Posts Tagged ‘Immunology’

Quotations from new release book ‘Vaccine Science Revisited’

Posted: June 3, 2019 in Vaccine Science Revisited
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

“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/  

 

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

The helper cell – Excerpt from ‘Vaccine Science Revisited’

Posted: March 28, 2019 in Vaccine Science Revisited
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
0

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/

 

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

 

 

New release childhood vaccine safety book now No. 1 Amazon Bestseller in Emergency Pediatrics category

Posted: March 25, 2019 in Vaccine Science Revisited
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

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

Amazon No.1 bestseller.

 

“Easily the most comprehensive work I have read on the subject of vaccine safety. This book is truly a masterpiece!” -Amazon Reviews

“Thought-provoking and very readable (with) 740 references with hyperlinks to the original papers.” -Pro-vaccine author and mom Lee Murray

“Possibly the most well-referenced work yet to explore this contentious healthcare subject.” –Medical Laboratory Scientist Elísabet Norris (B.S.)

“Essential book for any Medical Professional and/or parent trying to navigate the confusing world of childhood vaccines.” -Ila in Maine

 

To see all Amazon reviews for VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed?  go to: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MQTN3CG/

 

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

Altered germs – Excerpt from Vaccine Science Revisited book

Posted: March 14, 2019 in Vaccine Science Revisited
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
0

In the following excerpt from our bestselling, new release book, VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed?, we highlight germs and different types of vaccines. You’ll see we discovered the differences between some vaccine types doesn’t seem to be clearly understood by many we’ve come across in the medical field.

 

“Without laboratories men of science are soldiers without arms.” -Louis Pasteur (French biologist)

 

Some inactivated vaccines use the entire germ, while others use disease-causing portions of the germ. In vaccines containing the whole germ, scientists will inactivate or kill the germ in order to prevent viral replication. They do this by using chemicals. A chemical that’s very good at this job is formaldehyde (FA) or formalin (liquid form of FA).

Even though the germ is killed and can no longer replicate, it’s still whole, so our immune system is able to recognize it and attack it.

Unfortunately, the killed germ doesn’t keep our body immune as long as a living germ will, so we need to get booster shots every so often to keep the immune response up. Examples of vaccines using killed germs are Hepatitis A and polio (shot).

Inactivated toxins (toxoids) vaccine

When the disease is caused by bacteria, it’s often not the actual bacteria itself causing the sickness, but rather a toxic component of the bacteria. The goal of this vaccine is to inactivate the toxic component (toxoid), so it can be injected into our body without harming it. Toxoids are not quite the same as toxins. Toxins are the pure product of the bacteria and toxoids are the toxins after they have been chemically altered or inactivated in the lab.

Examples of toxoid vaccines are diphtheria and tetanus.

Subunit/conjugate/recombinant vaccine

The differences between these types of vaccines (subunit/conjugate/recombinant) doesn’t seem to be clearly understood by many we’ve come across in the medical field.

Subunit vaccines use only portions of the germ or as the NIH website explains it, they “include only the antigens that best stimulate the immune system.”

The conjugate vaccines, on the other hand, use only the bacterial sugar coat in order to “disguise a bacterium’s antigens so that the immature immune systems of infants and younger children can’t recognize or respond to them.” The coating also contains the information that makes us sick.

But this is not an actual germ, so if it is just injected into the body by itself, we won’t recognize how dangerous the coating is. To solve this problem, the scientists attach it to a toxic molecule that will stir up our immune system. In order to attach the coating to the toxin, they need other chemicals to finish the job. By using a chemical, the coating material attaches to a carrier protein. Examples of these types of vaccines are the Hib, HPV, pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines.

The recombinant vaccines, use carriers or vectors “to introduce microbial DNA to cells of the body.” These carriers/vectors are weakened viruses or bacteria, meaning they mix and match DNA from different sources into one germ or cell.

There are different ways to produce these vaccines. One way is to isolate a specific piece from a germ and use it in the vaccine. Another way is via genetic engineering. Here the germ is inserted into plasmid that has been manipulated by scientists. This type of plasmid is circular segments of DNA extracted from bacteria to serve as a vector. Scientists can add multiple genes and whatever genes they want into this plasmid. In case of vaccines, this includes a genetic piece of the vaccine germ and normally a gene for antibiotic resistance.

This means that when the toxic gene is cultured inside the yeast, it has been designed with a new genetic code that makes it resistant to the antibiotic it’s coded for.

The gene-plasmid combo is inserted into a yeast cell to be replicated. When the yeast replicates, the DNA from the plasmid is reproduced as a part of the yeast DNA. Once enough cells have been replicated, the genetic material in the new and improved yeast cell is extracted and put into the vaccine. Examples of this vaccine are the acellular pertussis and hepatitis B vaccines.

One thing that doesn’t seem to concern scientists is the fact that the manmade genetic combination becomes the vaccine component. This mixture of intended and unintended genetic information may cause our immune system to overreact. This can be especially complicated for a child with compromised immune system.

Another concern is that this new genetic code can become integrated with our own genetic material. Yeast, for instance, is very much like human DNA. It shares about one third of our proteins.

What have they done?

Here you have substances that are designed to aggravate the immune system towards an attack. So, that’s what it does. Our immune system launches an attack on the invader. Sometimes the invader, like yeast, has many of the same protein codes as us. Our immune system downloads these protein codes and labels them as enemies. It signals a full-on attack on everything with that code in our body. Unfortunately, when the codes are similar, we don’t always know how to distinguish between vaccine proteins and our own proteins.

Trace elements

Trace components that end up in the final product and become a part of the vaccine are usually left-over elements from the manufacturing process.

These components were added during production in order to either keep cells alive or kill them or keep them free from contamination or to alter genetic materials during production. Other components are added to stir up our immune system to respond to the vaccine. As you perhaps can see, the materials scientists purposely add to the vaccine-making process serve the purpose of keeping us as safe as possible.

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.

What is it exactly that ends up in the vaccines our children are given, and what happens when these vaccines enter their bodies? We attempt to answer these questions in the next chapter.

 

References for Chapter 6: Altered germs:

World Health Organization. (n.d.) Module 2: Types of Vaccine and Adverse Reactions. Retrieved from https://vaccine-safety-training.org/s…

 

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

Amazon #1 Bestseller in Emergency Pediatrics: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MQTN3CG/

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

Book highlights Alzheimer’s, autism and aluminum

Posted: March 12, 2019 in Vaccine Science Revisited
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
0

In the following excerpt from VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed?, we discuss Alzheimer’s disease, autism and aluminum.

“Memory is all we are. Moments and feelings, captured in amber, strung on filaments of reason. Take a man’s memories and you take all of him. Chip away a memory at a time and you destroy him as surely as if you hammered nail after nail through his skull.” -Mark Lawrence (King of Thorns)

 

We would also like to touch on the subject of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) even though this does not affect children. We do believe it has some correlation to childhood diseases. The common denominator appears to be aluminum (Al) and other metals.

As you may recall, aluminum can be much more toxic once it’s injected into the body. But as with so much else, we have to count on research that does not involve injections. Instead, we have to keep in mind the fact that being injected may potentially have greater adverse effects than what was observed in the studies.

Authors of one such study published in 2009 explain that we are exposed to aluminum “through air, food and water.” They connect damage by free radicals and changes in neurological behavior to the impact aluminum has on the brain.

The authors also explain:

“However, there is no known physiological role for aluminium within the body and hence this metal may produce adverse physiological effects. Chronic exposure of animals to aluminium is associated with behavioural, neuropathological and neurochemical changes. Among them, deficits of learning and behavioural functions are most evident.”

Authors of a paper published in 2014, explain:

“[…] Alzheimer’s disease is a manifestation of chronic Al neurotoxicity in humans. Because Al is similar to iron, it gains access to iron-dependent cells involved in memory.”

The authors continue by explaining that:

“[…] Al in human beings implicates Al toxicants as causally involved in Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), Alzheimer’s disease and autism spectrum disorders.”

This sparked a question in our minds: Is Alzheimer’s disease (AD) the same as autism?

It appears to us that the difference between the two is with autism, everything happens a lot faster, while AD is a slower process and therefore occurs later in life. We are not so naïve as to believe this is the only difference. We are just curious whether there could be something to it.

Brain struggles

The incidence of autism around the globe is exploding. In 2014, an estimated 1% of the world’s population had autism. That means more than 70,000,000 human beings were, and many no doubt still are, struggling to function with a damaged brain as a consequence of this disease.

The reports in from individual countries indicate the alarming scope of the problem.

According to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) an announcement posted April 2017 on its website states: “[i]t is estimated that worldwide 1 in 160 children has an ASD.” Our concern with gathering worldwide data into one statistic is the fact that we don’t know the various methodologies used for each country. In US alone, there are three different survey methods used (mentioned below) and they all derive data differently.

That being said, we would still like to see what the ASD prevalence data is in countries other than the US. The website Focus for Health has posted autism diagnosis for 18 different countries, including US with data from 2015, which shows one in 45 children with autism.

The website derived their data from each individual country and they link references to each. The most recent data is from Germany, Ireland, Hong Kong and Singapore from 2016 and 2017. Here it shows Germany with one in 263 children with autism diagnoses, Singapore with one in 149, Ireland with one in 65 and Hong Kong with one in 27.

In November 2015 the National Health Statistics Reports released by the US Department of Health and Human Services published a questionnaire to assess whether the autism spike was a true incidence spike. They have been conducting National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS) since 1997, which include:

“[…] questions to determine the prevalence of children ever diagnosed with the developmental disabilities of ASD, intellectual disability (ID), and any other developmental delay (other DD).”

This questionnaire remained unchanged until 2014 when NHIS made some adjustment by adding more detailed analysis of ASD. In their report they show two other survey systems: Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network (ADDM), and National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH). The researchers feel strongly about the NHIS’s approach being the best of the three:

“NHIS represents the most in-depth health survey, with more than 12,000 sample-child interviews completed annually about health conditions, functional limitations, and health care access and utilizations. In-person interviews and strong response rates make NHIS the principal source of information on health of the noninstitutionalized population of the United States.”

It’s difficult to compare the three systems as they vary so much in the way they collect data. As described in the above quote, the NHIS surveys more than 12,000 children age three to 17 annually. The survey published in 2015 showed that “22.4 per 1,000 children” were diagnosed with ASD. That’s 2.4% of all children in US age three to 17.

This may not seem like a high percentage, but let’s say you have 5,000 children in your school district, 112 of them would have autism.

The reports show that in 2014 the autism rate nearly doubled from what it was from 2011-2013. As mentioned above, they contributed this to the more detailed description of ASD (i.e. inclusion of Asperger’s disorder). Nonetheless, it doesn’t explain the worldwide statistics.

The Survey shown for ADDM is from 2010 and covers 360,000 eight-year-old children. The data was collected by “[e]xpert clinicians review medical and education records and apply surveillance case definition” . This survey showed an ASD prevalence of “14.7 per 1,000 children”. The difference here is the data was collected from health professionals and therefore included children not officially diagnosed with ASD (~20% of survey subjects). Both NHIS and ADDM were funded by the CDC.

The last survey mentioned is the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) conducted by phone in 2011-2012. It highlighted “[p]aren’t-reported survey responses about current autism spectrum disorder diagnosis”. NSCH reached over 95,000 children aged six to 17 throughout the US. According to their data set, the autism prevalence in this age group was “20,0 per 1,000 children.” This survey was funded by Human Resources & Services Administration (HRSA).

More recent data from NSCH was published in the journal Pediatrics in November 2018. Using the same methods as described above, this study reached the carers of 43,283 children aged between three and 17. It showed by 2016 there was an ASD prevalence of “2.50 per 100 children” This means that an “estimated prevalence of US children with parent-reported ASD diagnosis is now 1 in 40” .

According to the CDC’s website, ADDM data revealed one in 59 children had been diagnosed with autism by 2014. With the steady increase in autism each year, NSCH’s new data showing one in 40 children are being diagnosed with autism today doesn’t seem so far-fetched.

Regardless, it’s safe to say that ASD is on the rise and becoming more prevalent than ever before.

Another disease that perhaps not many have heard of is Pink Acrodonia, often referred to as the Pink disease. Caused by mercury in teething powder, this disease seems to have disappeared after the 1950s. The reason we mention Pink Acrodonia is because it has all the hallmarks and behaviors of an autistic child from head banging to a disconnect with other people.

A study was done on the grandchildren of those who survived pink disease to see if there were genetic factors involved. They found that one out 22 pink disease survivors had grandchildren with ASD, while one out 160 from the general population had grandchildren with ASD.

Other than autism

We also found a paper that looks at the causal effect between vaccines, the immune system and brain development. The authors of that study appear to feel vaccines are important and do not seem to support the link between MMR and autism. They state directly that “this association has been convincingly disproven.”

Even so, they feel there are other disorders worth a second look. These include obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD, anorexia nervosa (AN), “tic disorder, anxiety disorder, ADHD, major depressive disorder, and bipolar disorder”.

The study looks at correlation between these disorders and various vaccines. Among these vaccines were vaccines for “tetanus and diphtheria (TD), hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningitis, and varicella”.

At the end of paper, they state:

“[…] preliminary epidemiologic evidence that the onset of some pediatric-onset neuropsychiatric disorders, including AN, OCD, anxiety disorders, and tic disorders, may be temporally related to prior vaccinations.”

The authors also stress that this is not proof of causal relationship. Whether they and others of the same viewpoint are right or wrong, the results from the study done on grandchildren of pink disease victims could hold the underlying answer.

Our body has an innate ability to edit its DNA codes. This also means that when it is exposed to toxins, the editing process can be distorted and cause errors which become imbedded into the DNA. These errors are then passed on to offspring and render them more susceptible to toxic injuries or other disadvantages the errors may cause.

The connection between the pink disease and autism brings to the fore something that has been brewing in the back of our minds for a while. It’s something we haven’t addressed yet, but feel strongly it deserves at least a passing mention before we end this book.

We refer to the topic covered in the next and our last chapter: DNA epigenetics.

 

References for Chapter 45: Alzheimer’s and aluminum:

Kumar, V. and Gill, K.D. (2009). Aluminium neurotoxicity: neurobehavioural and oxidative aspects. Arch Toxicol, 83(11), 965-978.

Shaw, C., Seneff, S., Kette, S.D., Tomljenovic, L., Oller Jr. J.W., and Davidson, R.M. (2014). Aluminum-Induced Entropy in Biological Systems: Implications for Neurological Disease. Journal of Toxicology, 2014, 491316

Ibid.

World Health Organization. (2017, April 4). Autism spectrum disorders. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-…

Focus for Health (2017, August 28). Autism Rates across the Developed World. Retrieved from https://www.focusforhealth.org/autism…

Zablotsky, B., Black, L.I, Maenner, M.J., Schieve, L.A., and Blumberg, S.J. (2015). Estimated Prevalence of Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities Following Questionnaire Changes in the 2014 National Health Interview Survey. National Health Statistics Report, 87, 1-20

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Kogan, M.D., Vladutiu, C.J., Schieve, L.A., Ghandour, R.M., Blumberg, S.J., Zablotsky, B., … Lu, M.C. (2018). The Prevalence of Parent-Reported Autism Spectrum Disorder Among US Children. Pediatrics, 142(6)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018, November 15). Autism Spectrum Disorder (ACD). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/dat…

Shandley, K., & Austin, D. W. (2011). Ancestry of pink disease (infantile acrodynia) identified as a risk factor for autism spectrum disorders. Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part A, 74(18), 1185-1194.

Leslie, D. L., Kobre, R. A., Richmand, B. J., Aktan Guloksuz, S., & Leckman, J. F. (2017). Temporal Association of Certain Neuropsychiatric Disorders Following Vaccination of Children and Adolescents: A Pilot Case-Control Study. Frontiers in psychiatry, 8, 3. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00003

Ibid.

 

You have been reading an excerpt from VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MQTN3CG/

 

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

 

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

Book highlights ‘a vaccine component that can be especially complicated’ for a child with compromised immune system

Posted: February 28, 2019 in Vaccine Science Revisited
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

In researching VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed?, we discovered the differences between subunit, conjugate and recombinant vaccines don’t seem to be clearly understood by many we’ve come across in the medical field.

In an early chapter titled ‘Altered Germs’ we advise readers that “subunit vaccines use only portions of the germ or as the NIH website explains it, they ‘include only the antigens that best stimulate the immune system’.”

An excerpt from the chapter follows. (Research paper link numbers retained):

The conjugate vaccines, on the other hand, use only the bacterial sugar coat in order to “disguise a bacterium’s antigens so that the immature immune systems of infants and younger children can’t recognize or respond to them.”2 The coating also contains the information that makes us sick.

But this is not an actual germ, so if it is just injected into the body by itself, we won’t recognize how dangerous the coating is. To solve this problem, the scientists attach it to a toxic molecule that will stir up our immune system. In order to attach the coating to the toxin, they need other chemicals to finish the job. By using a chemical, the coating material attaches to a carrier protein. Examples of these types of vaccines are the Hib, HPV, pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines.

The recombinant vaccines, use carriers or vectors “to introduce microbial DNA to cells of the body.”3 These carriers/vectors are weakened viruses or bacteria, meaning they mix and match DNA from different sources into one germ or cell.

There are different ways to produce these vaccines. One way is to isolate a specific piece from a germ and use it in the vaccine. Another way is via genetic engineering. Here the germ is inserted into plasmid that has been manipulated by scientists. This type of plasmid is circular segments of DNA extracted from bacteria to serve as a vector. Scientists can add multiple genes and whatever genes they want into this plasmid. In case of vaccines, this includes a genetic piece of the vaccine germ and normally a gene for antibiotic resistance.

This means that when the toxic gene is cultured inside the yeast, it has been designed with a new genetic code that makes it resistant to the antibiotic it’s coded for.

The gene-plasmid combo is inserted into a yeast cell to be replicated. When the yeast replicates, the DNA from the plasmid is reproduced as a part of the yeast DNA. Once enough cells have been replicated, the genetic material in the new and improved yeast cell is extracted and put into the vaccine. Examples of this vaccine are the acellular pertussis and hepatitis B vaccines.

One thing that doesn’t seem to concern scientists is the fact that the manmade genetic combination becomes the vaccine component. This mixture of intended and unintended genetic information may cause our immune system to overreact. This can be especially complicated for a child with compromised immune system.

 

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

This new release book is available now via Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MQTN3CG/

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

Our research indicates America’s official childhood immunization schedule includes more vaccines than anywhere else on Earth

Posted: February 24, 2019 in Vaccine Science Revisited
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1

In our new release book Vaccine Science Revisited: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed?  we, the authors, focus on scientists’ acknowledged and patented childhood vaccines. To cover as many of these (childhood vaccines) as possible, we decided to use the vaccines on the US Childhood Schedule of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

In an early chapter titled ‘Live/attenuated vaccines’ we considered the ramifications of the CDC’s schedule. Excerpts from the chapter follow. (Research paper link numbers retained):

This schedule, as far as we can tell, includes more vaccines than any other country in the world. If the vaccine is on the schedule, it will blanket other childhood vaccines used across the world. The main difference will be the manufacturer of the vaccines.

After looking at the various vaccines, we noticed they are not all the same. Some contain dead germs, some contain living germs while others have no germs at all. We figured there had to be a good reason for the different types of vaccines so we decided to make that a part of our research, thinking it would be an essential component in the bigger picture.

The vaccine types can be organized into four categories: live/attenuated (weakened) vaccines, inactivated/killed vaccines, toxoid vaccines and subunit/conjugate vaccines.1

Some vaccines are manufactured by using the entire germ. Those are the live, attenuated vaccines. Attenuated because even though the virus is alive, it has been weakened in the lab so it won’t replicate very well inside our body and make us sick.

Scientists are able to find a living germ to put into the vaccine by collecting it (the germ) from an individual infected by the wild version of it. A wild germ is a germ found out in nature. If it isn’t wild, then it has been altered in the laboratory or is a descendant of a laboratory-altered germ.

Since it’s a weakened form of the wild germ, it is considered to mimic the natural disease the most out of all the vaccines. This is also why it’s considered to have the longest and the strongest immune response of them all.

The problem is, since it’s a weakened, living germ, in order for it to work, it has to be able to replicate inside our body. 2 At the same time, we don’t want it to replicate too fast because our immune system needs to be able to handle the attack.

Vaccine trials are done on healthy individuals. Let’s say they measure the safe rate of replication for a healthy child and then use that same vaccine on a child with a compromised immune system. What appears to happen at times, is that some children have such a severely compromised immune systems that it causes the virus to replicate out of control.3

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…

…Self-sufficient bacteria multiply and grow under the right conditions. In the laboratory, this means they are grown in cultures containing bacterial nutrition like sugar, protein or other important factors to control their pH level. The culture ingredients depend on the type of bacteria being grown.

As easy as this may sound, scientists sometimes have difficulty finding the perfect environment to culture and replicate their germs. There are some viruses that don’t grow well on animal cells, but thrive on human cells. These are viruses that cause illnesses specific to humans, but don’t infect other species when they are exposed. The smallpox virus would be an example of this.

As mentioned, the viruses need living cells in order to replicate. Scientists often prefer human cells because the virus thrives better. Today, the two most commonly used human cell strains are WI-38 and MRC-5. By the way, cell strains and cell lines are two different things. Cell strains are produced using healthy cells while cell lines are produced using cancer cells.

WI-38 (Wistar Institute 38) are cells from the lung tissue of an aborted girl at three months gestation. It’s used, for instance, in the manufacturing of MMR II, Varivax (chickenpox) and ProQuad (chicken pox & MMR).

MRC-5 cell strain (Medical Research Council cell strain 5) was developed in 1966 for the Medical Research Council (MRC) in England. This cell strain was cultured from lung tissue of an aborted baby boy at 14 weeks gestation. It is used in the manufacturing of such vaccines as Varivax (chicken pox), ProQuad (chicken pox & MMR), Havrix (Hep-A), Vaqta (Hep-A), DTaP, Hib and Polio (Pentacel).

These two strains, WI-38 and MRC-5, are human diploid cells. This means they have normal number of chromosomes and follow the Hayflick4 Limit5. They can only replicate about 50 times before they die, as opposed to cancer cells which replicate endlessly…

…Many people think it’s unethical to use human fetal cells in vaccine manufacturing. But there’s a problem with using animal cells as well. Animals carry a wide selection of viruses that are foreign to we humans. We may not even know of all viruses that exist.

Mark Lipsitch14, a Harvard Professor of Epidemiology said:

“‘we can’t predict what a virus we’ve never seen will do’”.15

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 Rubella strain (RA 27/3) used in the MMR vaccines is grown in WI-38. If you look it up on the Internet, there are countless articles expressing outrage over using these aborted human fetal cells to make the rubella vaccine.

The dilemma is that a virus has to be grown in living cells. We also learned animal cells carry viruses that can cause damage to our health. In order to make a vaccine as safe as possible for us, the scientists opted for human cells.

Dr. Stanley A. Plotkin16, a renowned scientist, known for, among other things, the development of the rubella vaccine,17 wrote in one of his papers:

“In order to avoid the problem of passenger viruses, the RA 27/3 strain was isolated directly from naturally infected material in WI-38 human diploid fibroblasts.”18

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.”19…

…When dealing with a living germ, we should also be aware that it can mutate. This is known to happen with live virus vaccines. The viruses have the ability to revert back to being harmful to us. It’s difficult to know what the virus is capable of when it finds the opportunity to replicate within our body. This isn’t supposed to happen, because the virus is very poor at replicating at this point. The problem arises when the virus actually does wake up, and history tells us it can happen.

 

You have been reading excerpts from Vaccine Science Revisited.

 

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

This book is available via Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MQTN3CG/

 

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

Deadly disease toll of early Native Americans considered God’s work by some

Posted: February 22, 2019 in Vaccine Science Revisited
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

In our new release book Vaccine Science Revisited  we remind readers “smallpox epidemics were frequent” and “people all over the world were frightened” by them. We cite the examples of the 1625 Smallpox Epidemic  in North America when entire villages were wiped out and the Massachusetts Colonial Epidemic  of 1633 when the governor of the day reported “an Indian village by the Connecticut River with 1,000 inhabitants became devoured with the smallpox virus, in so much that 950 of them die”.

Our research showed that not everyone at the time considered the Native American smallpox casualties a travesty.

For example, in 1632 Reverend Increase Mather saw smallpox as a great blessing if his reported comments are any guide:

“About the same Time the Indians began to be quarrelsome touching the Bounds of the Land which they had sold to the English; but God ended the Controversy by sending the Small-pox amongst the Indians at Saugust, who were before that Time exceeding numerous. Whole Towns of them were swept away, in some of them not so much as one Soul escaping the Destruction.”

And in 1634, one John Wintrop, then Governor of Massachusetts, wrote:

“For the natives, they are neere all dead of the small Poxe, so as the Lord hathe cleared our title to what we possess”.

Commenting on another smallpox plague in 1679 called the Indian Plague, which “took countless souls” one Count de Frontenac Louis de Buade said:

“The Small Pox desolates them to such a degree that they think no longer of Meeting nor of Wars, but only of bewailing the dead, of whom there is already an immense number.”

With smallpox ravaging the world, the desperation for a cure was understandable. By the early 18th Century, variolation was the most logical choice for prevention. It had become a common practice in the Western Hemisphere by 1721, but not without opposition.

Boston physician, Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, was a believer in the practice and performed experiments which in some instances ended in death. This caused uproar and people actively opposed the practice of variolation. Multiple pamphlets were written by both those for and against it.

 

You have been reading an excerpt from VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? – available via Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07MQTN3CG/

 

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

 

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

Treatment of smallpox in centuries past documented in new release vaccine science book

Posted: February 19, 2019 in Vaccine Science Revisited
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

In VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED we give readers an insight into early attempts to treat infectious diseases – in particular how the doctors of yesteryear tried to combat the ravages of smallpox, that extremely contagious and deadly virus for which there is no known cure.

Here’s an excerpt from chapter one. (Research paper link numbers retained):

On June 27th, 1833, a 21-year-old man suffered from severe head and back pain. One day later, he was still in great pain and red spots covered his body and face. Smallpox.

By morning, Surgeon Henry George1 had come to see him. The surgeon wrote in his notebook:

“His mind was wandering; his limbs and voice tremulous; his tongue dry, and covered with a brownish-red crust [. . .].” 2

The man’s face was completely swollen from pustules. Surgeon George fed him beef-tea and arrow-root and gave him medication. This helped the young man sleep for a few hours during the night.

The morning after, the swelling was worse and the pustules had merged together and blanketed his face. By July 1st, five days after the illness started, his entire body had turned a bluish-gray color. The pustules covering his body were completely confluent. Calamine, which was often used to reduce smallpox scarring, was applied to his body.

His seizures were so intense that it took five people to hold him down. The seizures continued throughout his illness. By July 9th, nearly two weeks since he became sick, Surgeon George described the young man as:

“[…] the most horrid spectacle that can be imagined; lies, and while lying,

trembles from head to foot; his countenance suspiciously wild, and expressive of the darkest intentions; […].”3

From other accounts of what smallpox does to a person, we can assume the pain was unbearable. Infected skin cells shedding as the virus struggled for survival. With the skin peeling off, the virus escaped to re-enter the body via such means as saliva. Once in the saliva, the germ infected the digestive system, giving it access to all organs.

The pustules grew to the size of boils, and any physical touch excruciating. The slightest movement would have felt like the skin being torn off. Still, through all this, the young man stayed fully alert.

Surgeon George continued to explain how a couple of days later, the outer layer of skin had completely detached itself from the rest of his face. Although the surgeon did not describe his patient being any pain, we cannot help but wonder how painful the separation of skin from his face must have been. The nerves would have been exposed without a layer of protection.

Surgeon George described infections under both big toes and in one of the heels. The infections oozed a rancid bloody discharge. The smell, he described as “dreadful”.

Three weeks later, on August 30th, the surgeon notes that his patient had:

“[…] violent flushing of the face; he is now pale, cold, a degree of stupor hanging over him; very dilated pupil; cannot tell the hour, and seems unconscious of your presence [. . .] he does not now walk erect; in moving, his motions are very hurried, and his body considerably bent.”4

The surgeon continues to treat him with medication and wine. His last notes end on September 2nd with the patient more pleasant and reading the newspaper. The illness had consumed two full months of his life. He had survived the smallpox attack. He would live the rest of his life with major scarring to his face and body.

Stories of severe illnesses are not uncommon throughout our human history. Neither are the stories of humans’ innate desire for survival. We fight to prevent diseases and we fight to heal in the aftermath.

Desperate measures have been the groundwork for development of various techniques to ward off and to treat diseases. Even before our understanding of pathogens, or disease-causing germs, we were hard at work battling them. Often alchemy and superstitious practices became the main focus.

One such technique was described by a Chinese talisman, referred to in the book Chu yu shih-san kho5, on how to exorcize the smallpox out of a child:

“[…] write the magic character on paper with red cinnabar ink, burn it to ashes, and have the child take them in liquid.”6

Later on, these practices became more medicine-oriented. An example of such a source that explains various variolation, or inoculation techniques is I tsung chin chien (The Golden Mirror of Medicine). This is a collection of all available treatises, gathered together in 1739 by the Imperial College of Physicians in Peking. This collection contained four ways to prevent smallpox – as listed here:

“Aqueous inoculum method (shui miao fa). Allow a moistened plug of cotton-wool to imbibe an aqueous extract of a number of pulverised scabs (chia), and insert it into a nostril of the child to be inoculated.

“Dry inoculum method (han miao fa). Use slowly dried scabs, grind them into a fine powder, and blow it into the child’s nostrils by a suitable tube of silver.

“Smallpox-garment method (tou i fa). Wrap the child or the patient in a garment which has been worn by a smallpox sufferer during the illness.

“Smallpox lymph method (tou chiang fa). Impregnate a plug of cotton-wool with lymph from the perfectly matured pustules of a smallpox patient, and insert this into the nostril of the child to be inoculated.”7

The Chinese knew how virulent the virus being used for the inoculum was. This was very important as it dictated its safety and efficacy. A man by the name of Yü Thien-chhih8 explained how inoculates were only collected from patients with mild symptoms. They collected only from patients who had a mild strain of the virus. Any other more virulent or epidemic-type strains were considered too dangerous to use and would kill people, rather than immunize them.

In addition to the potency factor of various strains, Yü Thien-chhih mentions a monetary benefit to inoculation in a collection called Sha tou chi chieh from 1727:

“[. . .] you have to pay two or three pieces of gold for enough to inoculate one person. Physicians who want to make some profit pass it through the children of their own relatives. [. . .] Others eager for money steal away the scabs from [severe] smallpox cases and use the material directly. It is called pai miao (ruined inoculum). In such cases there will be 15 deaths in 100 patients.”9

You have been reading an excerpt from VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed?

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

 

The book is available now via Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07MQTN3CG/

 

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

 

Hall of Fame book reviewer applauds VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED

Posted: January 19, 2019 in Vaccine Science Revisited
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

“Vaccine Science Revisited is highly recommended – especially for physicians and other medical personnel,” according to Amazon Hall of Fame Top 100 reviewer Grady Harp.

In his review of this new release book, Harp says the authors once again take on controversial subject matter and offer bold questions about the universal use (or misuse) of immunizations through vaccinations…(and) their roles become those of investigative journalists.

Further excerpts from his review follow:

After a solid and affirming Foreword introduction by Medical Laboratory Scientist Elísabet Norris the authors open their investigation with a warmly familiar reminiscence: ‘ Remember those infamous pox parties where parents deliberately exposed children to diseases such as the flu virus, measles and chickenpox? They were especially popular in the United States and in Britain at one stage – the idea being that children build immunity after being exposed to an infectious disease like chickenpox, which is more dangerous to adults than children. That was back in the day, before vaccinations were available, although it seems such activities persist to the present day in some quarters if mainstream media reports are accurate.’

The vaccines that are studied and discussed are DPT, Polio, Hepatitis A and B, H. influenza, Meningococcal and Pneumococcal, MMR, Varicella, Rotavirus, and the roles of DNA, genetics, epigenetics, and a fine explanation of our immune systems.

Under the banner of ‘It’s definitely time for society to revisit the subject of vaccines and vaccine safety, especially where our children are concerned, and open up the scientific debate once more’ – Lance and James Morcan present one of the most sensitively and honestly researched platforms for the discussion regarding the validity or misuse of the vaccination concept and practice. Yes, there will be many who disagree with their premise initially, but read carefully and follow the logic and find a different way of viewing the entire concept if immunology.

Highly Recommended – especially for physicians and other medical personnel. -Grady Harp

 

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

 

VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed?   is available via Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07MQTN3CG/

 

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