illness lab specimens tested in the U.S., only about 38,000 cases – or 10 percent – were positive for type A or B influenza.”7

High Vaccine Failure Rate Plus Low Influenza Incidence Does Not Support Annual Flu Shot Policy

There are more than 200 types of viruses that cause respiratory flu like symptoms,8in addition to illness caused by bacteria,9 but they are not included in the influenza vaccine.

If the flu shot only works from zero to less than 50 percent of the time and most of the flu like illness in any given flu season is not caused by type A or B influenza, the scientific evidence is simply not there for the government to order every child and adult in America to get the flu shot.

It is hardly a public health calamity warranting the vaccination of hundreds of millions of people on an annual basis. Which is precisely the point. As noted by Doshi, the CDC is “working in manufacturers’ interest by conducting campaigns to increase flu vaccination.”

CDC’s ‘Recipe’ for Generating Vaccine Demand

Doshi’s 2005 paper further reveals some of the content of a slide presentation given by Glen Nowak, then-acting director of media relations at the CDC. Nowak gave the presentation at the National Influenza Vaccine Summit in 2004, co-sponsored by the CDC and the American Medical Association (AMA). In a nutshell, Nowak’s presentation focused on how to use the media to create fear and anxiety to promote vaccination and increase vaccine uptake in the U.S.

A section of his presentation titled “Getting Ready for 2004-2005: Lessons (Re-) Learned [Including the Seven-Step Recipe for Generating Interest in, and Demand for, Flu (or any other) Vaccination]” — which has since been removed from the AMAs website, where it was originally posted, but parts of which can be viewed in a recent article by J.B. Handley, co-founder of Generation Rescue,10 — included the following ingredients:11,12,13

  • Getting medical experts and public health authorities to “publicly … state concern and alarm (and predict dire outcomes) — and urge influenza vaccination”
  • Publishing media articles and reports saying “that influenza is causing severe illness and/or affecting lots of people, helping foster the perception that many people are susceptible to a bad case of influenza” and “framing of the flu season in terms that motivate behavior (e.g., as ‘very severe,’ ‘more severe than last or past years,’ ‘deadly’)”

Overall, Nowak’s point was that “heightened concern, anxiety and worry” drives demand for the influenza vaccine and other vaccines. The CDC sure does seem to be doing its part in promulgating this fearmongering. Some doctors are also playing their part and appear to follow Nowak’s “recipe” to the T.14

Hyperbole Over ‘Dangerous Anti-Vaxxers’ Grows

An offshoot of this fearmongering aimed at generating vaccine demand is the public shaming and demonization of so-called “anti-vaxxers” — most of whom are parents who have actually vaccinated their children and are simply trying to get to the bottom of why their child’s health or behavior suddenly changed following one or more of those vaccinations.

Doshi was a graduate student when he wrote the 2005 BMJ paper questioning U.S. annual influenza mortality figures. He’s now an associate editor of The British Medical Journal (BMJ). In an article published in the BMJ on February 7, 2017, Doshi addresses medical journalists who write about vaccines. Well worth reading in its entirety, it reads, in part:15

“Good journalism on this topic will require abandoning current practices of avoiding interviewing, understanding, and presenting critical voices out of fear that expressing any criticism amounts to presenting a “false balance” that will result in health scares.

It does matter if the vast majority of doctors or scientists agree on something. But medical journalists should be among the first to realize that while evidence matters, so too do the legitimate concerns of patients. And if patients have concerns, doubts, or suspicions — for example, about the safety of vaccines, this does not mean they are “anti-vaccine.”

… approaches that label anybody and everybody who raises questions about the right headedness of current vaccine policies … as “anti-vaccine” fail on several accounts … Contrary to the suggestion … that vaccines are risk free … the reality is that officially sanctioned written medical information on vaccines is … filled with information about common, uncommon, and unconfirmed but possible harms.

Medical journalists have an obligation to the truth. But journalists must also ensure that patients come first, which means a fresh approach to covering vaccines. It’s time to listen — seriously and respectfully — to patients’ concerns, not demonize them.”

Conflicts of Interest at the CDC Threaten Your Health

The fact that the CDC is in charge of not only recommending and promoting mandatory use of vaccines but also monitoring vaccine safety is a significant conflict of interest. In 2006, two members of Congress — Representatives Dave Weldon and Carolyn Maloney — tried to address the problem by introducing a bill that would give the responsibility of vaccine safety to an independent agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).16

“There’s an enormous inherent conflict of interest within the CDC and if we fail to move vaccine safety to a separate independent office, safety issues will remain a low priority and public confidence in vaccines will continue to erode,” Weldon said.

The bill went nowhere, and public confidence in the CDC has indeed continued to erode with each passing year. In 2011, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) issued a public comment to the National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) recommending overhaul of the U.S. vaccine safety system, including the creation of an independent vaccine safety monitoring agency modeled after the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC). 17

In 2014, NVIC issued a press release renewing its two decade long call for removal of vaccine safety oversight from DHHS. NVIC co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher said:

“It is a conflict of interest for DHHS to be in charge of vaccine safety and also license vaccines, and take money from drug companies to fast track vaccines, and partner with drug companies to develop and share profits from vaccine sales, and make national vaccine policies that get turned into state vaccine laws, while also deciding which children will and will not get a vaccine injury compensation award. That is too much power for one federal agency.”18

The CDC has also racked up an embarrassing number of scandals in the last couple of years, with whistleblowers saying the agency is “shaped by outside parties and rogue interests” and that data destruction and fraudulent reporting has been used to hide autism links and rises in prevalence.

One of the researchers whose work was used to exonerate thimerosal’s role in autism also turned fugitive, accused of embezzling vaccine research funds. A January 19 article by JB Handley gives the details on these and several other CDC scandals.19

Recent Studies Link Vaccines to Mental/Emotional Disorders

In related news, research published on January 19, 2017, found “a significant relationship” between mercury exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines and the subsequent risk of emotional disturbance, based on data obtained from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) database.20

Another study21,22 published that same day in the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry found some vaccines increased the risk of certain psychiatric disorders. Using information from health insurance claims, the researchers found that patients diagnosed with anorexia nervosa were more likely than controls to have received a vaccination in the previous three months.

Anorexia, obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety disorder were also associated with influenza vaccination in the past 3, 6 and 12 months. According to the authors:

“This pilot epidemiologic analysis implies that the onset of some neuropsychiatric disorders may be temporally related to prior vaccinations in a subset of individuals. These findings warrant further investigation, but do not prove a causal role of antecedent infections or vaccinations in the pathoetiology of these conditions.”

This doesn’t entirely surprise me. A long list of studies looking at aluminum adjuvants in vaccines suggest it can induce neurodegenerative changes and is associated with an array of neurotoxic and neurological adverse effects.23,24,25,26,27,28

Here, the naysayers don’t have a leg to stand on, as the FDA actually set the limit on the amount of aluminum allowed in vaccines based on the amount required to boost vaccine effectiveness. No safety studies were performed at all. The FDA simply assumed it was safe. Today, ample evidence suggests otherwise.

Vaccine Contaminants — Another Safety Hazard

Other recent research points out another potential vaccine hazard — metal debris and biological contaminants. Remarkably, the study conducted by researchers in Italy found these kinds of contaminants in every single human vaccine tested.29 According to environmental protection activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,30 these findings “should have profound and immediate impact on public health policies and vaccine industry procedures around the globe.”

In all, 43 samples of 30 different vaccines were tested using an environmental scanning electron microscope, and were found to contain contaminants such as:

  • Aluminum salts
  • Red blood cells of unknown origin
  • Inorganic foreign particle debris consistent with “burnt waste.” Additional analysis revealed the presence of lead, stainless steel, chromium, tungsten, nickel, iron, zirconium, hafnium, strontium, antimony and various other metals
  • Endotoxins
  • Bacterial residues

According to the study authors:

“The particles, be they isolated, aggregated or clustered, are not supposed to be there. … Our tissues perceive these foreign bodies as potential enemies. The biological reactions are expected to be fairly complicated, with macrophages that try to engulf them the way they do normally with bacteria and parasites to form a protein corona.

Unfortunately, though, the particles we found in vaccines, are not biodegradable. So, all the macrophages’ efforts will be useless, and depending on the exact chemicals involved, the particles may be especially toxic. Cytokines and pro-inflammatory substances in general are released and granulated tissue forms, enveloping the particles. This provokes inflammation which, in the long run, if locally persistent, is known to be a precursor to cancer.”

Infections During Pregnancy May Raise Autism Risk

Another recent study31 highlights the danger of stimulating the immune system of a pregnant woman. Women with active genital herpes infections during the early stage of pregnancy were twice as likely to give birth to a child with autism, compared to those without infection. As noted by NBC News, “The findings … add to evidence that inflammation during pregnancy may affect the brain of a developing fetus.”

According to Dr. Ian Lipkin, an epidemiologist and infectious disease expert and lead author, the damage is likely caused by inflammatory chemicals crossing the placenta, thereby impacting the baby’s brain development. Previous research has also shown that women who came down with the flu during pregnancy were twice as likely to have an autistic child. Those who had a fever lasting for one week or longer had three times the risk.

What’s not mentioned is the fact that vaccines do the very same thing — they stimulate the immune system and produce an inflammatory response, including in women who are given a flu shot and/or a Tdap shot while they are pregnant. A 2008 article by Dr. Russell Blaylock explains the danger of excessive vaccination during brain development.

So why are pregnant women told to get vaccinated during pregnancy when there’s no sound scientific evidence showing it’s safe to do so?32

There’s No Escaping the Vaccine Safety Discussion

There are staunch mandatory vaccination proponents who would like you to believe that the vaccine safety science is in and the vaccine safety debate has long since been settled. They’re wrong. Very wrong.

In fact, the “debate” about vaccine safety science has not even strictly begun. There are huge gaps in the knowledge base in part due to the fact that well designed comparative studies of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated persons have not yet been conducted to draw credible scientific conclusions about long-term safety.

However, there have been compelling indications of harm for a long time. For example, studies have shown the flu vaccine weakens the immune system, making children more susceptible to more severe illness by hampering the development of certain types of immunity.33 A recent article by journalist Jeremy Hammond does an excellent job of distilling the problem facing unquestioning vaccine proponents:34

“In a recent The Washington Post op-ed, pediatrician Daniel Summers argues that when it comes to the safety and efficacy of vaccines, there’s nothing to debate … Yet his own arguments illustrate why he’s wrong and why there is indeed a debate to be had. So why is he so afraid of having it?

Dr. Summers actually answers this question for us with some comments that explain his own demonstrable confirmation bias (the tendency to accept facts that support his own position while ignoring facts that contradict it). He writes:

‘If vaccines genuinely cause autism like their opponents claim, one of two things must be true of pediatricians like me who administer them. Either we are too incompetent to discern the relationship between the two, or we are too monstrous to care. One cannot believe that autism is related to vaccination without simultaneously indicting the overwhelming majority of physicians, nurses and other medical providers in this country.’

So there you have it. If his view was shown to be wrong, it would demonstrate that either he’s incompetent or he’s evil. It’s only natural that we can expect Summers, then, to be accepting of science that supports his view while dismissive of science that contradicts it.”

As a doctor, I can empathize with this psychological conundrum. It’s a terrible feeling to realize that, at some point in your life, you didn’t have the knowledge you should have had and you led your patients the wrong way.

But I can also attest to the fact that, if you are a physician, you can admit your mistake and correct course and it will not destroy you or your medical practice. On the contrary, it inspires trust in your patients. And when it comes to vaccines, a course correction by adopting a new approach is not only necessary but inevitable.

Evaluating industry’s role in vaccine access – The Lancet

On March 6, 2017, the Access to Medicine Foundation released its first Access to Vaccines Index, a baseline analysis of industry activities to improve access to vaccines worldwide. Two targets for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 3.8 and SDG 3.B) explicitly mention vaccines. Yet, despite the global consensus on the centrality of vaccines to modern health systems, access is highly variable, and in 2016 there were 19 million unvaccinated and under-vaccinated children in the world.

Large image of Figure.

Challenges to universal and sustainable access to vaccines include development of new vaccines, financing, affordability, supply, and implementation. Recognising the vital role of the pharmaceutical industry—as innovators, manufacturers, and suppliers—the index examines the behaviour of eight companies across 69 diseases, 107 countries, and three areas: research and development (R&D), pricing and registration, and manufacture and supply. Although most companies were found to make some consideration of affordability when setting vaccine prices, a more systematic approach is required, particularly for middle-income countries. For the most part, current R&D activities are linked to commercial incentives, with vaccines for seasonal influenza, pneumococcal disease, and human papillomavirus receiving the most attention. Although a third of R&D projects targeted a disease for which no vaccine exists, the report also identified 32 important diseases with no current R&D projects, including yaws, cytomegalovirus, and schistosomiasis. While detailing recent successes in the development of new vaccines for diseases of global health importance (specifically, dengue and malaria), the report highlights the ongoing need to improve vaccines once they reach the market to ensure they address usage needs in resource-limited settings.

Overall, the index paints a mixed picture of industry efforts. But in setting clear benchmarks it shows a path forward for industry to take a conscious and leading role in ensuring that every person, regardless of geography or income, has access to effective and affordable vaccines.

Polio Gone but Vaccines Will Continue

India was taken off the list of polio-endemic countries by the World Health Organization (WHO) two months ago, but the polio eradication campaign will have to be continued in some format forever.



“The long promised   monetary benefits from ceasing to vaccinate against poliovirus will never be achieved,”  Neetu Vashisht and  Jacob Puliyel of the Department of Pediatrics at St. Stephens Hospital in Delhi report in the April issue of Indian Journal of Medical Ethics.

The doctors note that it was long known to the scientific community that eradication of polio was impossible because scientists had synthesized poliovirus in a test-tube as early as in 2002.

“The sequence of its genome is known and modern biotechnology allows it to be resurrected at any time in the lab,” they report.  “Man can thus never let down his guard against poliovirus.”

According to the authors it was unethical for WHO and Bill Gates to flog this programme when they knew 10 years back that it was never to succeed.  “Getting poor countries to expend their scarce resources on an impossible dream over the last 10 years was unethical.”

They say that another major ethical issue raised by the campaign is the failure to thoroughly investigate the   increase in the incidence of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) in areas were many doses of vaccine were used.  NPAFP is clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly.

The authors note that while India was polio-free in 2011, in the same year, there were 47500 cases of NPAFP.  While data from India’s National Polio Surveillance Project showed NPAFP rate increased in proportion to the number of polio vaccine doses received, independent studies showed that children identified with NPAFP “were at more than twice the risk of dying than those with wild polio infection.”

According to their report, nationally, the NPAFP rate is now twelve times higher than expected.  In the states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar — which have pulse polio rounds nearly every month — the NPAFP rate is 25 and 35 fold higher than the international norms.

The authors point out that while the anti-polio campaign in India was mostly self-financed it started with a token donation of two million dollars from abroad.  “The Indian government finally had to fund this hugely expensive programme, which cost the country 100 times more than the value of the initial grant.”

“This is a startling reminder of how initial funding and grants from abroad distort local priorities,” the authors note.  “From India’s perspective the exercise has been an extremely costly both in terms of human suffering and in monetary terms. It is tempting to speculate what could have been achieved if the $ 2.5 billion spent on attempting to eradicate polio, were spent on water and sanitation and routine immunization.”

In conclusion they say that “the polio eradication programme epitomizes nearly everything that is wrong with donor funded ‘disease specific’ vertical projects at the cost of investments in community-oriented primary health care (horizontal programs).”

The WHO’s current policy calls for stopping oral polio vaccine (OPV) vaccination  three  years after the last case of poliovirus-caused poliomyelitis.  Injectable polio vaccine (IPV), which is expensive, will replace OPV in countries which can afford it.

“The risks inherent in this strategy are immense,” Puliyel and Vashisht warn. “Herd immunity against poliomyelitis will rapidly decline as new children are born and not vaccinated. Thus, any outbreak of poliomyelitis will be disastrous, whether it is caused by residual samples of virus stored in laboratories, by vaccine-derived polioviruses or by poliovirus that is chemically synthesized with malignant intent.”

They argue that the huge costs of repeated rounds of OPV in terms of money and NPAFP shows that monthly administration of OPV must cease.  “Our resources are perhaps better spent on controlling poliomyelitis to a locally acceptable level  rather than trying to eradicate the disease.”

We Might Finally Have A Vaccine to Protect Us From the Common Cold

  • Scientists took 50 types of rhinovirus and mixed them together into one vaccine.
  • Trials on animals showed that the method could be used to effectively fight the common cold, though human trials are some ways off.

Part of the problem in finding an effective cure for the common cold is there are so many variations of its root cause. But scientists have just found a way to target multiple strains of the cold in one vaccine that’s surprisingly simple to produce.

The vaccine mixes together dozens of different rhinoviruses – the viral infections that are to blame for most common colds – to create a concoction capable of fighting them all.

When applying the treatment to groups of mice and macaques, researchers from Emory University found that it stimulated antibody responses against all the types of rhinovirus in the drug, effectively knocking out multiple threats with a single hit.

“It’s surprising that nobody tried such a simple solution over the last 50 years,”said team member Martin Moore. “We just took 50 types of rhinovirus and mixed them together into our vaccine, and made sure we had enough of each one.”

This isn’t a cure for the common cold just yet, but it is evidence that the immune system is up to the challenge of defending against multiple causes of the virus – at least in animals. Human trials have already been scheduled to see if the effect can be replicated.

While scientists have had some success vaccinating against single rhinovirusesin the past, the problem is there are so many of them – more than 100, at the last count – and they’re all distinctive.

They’re also linked to respiratory issues like asthma and can cause ear and sinus infections.

Watch: The Common Cold

By artificially introducing a wide range of rhinovirus types to the body, the immune system gets a chance to put a counterattack in place, and is then prepared to fight off the same rhinoviruses when they’re encountered naturally.

Twenty-five different inactivated types of rhinovirus were used on mice and 50 on the macaques, and in each case, the animals were shown to produce antibodies targeted at each of those specific types.

Despite the heady mixture, the total amount of protein in each dose was the same. “The variants are like a bunch of slightly different Christmas ornaments, not really like 50 totally different vaccines mixed,” explained Moore.

What the scientists didn’t test here was the capability of the vaccines to stop the animals from getting sick much later on, but follow-up tests showed antibodies generated by the vaccines could also block rhinoviruses in human cells in laboratory conditions.

“We think that creating a vaccine for the common cold can be reduced to technical challenges related to manufacturing,” said Moore.

Once Moore and his colleagues recruit enough volunteers to give a human dose a trial run, we’ll know whether this has a chance of being effective in humans too. Eventually, we could be left with one less excuse to take a day off work.

Top government scientists refuse to vaccinate their children

Image: Top government scientists refuse to vaccinate their children

How shocking is it that New Mexico, the school district with the highest percentage of students whose families are opting out of vaccines , is actually one of the state’s most scientifically literate communities?

Well, if you know how harmful vaccines really are, you might not really be all that surprised. But for many, the 2.3 percent of students forgoing traditional vaccine regimens in Los Alamos is causing quite the upset. After all, many of the parents in the community work for US Los Alamos Labs, or one of the other scientific organizations that call the area home. For example, the Los Alamos National Laboratory has even conducted extensive research and development on a vaccine for HIV.

The Superintendent of the Los Alamos school systems has said that he finds the high rate of parents exempting their children from vaccination “curious,” given that it is a “pretty scientific and literate community.”

While the mainstream media continues to come up with all kinds of wild  reasons for why “anti-vaxxers” don’t vaccinate their children, a community of scientists continues to abstain from the practice, much to the chagrin of pro-vaccine activists. Los Alamos is not alone; Santa Fe’s percentage of children not getting jabbed was just a few points behind, at 2.1 percent.

Anna Pentler, the head of the New Mexico Immunization Coalition (a pro-vaccine group) seems to think that not wanting to inject their children with toxic adjuvants and heavy metals is an “emotional issue,” and not an issue of ethics and morality. She says that while the science could be “99 to 1″ in favor of vaccines, a parent’s anecdotal story of how vaccines harmed their child could easily sway another parent’s opinion.

While it is true that the countless horror stories that many parents and children are forced to endure post-vaccination are enough to give any reasonable parent pause, the fact is that the science behind vaccine damage is also all there. The problem is that no one wants to believe it; no one wants their reality disrupted.

As the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute states, “[T]here is a large body of scientific evidenceconfirming numerous vaccine safety deficits that counteract well-publicized benefits. For example, several studies show that thimerosal (mercury) and aluminum in vaccines can cause neurological, immunological and developmental harm.”

The CDC itself has conducted investigations on the harmful effects of certain ingredients in vaccines, and found that they did in fact disrupt neurological development in young children. But the mainstream media doesn’t care about that; they want you to fall in line and do your “due diligence” by getting vaccinated to maintain society’s “herd immunity” – which isn’t even real , by the way.

The vaccine agenda is one based on smoke and mirrors; its all a ruse to hide the harmful effects of vaccines that are felt worldwide. And it seems that the scientists in Los Alamos are brave enough to go against the grain, rather than putting their children in harm’s way just to satisfy society.

What we really know about Zika virus?

Whatever we read and know it’s just an iceberg.
This is not mentioned in medical text or any text of virology..even if mentioned..not in such detail. It’s great that no report of Zika infection from Rio..thanks to the people of Brazil who made this Olympic safe from Zika.
So the issues are which we should discuss are…
1) Why suddenly this Zika became too infective and spread from Brazil to Florida beach?
2) Is there a direct relationship of Zika and Microcephaly?
3) Are the banned pesticides or larvacides responsible for microcephaly? And not the virus itself?
4) For those who are infected may develop pre senile dementia in the long run? Does Zika affects the adult brain too?
5) Is this Zika spread like Ebola is related to global warming?
6) Till now we don’t have a cure for Zika infection. Whatever is there is just symptomatic like in cases of Ebola or Dengue.
7) People are claiming for a vaccine but how effective would be this in phase IV ?
😎 Convince me that it’s not a normal strain..and it’s a some GM?
9) How GM mosquitoes work against Zika?
10) Chemitrail….Yes or No. This was done in Florida few days back but the government is covering this. Why?


I hope someone would answer my silly questions.

Please post your comment in the comment box.

Why Are Vaccine Rights Being Removed While Safety Issues Are Increasingly Brought to the Fore?

As noted by Barbara Loe Fisher,1 founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), July Fourth celebrates the American Declaration of Independence, which asserts that “all men are created equal,” and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

Story at-a-glance

  • Aluminum is a well-documented neurotoxin linked with Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, asthma, hyperactivity and Down’s syndrome. Despite these dangers, adequate clinical research proving aluminum adjuvants to be safe has never been done
  • Implementation of one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination laws fail to respect biodiversity and human rights and violate informed consent ethic and freedom of thought, speech, conscience and religious belief
  • Parents and the nonprofit Education 4 All have filed a lawsuit to overturn the mandatory vaccination law in California, which requires all children to be fully vaccinated in order to attend public or private school and/or daycare
  • Cochrane Nordic Center has filed a complaint with the European Medicines Agency (EMA), questioning the EMA’s 2015 Assessment Report on the safety of HPV vaccines

Unwilling to submit to the tyranny of the aristocracy any longer, the Declaration is a pledge, promising that the United States would uphold the “unalienable natural right to life and liberty that belongs to every person.”

Yet today, 240 years later, we again find ourselves in a situation where we’re increasingly oppressed by an elite “who want the legal right to judge, shame, segregate, discriminate against and punish fellow citizens who do not share their beliefs,” Fisher writes, adding:

“Nowhere is this truth more self evident than in the oppressive implementation of one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination laws that fail to respect biodiversity or human rights and crush citizen opposition, in violation of the informed consent ethic and freedom of thought, speech, conscience and religious belief …

The appropriation of unaccountable authority by medical trade and the militarization of public health in the 21st century should be of concern to every person who values life and liberty.”

Vaccines Are ‘Unavoidably Unsafe’

Both the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court have concluded that government licensed vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe,”2 and this is what precipitated the decision to grant drug companies immunity against vaccine injuries and deaths.

If vaccine makers could actually be sued for damages, most would probably go out of business.

This “free pass” means that if the vaccine fails to protect you or your child, or worse, ends up injuring or killing, you cannot sue the vaccine manufacturer or the doctor who administered the vaccine.

As a result of having zero liability for harm arising from the use of their products, vaccine makers have started churning out an ever-growing number of poorly tested vaccines with dubious benefits.

Bill Threatens to Strip Virginia of Religious and Medical Exemptions

At the same time, there’s a concerted, nationwide effort to eliminate choice by removing religious and conscientious [sic] vaccine exemptions, which were instituted more than 50 years ago.

“[In] 2015, Vermont lost the conscience exemption and California lost the personal belief exemption protecting both exercise of conscience and religious beliefs. This year, the vaccine machine invaded Virginia,” Fisher writes.3

“A proposed law was introduced in the House of Delegates in January 2016 to strip away not just the religious vaccine exemption, but also the medical exemption for all children, whether they are being homeschooled or are enrolled in public or private schools.

An individual physician would no longer exercise professional judgment when granting a child a medical exemption but would become a government agent enforcing the narrow one-size-fits all federal vaccine contraindication guidelines … which means that 99.99 percent of children would not qualify for the medical vaccine exemption in Virginia.”

Fortunately, parents in Virginia rose up and were able to suppress the bill. But it may be only a temporary victory. Similar legislation is expected to be reintroduced next year.

Interestingly, not only does Virginia have one of the lowest vaccine exemption rates in the U.S., Virginia is also “hallowed ground where freedom of thought, conscience and religion [were] first defined as a natural right and [were] codified into American law,” Fisher notes.

Virginia’s history as a leading defender of religious and personal rights is likely one of the reasons they’re now trying to undermine personal and religious freedom in that state with the most restrictive anti-choice law of any state to date.

Lawsuit Filed to Overturn California Vaccine Requirements

Despite overwhelming opposition, California lost the personal belief exemption last year. The new law took effect on July 1.

That same day, a group of parents and the nonprofit Education 4 All filed a lawsuit to overturn the new law, which requires all children to be fully vaccinated in order to attend public or private school and/or daycare.

Parents who refuse to vaccinate their child according to the mandated schedule have only two options: they can try to get a medical exemption, which is extremely difficult and rarely obtained, or home-school their child.

Any child who previously attended school under a personal belief exemption must be fully vaccinated by kindergarten and seventh grade to be allowed to stay in school.

According to CBS News,4 the lawsuit says “the law violates the children’s right to an education as guaranteed under California’s constitution, and asks for a judge to suspend the law while the suit plays out.”

The plaintiff’s attorney, Robert T. Moxley, said the law “has made second class citizens out of children who for very compelling reasons are not vaccinated,” adding they hope to be granted an injunction “while the judicial process takes place to see if this law is constitutional, which it most certainly does not seem to be.”

Forced Vaccinations Are Unethical and Dangerous

In a recent article for congressional blog The Hill, Gretchen DuBeau, executive director for Alliance for Natural Health USA (ANH-USA), writes:5

“When health officials assure us that almost all children should receive the full schedule of vaccinations, you would think that rigorous safety testing has repeatedly proven vaccines, their ingredients and the CDC schedule to be completely safe.

The sobering truth is, however, that this safety testing has been conspicuously lacking and in many cases simply has not been done. Until these extremely serious safety concerns are adequately addressed, it is unethical — and very possibly dangerous — to force children to be vaccinated.

Take aluminum, for example, which has been added to vaccines since the 1930s to help jolt the body’s immune system into action.

Aluminum is a well-documented neurotoxin linked with Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, asthma, hyperactivity and Down’s syndrome. Despite these dangers, adequate clinical research proving aluminum adjuvants to be safe has never been done.”

Indeed, it is the lack of evidence of safety that concerns most parents who decide to delay or forgo one or more vaccinations for their children. They’re not doing it out of some misplaced desire to rebel against authority.

But rather than conducting the necessary research to settle these uncertainties, the vaccine industry has chosen to simply push for forced vaccinations instead. And why not? Forced vaccination guarantees maximum profits since there are no repercussions should their vaccines turn out to do more harm than good.

Assumptions and Comparing Apples to Oranges Are Not Good Science

DuBeau goes on to talk about how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set the limit on the amount of aluminum allowed in vaccines, saying this limit is not based on safety studies but rather on the amount required to boost vaccine effectiveness. The agency is simply assuming the current levels are safe, based on inappropriate data.

The safety level for orally ingested aluminum was set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on rat studies. However, while the EPA’s minimum risk level is used to justify aluminum adjuvants in vaccines, you really cannot compare orally ingested aluminum and intra-muscularly injected aluminum. These two routes of administration do not produce the same health effects. As noted by DuBeau:

“[I]ngesting aluminum orally, where only about 0.25 percent is absorbed and then filtered by the kidneys, is very different than injecting it directly into muscle, where it may be absorbed at nearly 100 percent efficiency over time and can accumulate in organs, including the brain.

This complete lack of evidence proving the safety of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines is unacceptable and should concern any parent who trusts health authorities with the safety of their children.”

Many Scientists Have Raised Concerns About Potential Vaccine Dangers

DuBeau takes a strong stand against California’s mandatory vaccination law (SB 277), calling it “ill-advised,” as it mandates dosing all school-aged children with a dangerous metal known to have neurological effects. She also points out that the scientific community is nowhere near as unanimous as proponents of SB 277 and other forced vaccination laws would like you to believe.

“Many doctors and researchers have raised serious concerns about vaccine ingredients like aluminum,” she writes. “Animal studies, for instance, have demonstrated a link between repeated inoculation with aluminum-containing vaccines and severe neurobehavioral outcomes … and altered expression of certain genes in the brain.

According to DuBeau, children who get all of the vaccines on the CDC’s schedule may receive as much as 4,225 micrograms of aluminum in their first year of life. “To put this in perspective,” she says, “the animals mentioned above were given an aluminum dose in a range that is nearly comparable to what children on the CDC schedule receive. This should give us all pause.”

Also consider this: the amount of aluminum injected into a newborn baby via the hepatitis B vaccine equates to an adult getting 10 doses of the vaccine in one day, when you consider the difference in weight between the two.

In order for an adult to get the same amount of aluminum per kilo of weight that a child receives at the age of 2 months, the adult would have to get 34 adult doses of the hepatitis B vaccine in one day. Does it really seem reasonable or wise to inject that hefty a dose of aluminum into a baby?

Doctor Highlights Risks and Excessive Cost of HPV Vaccine

One medical doctor raising concerns about vaccine hazards is Gary G. Kohls, who is now retired. In a recent article,6 he responds to a commentary in the News Tribune, “written and endorsed by area board-certified pediatricians, oncologists and obstetricians/gynecologists,” who promote “the universal use of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for pre-teen and teen-age girls.”

According to Kohls, “the commentary appeared to be a part of a worldwide, billion-dollar promotion campaign,” to encourage women around the world to get vaccinated, and financing this campaign is “one of the most profitable, price-gouging pharmaceutical companies in the world, Merck.”

“In 2006, after only three to five years of clinical trials, the FDA approved for marketing the most expensive vaccine in the history of the world, Gardasil, which has been proclaimed as preventative for cancer of the cervix, a claim that was never proved and which has, to date, not prevented a single case of cervical cancer … mainly because cancer of the cervix takes 20 to 50 years to develop,” he writes.

The only thing these short-term industry-funded studies showed was that the vaccine “produced transient anti-HPV immune complexes in most of the young female vaccine recipients.” They also found “modest reductions in the development of abnormal Pap smears.” However, it’s well known that 90 percent of all HPV infections clear up on their own within two years anyway, so that’s hardly a medical breakthrough.

Kohls notes that the antigens in Gardasil and GlaxoSmithKline’s version of the HPV vaccine, Cervarix, are “genetically engineered proteins that, thanks to the neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant in each dose, can cause serious autoimmune disorders and unknown levels of potentially serious mitochondrial damage.”

‘Number Needed to Treat’ Statistic Reveals Risks and Cost of HPV Vaccine Far Outweigh Alleged Benefit

The HPV vaccines are also exorbitantly priced, costing approximately $140 for three doses, plus office visit charges. According to Kohls, the News Tribune commentary bore all the hallmarks of an industry campaign, including all the standard talking points. Missing entirely was any mention of the potential downsides and risks of the HPV vaccines, and without this information, how can a parent or young woman make a fully informed decision?

Kohls goes on to discuss the statistical measure known as “Number Needed to Treat” (NNT), which is a simple way to relate the effectiveness of any given treatment. A drug’s NNT tells you how many people have to receive the drug in order for one person to benefit from it.

“For instance, the NNT for a course of penicillin for penicillin-sensitive streptococcal pharyngitis is one, meaning that one cure occurs for every one course of treatment. If a treatment results in only half of patients benefitting, the NNT is two (the inverse of the fraction 1/2). The smaller the NNT, the more beneficial the treatment,” he explains.

“An article published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) …  stated that for Gardasil, the Number Needed to Vaccinate (same principle as the NNT) to prevent four or five cases of cervical cancer for a typical 12-year-old girl would be 9,080, meaning that 9,075 girls would be risking the serious adverse health consequences of Gardasil … while still not receiving the alleged benefit, the prevention of cervical cancer.” [Emphasis mine]

Neither doctors nor patients are informed about NNT statistics, yet this can be a very important treatment consideration. In Kohl’s view, the cost of the HPV vaccine, both in terms of dollars and cents and their potential adverse health effects “come nowhere near outweighing the alleged benefit.”

It’s very unusual for a doctor to come out with such strong views. Most would do so under the threat of potentially losing their medical license. However, Kohl is retired, so he doesn’t have to fret about that possibility, which may be why he’s able to be so outspoken in the first place.

Complaint Filed Over European HPV Vaccine Assessment

Kohls is not the only one expressing concerns over the way the HPV vaccine is being pushed while risks are overlooked. On May 26, the Nordic Cochrane Center, which is part of Cochrane, an international network considered the gold standard within the evidence-based medical model for assessing the effectiveness of common medical interventions, filed a complaint with the European Medicines Agency (EMA), questioning the EMA’s 2015 Assessment Report on the safety of HPV vaccines. In the 19-page letter to the EMA, Cochrane Nordic Center writes:7

“We are concerned about the EMA’s handling of this issue as reflected in its official report and ask the EMA to assess:

1.Whether the EMA has been open and accountable to the citizens and has respected their rights to know about the uncertainties related to the safety of the HPV vaccines.

2.Whether the EMA has lived up to the professional and scientific standards that must be expected of the agency to guarantee that the administration enjoys legitimacy when evaluating the science and the data related to the safety of the HPV vaccines.

3.Whether the EMA has treated fairly — in a manner that guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy — a Danish whistleblower, Dr. Louise Brinth, when she raised concerns about possible serious harms of the HPV vaccines.

4.Whether the EMA has treated fairly … the observations and concerns the Danish Health and Medicines Authorities and the Uppsala Monitoring Centre had raised about possible serious harms of the HPV vaccines.

5.Whether the EMA’s procedures for evaluating the safety of medical interventions guarantee that the administration enjoys legitimacy. The EMA asked the manufacturers of the vaccines to assess potential harms of their own products in which they have huge financial interests.

6.Whether the extreme secrecy, with life-long confidentiality agreements, which the EMA imposed on its working group members and scientific experts, is needed; is legitimate; is in the public interest; and guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy.

7.Whether the redactions the EMA imposed on documents it delivered to the citizens according to Freedom of Information requests were needed; were legitimate; are in the public interest; and guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy.

8.Whether the EMA has behaved in a manner that guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy in relation to declaring conflicts of interest. We noticed a Guido Rasi’s name associated with patents for inventions and wonder whether this is the same person who is the EMA’s director.

If so, we believe Rasi has failed to declare his conflicts of interest. We also believe that the rapporteur for the EMA’s report, Julie Williams, has failed to declare her conflicts of interest.

9.Whether the EMA behaves in a manner that guarantees that the administration enjoys legitimacy when the agency use experts with financial ties to the manufacturers, in particular considering that it is always possible to find experts without such conflicts.

10.In the interest of transparency, we urge the EMA to ensure that the names of all the experts consulted are disclosed together with their conflict of interest declarations … “

Functional Disorders Linked to HPV Vaccine

According to Cochrane Nordic Center, the EMA ignored significant data showing there may be severe adverse events associated with the HPV vaccine, “the prominent symptoms, which are suspected of being caused by the vaccine,” bearing strong similarities to functional disorders such as:

According to the complaint, “the hypothetical mechanism is an autoimmune reaction triggered by either the active component of the vaccine or the adjuvant in the vaccine.”

Cochrane also claims the EMA’s internal 256-page report, which served as the basis for the draft of its 40-page official report, contradicts the final report. “We find that the EMA’s comments are unprofessional, misleading, inappropriate and pejorative, and that the EMA’s approach involves cherry-picking, which is unscientific,” Cochrane writes.

Cochrane also notes that the Uppsala centre compared adverse events reported following HPV vaccination and vaccination with all other vaccines given to women. Based on their findings, it would appear the HPV vaccine carries a FAR higher risk of severe side effects than any other vaccine, yet the EMA claims no conclusions could be drawn from this data:

  • POTS was reported 82 times for HPV vaccines versus once for other vaccines
  • CRPS was reported 69 times for HPV vaccines versus 16 for other vaccines
  • Autonomic nervous system imbalance was reported 77 times versus 16 for others
  • Fibromyalgia was reported 62 times for HPV versus 39 for other vaccines

FluMist Found to Be Worthless Against Influenza

In related news, The Washington Post8 recently wrote about the “mystery” of why FluMist suddenly stopped working. Until recently, the spray form of the flu vaccine was preferred over the injectable flu vaccine for children between the ages of 2 and 8. FluMIst is a live attenuated vaccine, meaning it contains a live but weakened version of the flu virus.

In June, a CDC advisory panel decided the nasal spray “was so ineffective that it should not be used by anyone during the 2016 to 2017 season,” The Washington Post reports. Data from last winter’s flu season revealed FluMist was only 3 percent effective among children aged 2 to 17. This is yet another instance where almost everyone who received the vaccine risked their health for what amounts to no potential benefit whatsoever.

According to Dr. David Kimberlin, a professor of pediatrics at The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), the reason for FluMist’s failure is still not understood. Researchers at MedImmune, the makers of FluMist, are trying to determine the cause. As noted by The Washington Post:

“In any given flu season, vaccine effectiveness varies. One factor is how well the vaccines match the virus that is actually prevalent. Other factors include the age and general health of the recipient.

In the overall population, the CDC says studies show vaccines can reduce the risk of flu by about 50 to 60 percent when the vaccines are well matched. Now, researchers are trying to find a common factor behind FluMist’s recent incidents of poor performance.”

One of the questions researchers will attempt to answer include whether the flu vaccine may lose effectiveness when given to a child who has been previously vaccinated against influenza several times.

What does all of this tell you? In my view, it speaks loud and clear to the fact that vaccine makers really don’t know as much about their product as they purport to know. Yet despite this lack of knowledge, they insist vaccines are beneficial and worth just about any risk to the individual in order to protect society at large.

Lead Gardasil developer clears conscience, admits vaccine is useless and deadly

The original reporter who covered Dr. Harper’s presentations both in 2007 and 2009 claims Dr. Harper’s statements about being able to “sleep at night” have been taken out of context. According to this reporter, Dr. Harper expressed serious concerns about Gardasil and Cervarix being mandated because of their many potential side effects, but did not actually “come clean” about the dangers and uselessness of the vaccines at these two particular events. Dr. Harper did, however, admit that it would take 60 years of vaccinating every single young girl in the U.S. to even make “an iota of difference” with regards to the cervical cancer rate, which suggests that the vaccine is, indeed, useless, just as we reported here.

Additionally, Dr. Harper’s statements as quoted by Sharyl Attkisson over at CBS News, which we also referenced in this article, substantiate Dr. Harper’s position, at least at one time, that HPV vaccines are both dangerous and useless, just as we reported here. Based on these statements made by Dr. Harper, she did, indeed, come clean about the fraud that is HPV vaccines. You can review Dr. Harper’s statements, as quoted by Sharyl Attkisson, here:

never “cleared her conscience” about the dangers of Gardasil and Cervarix, nor did she admit that either vaccine was more dangerous than the conditions they are claimed to prevent. This same reporter admits that Dr. Harper did, however, make some powerful admissions that suggest both Gardasil and Cervarix are, indeed, dangerous and not worth getting. Corrections made throughout this piece are italicized and preceded by an asterisk.

Health news

Did you know that one of the lead researchers involved with developing the two available vaccines for human papillomavirus (HPV), Gardasil (Merck & Co.) and Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline), admitted back in 2009 that the jabs are essentially useless and more dangerous than the very conditions they are hailed as preventing and treating?

Before the vaccine industry apparently convinced her to change her story — you can read more about the saga here — Dr. Diane Harper, a key developer of Gardasil, is on the record as having cleared her conscience about this fraudulent vaccine, which has been shown to be both ineffective and dangerous.

One particular quote, which was pulled up using the Way Back Machine, reveals both Gardasil and Cervarix do nothing to prevent cervical cancer, which is their primary claim to fame. A 2009 article published by CBS News, in fact, which is still available online, reveals the truth about these snake oil vaccines.

“The rate of serious adverse events (from Gardasil) is on par with the death rate of cervical cancer,” admitted Dr. Harper at that time, refuting a pro-Gardasil piece published by Slate. “Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year.”

Dr. Harper went on to admit that deaths from Gardasil have been underreported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has given the illusion that the vaccine is somehow safe. Beyond this, Dr. Harper dropped a bomb when she told reporters that the public health benefit of getting vaccinated with Gardasil “is nothing,” adding that the vaccine has led to “no reduction in cervical cancers.”

This admission by Dr. Harper rocked the conventional medical system, which has repeatedly lied to the public with claims that getting vaccinated for HPV will prevent the most common forms of cervical cancer. Because of these lies, literally millions of young girls and now boys, some as young as nine years old, have received the deadly jab since it was first introduced back in 2006.

Beyond this, Dr. Harper is on the record as having told attendees of the 4th International Public Conference on Vaccination back in 2009 that the vast majority of HPV infections resolve themselves on their own within a year, and nearly all of them within two years. She also admitted that an extremely small number of people experience symptoms from infection.

Dr. Harper suddenly retracts statements, claims they were made up

But not long after clearing her conscience on this important issue so that she could sleep at night, Dr. Harper basically retracted all of her statements, claiming that media reports citing them were made up. What? The vaccine industry or some other power apparently got to Dr. Harper and convinced her to change her story — either that or she is schizophrenic.

In any case, the truth about Gardasil and its counterpart Cervarix has been revealed, and still nothing has been done to pull the vaccine from the market. States like California and Michigan are actually administering these two vaccines to some children without parental consent, and many other states are “mandating” it for students who enroll in public school.

Meanwhile, there are many natural, homeopathic-based remedies that actually work to prevent diseases like HPV that are being ignored by the medical system.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/041644_Gardasil_vaccination_scam_HPV_vaccine.html#ixzz3w6W5GWx8

%d bloggers like this: