Posts Tagged ‘scientists’

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/

 

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

“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/

 

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

The intriguing topic of underrated scientists has arisen in our Underground Knowledge group’s Fringe science discussion thread, on Goodreads, and members are pulling some interesting names out of the hat.

It started when the group’s co-founder James posted this:

Besides the great Nikola Tesla, here are some other scientists I think deserve more recognition…Please add any more names you feel have influenced our world, or who were ahead of their time and whose scientific ideas are now influencing our future.

Viktor Schauberger

Viktor Schauberger

Viktor Schauberger (30 June 1885 in Holzschlag, Upper Austria[1] – 25 September 1958 in Linz, Austria[1]) was an Austrian forest caretaker, naturalist, philosopher, inventor and biomimicry experimenter. Schauberger developed his own ideas based on what he observed in nature. In Implosion magazine, a magazine released by Schauberger’s family, he said that aeronautical and marine engineers had incorrectly designed the propeller.

Here’s a snapshot of members’ “underrated scientists” picks (abridged):

Buckminster Fuller (aka Richard Buckminster “Bucky” Fuller; July 12, 1895 – July 1, 1983)was an American architect, systems theorist, author, designer and inventor. Fuller published more than 30 books, coining or popularizing terms such as “Spaceship Earth”, ephemeralization, and synergetic. He also developed numerous inventions, mainly architectural designs, and popularized the widely known geodesic dome.

For the best scientist that hardly anyone has ever heard of (I would be extraordinarily surprised if anyone here has): F. E. Volochine. Now, confess – have you heard of him? Why? In 1925 he developed a theory to account for nuclear binding energies, based on magnetism. He predicted the neutron would have a spin of 1/2, and he predicted its magnetic moment quite accurately, and his bonding energies were extremely good, including the excited states.

Beyond Tesla: History’s Most Overlooked Scientists https://www.livescience.com/46723-mos…

Top 7 Most Underrated Scientists Ever http://www.debate.org/opinions/polls/…

Interesting that they have Maxwell as highly underrated. I always thought physicists everywhere really rate Maxwell, and Faraday got himself on an English banknote.

How about Benoit Mandelbrot, the creator of fractal geometry? The Fractalist: Memoir of a Scientific Maverick

I would add Kristian Birkeland. He was the first to recognize auroras as electrical currents in plasma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristia…

 

To view all comments in full, or better still to have YOUR say, go to:  https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/18212950-underrated-scientists-please-add-more?comment=170409048#comment_170409048

 

*

Underground Knowledge — A discussion group

Underground Knowledge — A discussion group

This global discussion group has been designed to encourage debates about important and underreported issues of our era. All you need is an enquiring mind and a desire to gain or share “underground knowledge”. Our members come from all walks of life and include award-winning writers, scientists, teachers, students, housewives, blue and white-collar workers, social activists, conspiracy theorists, journalists, ex-intelligence agents, former members of the military and, of course, everyday readers and authors.

Come visit! New members welcome…  https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/142309-underground-knowledge-a-discussion-group   

 

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

A March 2015 blog on debunking of the Big Bang Theory, and God’s role in that momentous event, remains our most popular posting to date here in Morcan Books & Films blog…so we figure it’s worth running again. Here it is, in its entirety…

Debunking of the Big Bang Theory leads to questions about God’s role in creation of the universe

Posted: March 5, 2015 in Underground Knowledge

It appears the universe may not have started with a BANG! That is if the latest science challenging the notion of the Big Bang Theory is correct.

This revelation has gotten members of our ‘Underground Knowledge’ discussion group on Goodreads.com fairly worked up, with those of an atheistic or scientific bent butting heads with those of a religious persuasion as members debate the role of God in the creation of the universe.

It (the discussion that is) all began with a comment by a group moderator. He drew attention to a news item that quotes a theoretical physicist as declaring new research suggests the age of the universe could be infinite. That same article quotes another scientist as declaring “We (scientists) really have no right to say that the universe begins with a big bang.”

The news item referred to is at: https://au.news.yahoo.com/technology/…

The research referred to, incidentally, pertains to a paper published Feb. 4 in the journal Physical Letters B, and another paper that is currently under peer review, which was published in the preprint journal arXiv.

One of our members responded by quoting Genesis 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. She adds, “It’s the simple truth that I believe in.”

Another member countered by saying, “Unfortunately it’s not a simple truth: it is not simple and may not be the truth. E.g. who or what created god? According to Genesis, the universe was created about 6500 BC or something, whereas we know the Universe to be 13.8 billion years old. So Genesis is wrong anyway. “Who or what is god” is equivalent to the question to which Physics is seeking an answer. The big bang hypothesis assumes quantum mechanics is equivalent to god… With the big bang, there is a better explanation for reality and god isn’t needed. By the Occam’s razor principle we can therefore do without him.

To which the first member answered, “To answer the question, “who or what created god?” Nothing and no one created God. God has simply always existed. He was. He is. And He will be.”

Members’ (further) comments follow. (Names withheld):

At the risk of again being laughed at; the paths to god encompass the pre-destined pursuits of failing “knowledge” and the beauty of faith.

Other hypotheses such as a recycling universe, which is certainly not a new idea, may have a different role for quantum mechanics. Something that goes on forever (a recycling universe) is unsatisfactory as it doesn’t explain how it got there in the first place. Why is there something rather than nothing?

How does the new proposal handle the background radiation issue? Some sites worth reading: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ne…

I believe the Big Bang Theory is very ridiculous and requires EVEN MORE FAITH than believing that a loving God created the universe in six days (which is totally the truth, and very simple to accept.)

Keep in mind most modern Christians do not state the world is 4-6,000 years old anymore. Most accept that the Earth is billions of years old as per science’s findings. The belief that it’s only a few thousand years old is now about as popular a Christian belief as the old Biblical viewpoint that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Certainly some Christian sects and other minority offshoots (e.g. Seventh Day Adventists) push the old 4,000 year old Biblical belief, but not mainstream Christianity as a whole…FYI, the Aboriginal (native) people in Australia are estimated to go back to around 50,000 years.

The bottom line is the Bible was written by men (not any supernatural entity) and written in a time when people had little scientific understanding…

The Bible was Not written by men. It was spoken through men but God-breathed (God spoke it it to them or supernaturally showed them what to write).

Any Christian scholar will inform you the Bible was most certainly written by men. Afterall, nobody is saying the books that formed the Bible fell out of the sky already written. Each book in the Bible had authors – hence the Book of Job, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Matthew etc. Furthermore, it’s historically proven many or all of these books were edited at later dates (e.g. the Council of Nicea biblical edits in 353AD conducted by the Romans).

There are actually various other scientific theories that have been proposed regarding the background radiation. For example, Japanese scientist and member of this group Takaaki Musha has proposed that the cosmic background radiation is not due to the after-glow of a Big Bang, but rather it’s due to the Cherenkov radiation from tachyon pairs created from a ZPF vacuum.

Back to the point about the universe possibly recycling. Didn’t Hubble himself have that idea? Wasn’t he the one who thought up the phrase “big bang” as a frustrated way of saying how silly the whole idea was? Of course science is full of silly ideas that ultimately survive the full test of scientific enquiry, such as evolution itself. It will probably take a long time to dismiss the “big bang” theory [no pun intended!]. We can get very close to the point when the current universe began — a tiny fraction of a second. After this point the laws of physics as currently known can work to produce the universe as it is. However close we can get we may never know for sure how the universe began.

There may indeed be a few ideas going around such as parallel universes and/or holographic loop, but these don’t seem testable. This makes it unsatisfactory. I can’t possibly see how the universe could be physically infinite. Closed, certainly. In other words if we keep racing for the exit then we can’t get out, even after an infinite time. This is because ultimately space curves in on itself according to principles of general relativity.

To view the entire discussion thread, or better still to have YOUR say, go to: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2237090-the-big-bang-theory—debunked

 

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