Posts Tagged ‘Immunizations’

The following exerts from our book VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed?  address the inextricably linked issues of vaccine ingredients and child health:

It is impossible to determine the maximum amount of a substance one child or infant can have based on the amount given to another child. We see evidence of this every day in our daily lives. Let’s take 20 kindergartners for instance. It’s the first day of school and they’re all playing together in the same classroom. Some will come home sick while others won’t. We’re not saying this is the same thing, we are merely pointing out that humans can react very differently even when exposed to the exact same environment.

There appears to be enough toxic ingredients and unknown dangers packed into the solution we’re injected with. It should be mandatory to fully inform us before we consent to be vaccinated or have our children vaccinated. Such knowledge would empower us to make more informed decisions affecting our health and our children’s health.

To keep us in the dark on these dangers and force vaccination upon everyone feels highly unethical and undemocratic. To get a closer look at forced vaccinations, we visited a website for the vaccine schedules in EU countries[402]. It appears not all the countries in the European Union feel it’s necessary to force vaccinations on their children 18 months or younger. We discovered that although all 31 countries recommend vaccinations, 20 don’t mandate any of them.

Surprisingly, some of the countries don’t recommend the varicella vaccine. Only two (Italy and Latvia) mandate all the vaccines on the list (diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepB, polio, hib, measles, mumps, rubella, varicella).

Viruses are not considered living organisms and are unable to replicate without the help of a living host. It is therefore necessary to inject the vaccine virus into living cell cultures in order for it to make copies of itself.

“Leave your drugs in the chemist’s pot if you can cure the patient with food.” Hippocrates 420 BC. (Greek phycisian)

A paper on HUB in a DPT vaccine study on SIDS reported in 1992 that, to reconfirm what we said above, those who have a predisposition for SIDS or encephalopathy would not be given the vaccine for the study. Therefore, it doesn’t represent the actual risk of the vaccine[433]. Instead, these individuals are put in the unvaccinated group, which makes this group unfairly prone to illness or death.

In a nutshell, as we understand it, the authors of the study are expressing concerns that the study design is excluding the very people who are prone to adverse effects potentially triggered or caused by the vaccine. In their concluding remarks, they state: “The fact that such biases do exist makes it difficult to demonstrate convincingly that a vaccine is not responsible for rare, severe, adverse reactions.”

The WHO published a review on several DTP vaccine studies and infant deaths. They found the studies were designed or performed in a biased and inconsistent manner[435].

Perhaps the statement that stood out the most to us in the above-mentioned study was when the authors suggested that: “All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.”[438]

Another concern is when we vaccinate against a germ it can adapt to its environment and survive by changing its appearance enough so the vaccine doesn’t recognize it anymore. This means we now have a new germ strain created by the vaccines. Another side to this coin is the fact that usually germs already have multiple strains. Vaccinating for only one or few of them gives the other strains the opportunity to take their place.

And another concern we have is, if the criteria for what constitutes the symptoms keeps changing, should not the safety studies be reviewed or redone to mirror the updated criteria?

To be continued…

 

VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? (The Underground Knowledge Series Book 8) by [Morcan, James, Morcan, Lance]

Vaccine Science Revisited  is available via  Amazon:   https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MQTN3CG/

(Book’s Amazon review rating = 4.5 out of 5 stars).

 

***********************************

Advertisements

The presence of glyphosate in vaccines is one of many concerns highlighted in our book VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed?

Excerpts from the book follow:

Since glyphosate isn’t really a vaccine ingredient, but rather a contaminant, how does it enter vaccines in the first place? Think about what vaccine viruses are grown in. The medium often consists of some type of animal source: “Contamination may come through bovine protein, bovine calf serum, bovine casein, egg protein and/or gelatin.”[344]

Of the 19 vaccines they tested, the vaccine that had the most glyphosate was the MMR II vaccine by Merck.

Both sugar beets and cow’s milk are contaminated with glyphosate. Keep this in mind when reading the ingredients of the medium (where the germ is grown). Think of yeast, for instance. The yeast needs to be living and therefore the medium is given nutrients[347] to keep it alive. These include nutrients such as galactose and glucose, or in simple terms, milk and sugar. The glucose being the sugar source and galactose is from the lactose in the milk.

The above paper says the MMR vaccine contained the most glyphosate, why is that? “This vaccine uses up to 12% hydrolysed gelatin as an excipient–stabilizer; as well as foetal bovine serum albumin, human serum albumin and residual chick embryo; all of w…

Monsanto realized that glyphosate kills bacteria, so, in 2010, they patented glyphosate as an antimicrobial[349]. The list of pathogens affected by glyphosate is very long. What needs to be considered also is the fact that bacterium that’s a pathogen in one part of the body is not necessarily a pathogen …

As a matter of fact, it has been shown that glyphosate “damages DNA and is a driver of mutations that lead to cancer.”[351]. This statement is based on using the US government GE crop data to find connections between glyphosate and 22 diseases, including stroke, diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), autism and multiple sclerosis (MS). This study also answers the question of how on earth crops can survive glyphosate while it’s killing everything else around it.

A ‘hazard assessment’ by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was released in March 2015 stating that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”[362]

Sleep is very important to human health. Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)[369], explains that in order for us to get good sleep, we need “to clear cellular debris”[370].

In her presentation, Dr. Seneff explains how the pineal gland releases melatonin. The melatonin then enters the fluid in our brain and spinal cord. Melatonin puts us in REM sleep. Without the shikimate pathway, there is no melatonin because the shikimate pathway produces the precursor for melatonin[371].

Dr. Seneff continues to explain how lack of REM sleep, together with a calcified pineal gland, has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The pineal gland makes it possible for us to clean up our cellular debris, but when it’s calcified it doesn’t function properly…

Because the pineal gland is not protected by the blood-brain barrier (BBB), it’s more vulnerable to aluminum and mercury toxicity. When aluminum accumulates inside the pineal gland, it hinders its ability to clean cellular debris.

When a chemical that’s not supposed to be there enters our body, the consequences can range from not being a big deal at all to being life threatening. Most healthy individuals are able to take care of incoming toxicity and everything works out fine or at least seems to work out fine. We don’t always connect the dots to future illnesses.

Then there are individuals who have some dysfunction in their biological makeup they may not even know about. These dysfunctions may not cause any harm until they’re exposed to certain elements or toxins.

If glyphosate is so bad for us, why do we have so many research papers saying how great it is? A paper published in 2010, states that: “[…] glyphosate is a one in a 100-year discovery that is important for reliable global food production as penicillin is for battling disease.”[376]

Did the biological agent change? Did science change? How can they both be examining the same agent and reach opposite conclusions?

This is where science gets tricky and it’s easy to manipulate theories to mold a pleasing conclusion. Wordplay can be very confusing and misleading.  The minority report from the Congressional hearing in February 2018, which can be watched online[387], explains it this way: “According to IARC, a cancer ‘hazard’ is an agent that is capable of causing cancer under some circumstances, while a cancer ‘risk’ is an estimate of the carcinogenic effects expected from exposure to a cancer hazard.”

If you’re interested in Monsanto, we highly recommend listening to the entire hearing, where the Committee on Science, Space & Technology: “[…] describes some of the tactics Monsanto has used to control the public debate about glyphosate as well as the scientific studies that have been conducted to assess its potential harm. These efforts appear aimed at corrupting and disrupting any honest, thorough and complete scientific evaluation of glyphosate and its potential adverse impact on the public’s health.”[390]

We also find it difficult to know which papers are legit, but we feel the research showing how glyphosate affects our cells on so many levels is worthy of notice. Although the argument is that glyphosate doesn’t affect human cells, through the research we did for this chapter it’s evident to us that our gut bacteria, which contains the shikimate pathway, is vital to many of our functions, especially its co-operation with our pineal gland.

To be continued…

 

VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? (The Underground Knowledge Series Book 8) by [Morcan, James, Morcan, Lance]

Vaccine Science Revisited  is available via Amazon:   https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MQTN3CG/

(Book’s Amazon review rating = 4.4 out of 5 stars).

***********************************

Research into concerns over the use of formaldehyde in vaccines is examined closely in our book VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed?

Relevant excerpts from the book relating to this vexing issue, and other issues concerning vaccine safety, follow:

When formaldehyde enters a cell, it attaches itself to the DNA strand. This can be concerning because it can cause certain genes to be turned off when we need them turned on. Once this happens it’s very difficult to reverse or turn back on[184].

Dexter French wrote a research paper on using formaldehyde in vaccines. He expressed concern about its stability: “Formaldehyde, however, owing to the very compact structure of the molecule and its high reactivity, is a particularly versatile reagent with a vast range of possible reactions.”[185]

On the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) Open Chemistry Database, it says that liquid form of FA (formalin) “is considered a hazardous compound, and its vapor toxic.”[186] It also says: “Formaldehyde is a Standardized Chemical Allergen. “Aqueous formaldehyde is corrosive to carbon steel, […]. “When liquid formaldehyde is warmed to room temp in a sealed ampule, it polymerizes rapidly with the evolution of heat […]”[187]  

Under the header Disinfectants, it defines formaldehyde as: “[…] used on inanimate objects that destroy harmful microorganisms or inhibit their activity. Disinfectants are classed as complete, destroying SPORES as well as vegetative forms of microorganisms, […]”[188]

It sounds to us like formaldehyde in liquid form can have harmful effects. We understand the dosing is the argument here, but a safe dose is not the same for every single person. And how does formaldehyde react…

Synergism Unfortunately, in vaccines, it seems the synergistic effects of the toxins have never been studied. However, other fields of study have expressed concern for toxic synergism and researched the synergistic effects it has on our bodies when exposed to multiple toxins simultaneously. As with the paper we mentioned earlier regarding accumulation of formaldehyde, this study shows synergistic effects when…

The interesting part of the study was the fact that when the mice were exposed to toxins alone or formaldehyde alone, it “had little or no effect on the mouse brain.” When the mice were co-exposed to air pollutants and formaldehyde, it “had a significant synergistic adverse effect.”[190]

The paper also states that “[t]hese safe levels for alone exposure turned into dangerous at co-exposure.”[193]

A study by the biopharmaceutical company, Pfizer, showed the impact formaldehyde and other impurities can have on the proteins used in their pharmaceutical products. The authors of this paper made note of the fact that p80 is efficient at forming formaldehyde: “Both formaldehyde and formic acid can be formed from oxidative degradation of polysorbates.”[196]

The authors don’t just concern themselves with polysorbates, of which polysorbate 80 appears most potent, they state that: “These residual impurities and contaminants can potentially impact the protein stability significantly.”[197]

In their conclusion they summarize the limitations of the manufacturing process by saying that: “Although many process-related impurities are routinely monitored, contaminants are generally not, […]. This is because the level of these contaminants in a drug product is often too low to be detected by traditional analytical methods, and does not lead to serious safety concerns.”[198] We find their comment that “it does not lead to safety concerns” after stating these “contaminants can potentially impact the protein stability significantly” rather interesting given much of the paper is about safety concerns.

So, we have known this for at least 25 years, yet when it’s put in vaccines scientists don’t bother to test it. It appears that once these substances have been added to the vaccine, the concern for toxicity magically disappears.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the potency of EtO and observed that in mammalian cells, its: “[…] effects include gene mutations, micronucleus formation, chromosomal aberrations, cell transformation, unscheduled DNA synthesis, sister chromatid exchange, and DNA strand breaks.”[234]

Sounds to us like the perfect recipe for causing cancer. And on that note, how much does vaccine research take into account long term, harmful health effects as opposed to merely childhood health risks? For example, how much research takes into account whether vaccines in childhood could cause autoimmune disorders in early adulthood, or cancer in middle-age, or Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in old age?

One cannot help but wonder about the vaccines’ role in all this. As our brain uses a lot of oxygen, it is prone to much oxidative stress. Compared to a healthy active person, the brain of an infant or an elderly person is less likely to be able to fight the stress. This can lead to such things as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease in the elderly[252].

According to our calculations, this means that a substance needs to contain 400 ppb of thimerosal to be considered hazardous waste. Compared to the 50,000 ppb thimerosal in the influenza vaccine, we can safely say that it contains more than a hundred times more thimerosal than the legal limit of a toxic waste.

It’s important to note not all flu vaccines contain thimerosal. There are flu vaccines available that are labeled “thimerosal-free”. We encourage those who decide to be vaccinated against the flu to ask which flu vaccine you’re about to receive.

We’re not sure how relevant their findings are because, as we understand it, all they are saying is that it appears the GSH is clearing out the mercury as it’s supposed to do or that the body is actively eliminating the toxin. These are healthy infants, so this is to be expected. But the paper makes no mention of the expected amount of mercury to be excreted when injected with the vaccines these infants were given.

Since they didn’t collect stool sample from the control group, in order to compare and to see if dietary sources contaminated with mercury could be a factor, they chose nine other babies (unrelated to the study) who had not been injected with thimerosal-containing vaccine. The babies in this group, which was less than half the size of the regular control group, turned out to have a “significantly lower” amount of mercury in their stool. This is only to be expected and not at all surprising. God only knows why they deviated from the study design in this manner, omitting the control group infants and picking nine other infants who were not a part of the study, is a mystery to us. They didn’t explain this.

The researchers also measured the blood half-life of ethylmercury by measuring the mercury blood levels consistently over many days. In the end they estimated the half-life to be seven days. This means that when the mercury was no longer measurable in the blood, it was assumed to be cleared out of the body.

To be continued…

 

VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? (The Underground Knowledge Series Book 8) by [Morcan, James, Morcan, Lance]

Vaccine Science Revisited  is available via Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MQTN3CG/

(Book’s Amazon review rating = 4.4 out of 5 stars).

***********************************

We devote considerable space to the use of aluminum in vaccines in our book VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? – as the following excerpts show:

A research paper on the effects of aluminum in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) from 2011 states: “Whilst being environmentally abundant, aluminum is not essential for life. On the contrary, aluminum is widely recognized neurotoxin that inhibits more than 200 biologically important functions and causes various adverse effects in plants, animals and humans.” [124]

A Dr. Thomas Jefferson[125] was “funded to investigate vaccine safety by the European Commission,”[126] and was at the time “the head of the vaccine division of the Cochrane Collaboration”[127]… In a research paper on aluminum in diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccines from 2004, Dr. Jefferson states that: “We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events…”

To help validate her argument, she continues to use Dr. Jefferson’s own words, this time from 2002 where he states that: “Most safety studies on childhood vaccines have not been conducted thoroughly enough to tell whether the jabs cause side effects. […] There is some good research, but it is overwhelmed by the bad.  The public has been let down because the proper studies have not been done.”[135]

We understand her argument and feel our notion on the studies’ lack of weight has been validated. The authors are suggesting we can actually make scientifically firm conclusions on limited data?

They also observed that the amygdala in the vaccinated monkeys didn’t mature with time as it was supposed to. The amygdala, incidentally, plays an important role in social interactions… What this means is the research showed that the social behavior of those monkeys that received the actual vaccines, where the DPN levels did not decrease, turned anti-social.

Scientists may not know exactly which parts of the vaccines our body decides to react to. Each person reacts so differently. But it seems likely there is validity in questioning vaccine safety when a concoction of substances is used to provoke our immune system.

Because each immune system is different, scientists can’t predict its reaction when presented with something foreign. Especially when the vaccine contains scientifically proven neurotoxins, such as aluminum.

When scientists use the entire germ in the vaccine, they have to kill it or weaken it substantially before putting it into the vaccine. In order to do this, they use a chemical. The most common chemical for this process is Formaldehyde (FA) or Formalin (liquid form of formaldehyde).

Many scientists have expressed concern about injecting embalming fluid into the bodies of little infants. We thought therefore we should take a closer look at the validity of this concern. In order to do this, we need to know which part of our body it affects and what formaldehyde does when directly exposed to our cells.

During our research digging we found it difficult to understand how so many scientific studies out there can be studying the exact same thing, yet their conclusions completely contradict each other. Formaldehyde studies are no exception. If each study can be replicated by a third party in the laboratory, how the results can vary so greatly?

Some health professionals are concerned about formaldehyde accumulating in the body. For example, Sherri Tenpenny, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO), who has great insight into the field of natural health, argues that by the time a child is five, they have received 1.795 mg Formaldehyde.

Dr. Tenpenny says: “Through sloppy and negligent math, lawmakers and manufacturers fail to throw up a red flag regarding the large amount of formaldehyde injected into young bodies with developing brains, neurological systems and organs.”[168]

We found a study that measured accumulated formaldehyde in the brain. Yes, apparently accumulated formaldehyde does exist. The study showed that the more it accumulates, the less there will be “cognitive abilities during human aging”[175]. The more severe the dementia in Alzheimer’s disease patients, the higher the formaldehyde accumulation[176].

Something else the authors of that study observed was when we age, the “accumulation of formaldehyde” prevents “new formation of spatial memory (i.e., learning difficulty)” [177].

Another observation was that in late stage Alzheimer’s disease there’s “chronic accumulation of hippocampal formaldehyde” which “induces loss of remote memory.” What caught our attention was the paper listed a correlation between the presence of both mercury and formaldehyde (as an environmental factor)[178].

This study was not done on children, but on adults with Alzheimer’s disease. We wonder if there’s any type of defect in our ability to clear formaldehyde out of the body and that somehow renders the aforementioned short half-life to be irrelevant? Can this formaldehyde accumulation start as early as with the administration of childhood…

To be continued…

 

VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? (The Underground Knowledge Series Book 8) by [Morcan, James, Morcan, Lance]

Vaccine Science Revisited  is available via Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MQTN3CG/

(Book’s average Amazon review rating = 4.4 out of 5 stars).

 

***********************************

Further to our last blog, here’s more quotes (below) from our recent release book VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? 

We rely almost entirely on our mother’s antibodies until we are about six months old, which is when we slowly start developing a more complex immune system. As a baby starts building its own immunity, the mother’s antibodies disappear from the baby’s body.

Something we weren’t quite able to figure out was why babies receive so many vaccines before they start creating their own antibodies. A vaccine is meant to encourage the body to create antibodies against it.  We can see how vaccinating an infant that’s not good at creating its own antibodies yet, would only have limited protective effects.

We also wondered whether the vaccine would therefore have a different effect on the infant than it would on a child with a fully developed immune system. Although we came up short on some of these concerns, we were able to get some answers we’ll share with you in this book.

Given the way vaccinations are presented to our system, it seems to us there may be other factors than antibody concentration to consider. We found an interesting older study in The Lancet that tested individuals who were unable to produce their own antibodies[93]. When these individuals came down with measles, they showed all the natural signs and symptoms of natural disease. After the course of the illness, they became immune to measles. The scientists conducting this study had blood drawn from these patients and tested it for antibody levels. There were no antibodies for measles in the blood (serum) samples.  This goes to show that the immune system can create immunity against a disease without producing antibodies. And this means the immunity had nothing to do with Th2 cells or B cells, which are a part of the acquired (adaptive) immunity.

The immune system needs to be artificially triggered and tricked into attacking these useless invaders. As a solution to this problem, scientists came up with the idea of attaching a substance to the vaccine antigen that would trigger B cells to produce antibodies. This substance is called an adjuvant.

Up until the early 2000s, mercury was often used as an adjuvant. As a result of some severe consequences and pressure from concerned citizens, mercury was eliminated from most vaccines.

The scientists knew the vaccine still needed an adjuvant if it was going to elicit an immune response. So, they added al…

This raised two important questions for us: How many antigens are there in a vaccine; and when injecting multiple vaccines simultaneously, could this accumulation of adjuvants be more harmful – especially for infants?

Keep in mind, it isn’t natural for the body to be exposed to a variety of diseases all at the same time, especially all bypassing the innate immune system (first responders). And yet how many times have you heard of children being naturally sick with multiple childhood diseases all at the same time?

One of those popular, across-the-board-ingredients, as long as it is not a live/attenuated vaccine, is the aluminum (Al) adjuvant.

Aluminum is a neurotoxin and the most commonly used adjuvant today. It comes in the form of salts or gels. It irritates our immune system, causing it to attack the invading germ or antigen it’s attached to.

It’s very important the person being vaccinated has healthy kidneys as they are a vital part of eliminating aluminum (Al) from the blood.

“Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications […].”[109]

We noticed when researching narrow subjects, it’s often the same authors involved in much of the research. This is unfortunate, as it would be great to have reliable data from various authors.

“The literature demonstrates clearly negative impacts of aluminum on the nervous system across the age span.”[110]

Other aluminum-associated disorders include lupus, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), arthritis, Hashimoto’s, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and many others. We investigate some of them in more depth in future chapters.

There is enough aluminum in the vaccine to aggravate our immune system to the point it tricks our cells into thinking we have a living germ invading our body. In fact, the body starts attacking the dead or dissected germ. Yet, somehow, the aluminum is not strong enough to damage our cells?

Protecting our brain from foreign substances is the blood-brain barrier (BBB). This barrier protects our brain and spinal cord. Apart from problems resulting from an immature, aged or diseased blood-brain barrier, there are many toxins that can damage it – aluminum and mercury included.

When reviewing multiple papers on the same topic, we have noticed it’s quite common to find inconsistencies in the observations recorded. Research that should be reproducible and therefore consistent regardless of which scientists are performing it, appears to diminish the closer we look.

To be continued

 

VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? (The Underground Knowledge Series Book 8) by [Morcan, James, Morcan, Lance]

Vaccine Science Revisited  is available via Amazon:  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MQTN3CG/

****************************************

“Again though, it’s also nearly impossible to distinguish between fake data and true data. So in the end, it’s difficult to know which scientific authors or papers to trust when researching immunization studies. To combat this, James and Lance have searched for consistency using papers from multiple authors in order to uncover true or accurate data.”

That’s one of my favorite quotes from our book VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? – lifted from the book’s Foreword, which was penned by US medical laboratory scientist Elísabet Norris.

 

VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? (The Underground Knowledge Series Book 8) by [Morcan, James, Morcan, Lance]

 

Other quotes from the book follow:

Focusing on our cellular levels is so important in this field of research because cells cover our entire body. So rather than narrowing our perspective solely to damage within one location of the body, we obtain a broader, more holistic view by studying the influence of vaccine ingredients on cells. It becomes clear when reading this book that what happens in one part of the body has consequences on other parts of the body as well.

A lifetime’s interest in health combined with our previous investigations into the medical sector, or sectors, had taught us that nature often finds ways to take care of itself, the human body included. We realized early on in our research there was a real concern about introducing the body to toxins it has never had to deal with before. Toxins that enter the body unnaturally and bypass our natural defense system.

…after we started reading the package inserts for each vaccine, we realized that all the inserts come with warnings on who should not be given vaccines. Check these package inserts out. They make for very interesting reading.

It’s an unfortunate truth that modern science, like mainstream medicine, has been shown to be corrupt at times, or unconsciously biased at other times, and is often fallible.

One good piece of advice we received from our medical advisory team was that after we found any research papers that met the qualifying criteria, we couldn’t just read the abstract or the conclusion. This, our experts informed us, was the problem for many health professionals. They simply don’t have the time to read the research, so they make do with the abstract or sometimes just the study’s conclusion. This forced us to read through entire research papers.

The vaccine types can be organized into four categories: live/attenuated (weakened) vaccines, inactivated/killed vaccines, toxoid vaccines and subunit/conjugate vaccines[66].

Vaccines that are manufactured this way are the rotavirus, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), smallpox and chickenpox vaccines.

Technically, a virus is not a living thing, yet we consider them (viruses) living in terms of vaccines. Because virus is not alive, it can’t replicate on its own. So, in order to produce live viral vaccines, living cells are needed in order to do the replication for it.

Since we’re not really aware these viruses exist, we don’t know how they will affect the human body when injected, nor do we know how to test for them. These unintended viruses are often called passenger viruses.

The concern scientists had regarding passenger viruses was not unfounded. You may recall the disastrous SV40 monkey virus which contaminated the polio vaccines. There are scientists who claim this virus is the cause of multiple human cancers. On CDC’s website a page on vaccine safety, which was suddenly removed (archived copies exist), states that: “SV40 virus has been found in certain types of cancer in humans, but it has not been determined that SV40 causes these cancers.”[84]

The concern arises when these materials become a danger to our body, which becomes overwhelmed from being bombarded with toxins and protein particles. This attack is, for some children, too much to handle, and they suffer permanent ill health or lose the fight to live.

We understand that even before vaccinations, diseases killed huge numbers of people all over the world. As we mentioned at the end of the first chapter, when populations grew and people started living closer together, germs had more opportunities to spread amongst humans, especially where sanitation was a major problem. So, it makes us wonder if with improved living conditions would these diseases have been such a big issue? Did scientists become too focused on being a part of the medical revolution to see that perhaps the real solution lies in improving our environment?

 

To be continued

 

Vaccine Science Revisited  is available via Amazon:  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MQTN3CG/  

 

****************************************

When we began researching our book Vaccine Science Revisited: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed?  we weren’t quite able to figure out why babies receive so many vaccines before they start creating their own antibodies. We also wondered whether a vaccine would have a different effect on an infant than it would on a child with a fully developed immune system. Although we came up short on some of these concerns, we were able to get some answers, which we share with readers.

Interested? Here’s an excerpt from the book:

 

The helper cell 

“The best advisers, helpers and friends, always are not those who tell us how to act in special cases, but who give us, out of themselves, the ardent spirit and desire to act right, and leave us then, even through many blunders, to find out what our own form of right action is.”Phillips Brooks (American clergyman and preacher).

When a woman is pregnant, she carries a fetus which has its own sets of cells, its own DNA. It is its own individual being, which presents a problem for the immune system as it is designed to attack whatever is foreign in the body. This is an issue humans have dealt with since the beginning of time. 

Nature has forced the female body to adapt and accept new life growing within. The body has had a long time to evolve and improve. Long enough that it now has the mechanisms in place to deal with the conundrum of new life smoothly. Nature itself has prepared the female body to allow a foreign entity to grow inside it. 

In order to protect itself, the body uses many types of immune cells. One type is something called T-helper (Th or helper) cells. We have many different kinds of helper cells and their functions are distinguished by adding numbers to their names. 

The most significant Th cells in relation to this book are the Th1 and Th2 cells. The main function of a Th1 cell is to help destroy our cells already infected by germs. The Th2 cells balance this out by helping destroy the germs outside the cells before they get the chance to attack them. This creates a Th1/Th2 cell balance. In other words, Th1 cells recognize your infected cells and help kill them before they produce other corrupted cells. 
The Th2 cells recognize the free-floating germs and help create antibodies against them. 

In the case of the fetus, the Th1 cells are the problem. These cells believe the fetal cells are corrupt, so they signal an attack to destroy them. Since life has continued on this planet for who knows how long, it’s apparent that nature has taught the body to bypass this fetal destruction. The body’s immune system restructures its purpose in order to protect the fetus. It does this by suppressing the production of Th1 cells until after birth . This way, the body doesn’t have enough Th1 cells to attack what it believes to be corrupted cells. 

This means the Th1/Th2 balance is interrupted and the future mother now has tipped the scales towards Th2 cells. This also means the mother has mostly Th2 cells and very little Th1 cells available to share with the fetus. 
Therefore, the placenta transfers almost entirely Th2 cells to the fetus. 

It should come as no surprise that when we are born our immune system consists almost completely of Th2 cells. It’s not until the baby is exposed to the outside environment that Th1 cells become stimulated and start multiplying until they become a balanced part of the immune system again. 

We rely almost entirely on our mother’s antibodies until we are about six months old, which is when we slowly start developing a more complex immune system. As a baby starts building its own immunity, the mother’s antibodies disappear from the baby’s body. 

Something we weren’t quite able to figure out was why babies receive so many vaccines before they start creating their own antibodies. A vaccine is meant to encourage the body to create antibodies against it. We can see how vaccinating an infant that’s not good at creating its own antibodies yet, would only have limited protective effects. We also wondered whether the vaccine would therefore have a different effect on the infant than it would on a child with a fully developed immune system. Although we came up short on some of these concerns, we were able to get some answers we’ll share with you in this book.

Hunt, eat and destroy

The first line of defense is the surface of our skin. The average skin pH is 4.7, which is acidic and ideal for our normal skin flora . Another acidic location is our gut. Those of you who are gardeners will likely know how difficult it can be to grow plants in an acidic environment. It’s the same with germs. Many germs don’t survive being in contact with such acidic environment. 

If the skin is compromised in any way, an open cut for instance, it will allow germs to make their way inside. This is where the germs meet our macrophages (i.e. phagocytes). They are called phagocytes because they eat everything foreign (phago = eat, cyte = cell). They are the first ones to the scene and will grab hold of the invaders then devour and destroy them. They don’t distinguish between the foreign particles. They don’t care what it is, as long as it’s foreign. The macrophages then gather genetic information about the invader and bring it to the lymph nodes where the T cells and B cells hang out. 

A quick recap: The T cells in question are the Th1 and Th2 cells. Th1 cells help destroy the infected cells and the Th2 cells help B cells make antibodies to inactivate the germs floating around outside our cells. 

We never forget

As we just mentioned, B cells and Th2 cells work together in antibody production.

Some B cells go by the name of memory cells because they remember information about the invader for the rest of our lives (or close thereto). This means that when the same invader attacks again, the memory B cells are alerted much quicker. The B cells carrying the information begin cloning themselves and start spitting out antibodies at a much faster rate. 

It will not pass

In nature, a germ is introduced to the body via the mucosal route such as the eye, nose or throat. When antigens (foreign invaders) enter the body naturally, the first defenders, which are a part of the innate immune system, respond instantaneously. 

Vaccines are designed to skip the first responders (innate immunity) and go straight for the antibody producing responders (acquired immunity). 

What’s worth noting is if a vaccine manufacturer states that its vaccine elicits T cell response, it doesn’t necessarily mean the vaccine elicits response from all types of T cells. This is because there are different types of T cells. 

We have explained that Th1 and Th2 are promoting an action and not actually performing the task itself. Hence the name helper cell. 
Like the Th1 cells. When we look at their function a little closer, their job is to relay instructions that tell Killer-T cells what to do. 
The Killer-T cells receive the instructions, multiply themselves until they are an army carrying the same instructions and then they go kill the corrupted cells they were instructed to kill. 

Once the Killer-T cells have destroyed corrupted cells, the macrophages come over to clean up the mess. The same goes for the Th2 cells. They carry instructions for the B-cells. After receiving instructions, the B cells will multiply until they are an army of cells carrying the same instructions. 

What good is a titer?

The way physicians check to make sure your body has become properly immunized against a specific disease is to send you to the lab for a blood draw. Then your blood will be tested for the presence of the antibodies against specific antigens. A quick reminder, B cells produce antibodies. 

When checking for vaccine immunity, the antibodies are often measured in titers. When we learned how vaccine immunity is measured in titers, we knew it was measuring the activity of Th2 cells and the B cells. What was completely missing was the activity performed by the Th1 cells and the Killer-T cells. 

Given the way vaccinations are presented to our system, it seems to us there may be other factors than antibody concentration to consider. We found an interesting older study in The Lancet that tested individuals who were unable to produce their own antibodies . When these individuals came down with measles, they showed all the natural signs and symptoms of natural disease. After the course of the illness, they became immune to measles. 

The scientists conducting this study had blood drawn from these patients and tested it for antibody levels. There were no antibodies for measles in the blood (serum) samples. This goes to show that the immune system can create immunity against a disease without producing antibodies. And this means the immunity had nothing to do with Th2 cells or B cells, which are a part of the acquired (adaptive) immunity. 

This study could be an example of the great importance of our first responders, the innate immune response, which reacts to the initial exposure of a disease. Our innate immune system is nonspecific, it attacks anything foreign. Our acquired immunity, the one that produces antibodies, the one lacking in the individuals in above study, consists of cells which only attack what they’re instructed to attack. 

The adjuvant rejuvenant

Most vaccines contain either inactivated germs or portions germs – an antigen nonetheless. If it were to be injected into the body all by itself, nothing would happen. It would just float uselessly around and the body wouldn’t view it a threat. 

The immune system needs to be artificially triggered and tricked into attacking these useless invaders. As a solution to this problem, scientists came up with the idea of attaching a substance to the vaccine antigen that would trigger B cells to produce antibodies. This substance is called an adjuvant.

Up until the early 2000s, mercury was often used as an adjuvant. As a result of some severe consequences and pressure from concerned citizens, mercury was eliminated from most vaccines. 

The scientists knew the vaccine still needed an adjuvant if it was going to elicit an immune response. So, they added aluminum (Al) instead to do the job. 

An adjuvant is designed to shock the B cells (and Th2 cells) into antibody production. Each vaccine antigen is coated with an adjuvant. 

This raised two important questions for us: How many antigens are there in a vaccine; and when injecting multiple vaccines simultaneously, could this accumulation of adjuvants be more harmful – especially for infants? 

Unfortunately, there are far too many antigens in a vaccine to be counted. 

When adjuvants trigger antibody production for multiple antigens, the B cells are instructed to produce a wide variety and magnitude of antibodies. Keep in mind, it isn’t natural for the body to be exposed to a variety of diseases all at the same time, especially all bypassing the innate immune system (first responders). And yet how many times have you heard of children being naturally sick with multiple childhood diseases all at the same time? 

The CDC’s recommended childhood vaccine schedule recommends 69 shots up until age 18. This is not 69 different diseases. As you may recall, some vaccines require booster shots, so this count includes each booster as well. Some of these will be combined in the same vaccine. For example, measles, mumps & rubella (MMR) would be considered three shots as would diphtheria, tetanus & acellular pertussis (DTaP). 

If the foreign antigens are too numerous and overpower the immune system, they will have the opportunity to run wild, and multiply within the body and vandalize it. Whatever the body is unable to eliminate stays there. 

Once the vaccine ingredients are inside the body, is the body able to take care of them? Are they being excreted or are they accumulating? If they are accumulating, where are they, where are they going and are they causing damage? We hope to satisfactorily answer these questions and more in the coming chapters.

References for Chapter 8: The helper cell:

Sykes, L., MacIntyre, D. A., Yap, X. J., Ponnampalam, S., Teoh, T. G., & Bennett, P. R. (2012). Changes in the Th1:Th2 cytokine bias in pregnancy and the effects of the anti-inflammatory cyclopentenone prostaglandin 15-deoxy-Δ(12,14)-prostaglandin J2. Mediators of inflammation, 2012, 416739.
Lambers H., Piessens, S., Bloem, A., Pronk, H., and Finkel, P. (2006). Natural skin surface pH is on average below 5, which is beneficial for its resident flora.” International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 28(5), 359-370. 
Burnet F.M. (1968). Measles as an Index of Immunological Function. The Lancet, 292(7568), 610-613. 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018, May 14). Recommended Immunization Schedule for Children and Adolescents Aged 18 Years or Younger, United States, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedule…
Center for Disease Control. (n.d.). Recommended Immunization Schedule for 
Children and Adolescents Aged 18 Years or Younger, UNITED STATES, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedule…

VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? (The Underground Knowledge Series Book 8) by [Morcan, James, Morcan, Lance]

Vaccine Science Revisited is available via Amazon:  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MQTN3CG/

 

****************************************