Category Archives: Vaccination

Scientific Evidence of Vaccine Damage in Dogs

Although many parents witness their children’s health deteriorate rapidly after vaccination, we are repeatedly told that there is no evidence that vaccines cause damage. The main reason this claim can be made is that there has never been a study done on humans that compared the vaccinated to the unvaccinated. The control group either receives a different experimental vaccine or regular ‘baby shots’. The closest we can get to seeing the true extent of the damage that vaccines do is through animal studies. While it is hard to find raw data from animal studies that are done for the purpose of testing a vaccine ultimately to be marketed to humans, some studies done on the effects of vaccines on dogs and monkeys are avaiable to us, and the results don’t look good.

The following link will take you to a summary of the evidence of vaccine damage on dogs. Aside from the fact that you can extrapolate the results to mean that vaccines likely cause such damage in humans as well, isn’t this enough to make you re-think vaccinating your pet?

http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/scienceVaccineDamage.html

Here is an excerpt from the report:

The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies developed autoantibodies to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, cytochrome C, cardiolipin and collagen.

This means that the vaccinated dogs — ”but not the non-vaccinated dogs”– were attacking their own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication and growth, and differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.

The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin, which is involved in many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading, differentiation, proliferation and movement of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the natural intelligence of cells.

Dogs and cats, like our children, are more and more often falling victim to auto-immune diseases and cancer. In recent years, reports of ‘autistic’ dogs have even surfaced. Whether you have a pet or a child, you owe it to them to make an informed decision when it comes to vaccinating them. And likely, if you are truly informed, you will find that you cannot possibly submit them to this kind of assault.

Advertisements

Flumist with Toxins for Canadians 2010 Flu Season

Canadians To Be Vaccinated With Live H1N1 Virus with MSG For The 2010/11 Flu Season

Dave Mihalovic
Prevent Disease
http://preventdisease.com
September 23, 2010

The Public Health Agency of Canada has once again given their seal of approval for the injection of a dangerous cocktail of toxic chemicals they call a trivalent vaccine. The 2010/11 recipients of AstraZeneca’s FLUMIST will be exposed to several strains of live viruses including H1N1 and H3N2. The vaccine also contains MSG and other known neurotoxins and immunotoxins.

Similar to last year’s Arepanrix Vaccine, FLUMIST was approved without evaluating its safety and effectiveness on a single Canadian.

The vaccines are especially being promoted for children since the nasal spray vaccine can be marketed as less invasive due its intranasal delivery that does not require needles. Ontario’s chief medical officer of health said a non-injectable vaccine is an “attractive option.” The product has been on the U.S. market for the last seven years.

AstraZeneca Canada is currently ensuring that all Canadian pharmacies are making preparations to stock the vaccine this fall. The influenza vaccine will be one of several vaccines to be offered on the Canadian market.

On August 26, 2010, Health Canada issued a Notice of Decision to AstraZeneca Canada for the FLUMIST vaccine.

The FLUMIST Trivalent vaccine product information:

Three Live Viruses:
– Influenza Virus Type A (H1N1);
– Influenza Virus Type A (H3N2); and
– Influenza Virus Type B

Route of Administration:
Intranasal Spray

Dosage Strength:
0.2 mL

Clinically Relevant Nonmedicinal Ingredients
– Gelatin hydrolysate (porcine Type A)
– sucrose
– arginine
– gentamicin

Additional Toxic Ingredients:
– Monobasic potassium phosphate: Immunotoxin
– Arginine hydrochloride: Toxic to lungs and mucous membranes
– Monosodium glutamate: Neurotoxin, Excitotoxin
– Gentamicin: Nephrotoxic

Discussion

There are currently NO clinical trials or results which have validated the long-term safety and efficacy of the FLUMIST vaccine. Regulatory health agencies are refusing to acknowledge this fact or the nature of toxicity levels associated with the FLUMIST and its ingredients. The well documented toxicity evidence for each ingredient presented above are simply ignored.

If you’ll notice, most of the ingredients that are considered non-clinically relevant excipients are ALL TOXIC and yet still injected in every person that receives the vaccine.

No Pharmacokinetic, Carcinogenic or Fertility Studies

One of the most critical elements which defines the toxicity potential of any vaccine are its pharmacokinetic properties. AstraZeneca and Medimmune do not consider the study, analysis or evaluation of the pharmacokinetic properties of any vaccine ingredients or excipients including FLUMIST. This means that the bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients within the vaccine are not known or even considered in safety assessments.

FLUMIST has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or its potential to impair fertility. There have also been NO animal reproduction studies or studies in pregnant or lactating women and it is not known whether FLUMIST is excreted in human milk..

Hospitalizations and Deaths

An increased rate of hospitalizations (for any cause) through 180 days after final vaccination dose of FLUMIST was observed in children 6-11 months of age.

There were eight deaths reported within 180 days of FLUMIST
dosing. Of the 8 deaths, 4 occurred within 42 days after the last dose of FLUMIST. 43 and 180 days after FLUMIST dosing, deaths were due to diarrhea and sepsis, encephalopathy, suffocation, and posterior fossa tumor and malignant hyperthermia.

Adverse Reactions

– Pain
– Redness
– Swelling
– Fatigue
– Headaches
– Arthralgia (joint inflammation)
– Myalgia (muscle inflammation)
– Shivering
– Sweating
– Swollen lymph nodes
– Fever
– Vomiting
– Tingling or numbness of the hands or feet
– Shortness of breath
– Vasculitis (inflammation of the blood vessels)

Serious Adverse Reactions

Congenital, familial and genetic:
– Exacerbation of symptoms of mitochondrial encephalomyopathy (Leigh syndrome)

Immune system:
– Anaphylactic reactions, facial edema and urticaria

Nervous system:
– Guillain-Barré syndrome, Bell’s Palsy

Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal:
– Epistaxis

Skin and subcutaneous tissue:
– Rash

The information above clearly demonstrates that the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada have no interest in meeting some of the most basic precautions to safeguard the health of Canadians.

Last year, just as flu activity increased across Canada, federal authorities warned Canadians not to buy natural remedies and to strictly confide in the anti-viral drugs and vaccines authorized by Health Canada.

172,000 doses were eventually recalled and withdrawn after serious adverse reactions, notably in the heart and lungs, and hundreds of deaths were reported.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Please protect yourself naturally from the flu. Learn what colds and flus really are and use common sense to best of your ability.

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

Cocaine Vaccine a Bust

In the early days, mental health professionals who dealt with drug addiction hoped that sson a new vaccine would cure cocaine addiction. In 2000, a Phase I study at Yale used:
The vaccine, TA-CD, is designed to generate drug-specific antibodies, which bind to cocaine and prevent it from traveling to the brain from the bloodstream. This neutralizes its psychoactive effect.
Inclusio criteria for the study was 30 days of abstinence, a desire to stop using and willingness to seek treatment. The study authors mentioned that the vaccine did not reduce cravings for cocaine, but simply interfered with its effect to produce a high. What they are being injected with is actually succinylnorcocaine linked to recombinant cholera toxin B-subunit protein. This means that the cocaine molecule is attached to the cholera toxin protein in order to trick the body into making antibodies against the cocaine along with the protein.
To override the vaccine’s effects, it may be possible to take massive amounts of cocaine, but it is unlikely that addicts who are actively working to overcome their addiction would want to do that.
http://www.biopsychiatry.com/cocaine/vaccine.htm
From this last statement, one would gather that either these scientists were being overly optimistic or they really just didn’t understand how addiction works. In any case, they knew this outcome was possible, but they played it down.

2004: BBC Headline States “Cocaine Vaccine Stops Addiction”

The vaccine is created by attaching the cocaine to a large protein molecule which is used to stimulate the body’s immune system to produce antibodies that recognise the drug.
(…)
Trials carried out in the US showed almost half of those given the TA-CD vaccine, developed by Xenova, were able to stay off the drug for six months.

Yes, it turns out that half these people were able to stay of cocaine for 6 months- which means it didn’t work so well for the other half, and who knows what heppened after the 6 months were up and they were out of treatment. Nonetheless, the scientists remained optimistic and the drug company had the MSM touting the benefits of their new wonder-drug, as usual. Of note, no reference is given to the actual study so readers can look at the data for themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3804741.stm
Fast forward to 2010: Washington Post reports “Testing of Cocaine Vaccine Shows It Does Not Fully Blunt Cravings For The Drug’
Well, as we saw from the earlier reports, it was never designed to blunt cravings. And you kow what happened? According to the article,
some of the addicts participating in a study of the vaccine started doing massive amounts of cocaine in hopes of overcoming its effects
That’s right, they just kept trying to get high even though it wasn’t working anymore. Now, that is not surprising, really, because that is what all addicts do once they get to a certain point, especially with cocaine, where tolerance develops very quickly and after te first hit off the crack pipe, you spend the rest of the night making yourself feel like crap hoping to catch the buzz you did with that first puff. The doctors at Yale mentioned that this could be a possibility back in 2000, but they forged ahead anyway and hoped for the best. The article goes on to elaborate that,
Nobody overdosed, but some of them had 10 times more cocaine coursing through their systems than researchers had encountered before, according to Kosten. He said some of the addicts reported to researchers that they had gone broke buying cocaine from multiple drug dealers, hoping to find a variety that would get them high.
That’s not what I would call a success, heh heh.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/04/AR2010010402752.html

An article on the blog Addiction Inbox, entitled “Cocaine Vaccine Hits Snag’ gave us more details:

Of 115 addicts involved in the study, only 38 % produced sufficient antibodies to dull the effects of cocaine, Rachel Saslow of the Washington Post reported. And among the high-antibodies group, only 53 % stayed free of cocaine 50 % of the time. “Immunization did not achieve complete abstinence from cocaine use,” said Thomas Kosten of Baylor college of Medicine, one of the authors of the paper.

Not everyone produced ‘adequate antibodies’, and when they did, the vaccine mad a mediocre success rate. Nonetheless, “NIDA director Nora Volkow characterized the work as “a promising step toward an effective medical treatment for cocaine addiction,” with the proviso that “larger follow-up studies confirm its safety and efficacy.”

When you hear ‘safety and efficacy’- watch out! it means they are going full steam with this. Confirm safety? How can it be confirmed when studies so far have shown that a significant amount of recipients increased their cocaine use, risked overdose, and went broke in the process? Confirm efficacy? When only 38% of people ‘responded’ to it, and among those only 53% stayed clean 50% of the time? That amounts to what- 19% of people who received it being able to abstain half the time? In other words, 81% of participants failed to stay clean, which is equivalent to the success rate for most regular rehab centers. Is that really a success rate for the vaccine or is it roughly how many cocaine addicts would stay clean 50% of the time with standard treatment anyway?
http://addiction-dirkh.blogspot.com/2010/01/cocaine-vaccine-hits-snag.html

Remeber that efficacy is n ot equivalent to effectiveness. Efficacy represents something you measure in the lab, such as antibodies. Effectiveness is how well the product succeeds in achieving the desired result in real life. For example, a flu vaccine that claims 90% efficacy, may translate to 35% effectiveness in terms of actually preventing you from catching the flu (and remember that, speaking of flu shots, only 5-15% of the population actually catches the flu in any given flu season, so 35% effectiveness means it has lowered your chance of getting sick by about 2-5%, but I digress…)

In a 2009 clinical trial on 109 methadone patients, 21 out of the 50% receiving the vaccine achieved purportedly adequate antibody levels. Of these, 45% had cocaine-free urine tests, vs 35% for the remaining 88 who eithe rreceived a placebo or did not develop high enough antibodies. That means that about 9/21 people in the high antibody group stayed off the coke for a few weeks. How anyone could create statistics and come to any kind of conclusions on the vaccine’s effectiveness when the sample size was so small is beyond me. I was taught in school that you can never talk about statistics unless you have a sample of at least 100 people. But this becomes an effective way for pharmaceutical companies to make data appear to work in their favor. For example, you take 200 people with lung cancer, give 50% chemo and 50% chemo +radiation, and if you have 10% 1-year survival in the chemo group and 11% in the chemo +radiationn group, you can claim that radiatio exteded survival by 10%. Really, this is a lot of nonsense. All you had was one extra person live a year, but it is enough for somebody to make a lot of money giving somebody some kind of additional useless treatment.

And so it seems to be with the cocaine vaccine. They overlook the obvious red flag that it doesn’t work for most people, works shabbily when it does, and even drives a sizeable number of recipients to increase their cocaine use to dangerous levels. But none of that would deter Big Pharma, whose priority is evidently profit, never mind at whose expense.

Here are a couple of the original studies:
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/10/1116

http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(09)01052-X/abstract

Lobotomy in a Needle

Vaccine against ‘stress’ made from genetically engineered herpes virus, alters your brain so you just don’t give a fuck anymore.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1299540/Jab-stop-stress-slowing-down.html

Flu Shot Season 2010

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7918351/Flu-jab-linked-to-fits-in-under-fives-officials.html

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/health/2010/08/flu_season_is_coming_vaccine_i.html

http://www.ok.gov/health/documents/H1N1_Nasal_Spray_for_Parents.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/nasalspray.htm

http://www.dewitt.wramc.amedd.army.mil/Pages/H1N1%20Flu.aspx

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/flu/hcp/vaccine/laiv.html#shed

Grey Goo: Soylent Green and Flu Shot Production

Montreal Gazette: Maverick Scientists Create First Artificial Genome.

Craig Venter, an apparent mad scientist, has created an artificial, self-replicating bacteria whose ‘parent was a computer’. This is known to nuts like me as ‘grey goo’, frankenbacteria.
potential uses for grey goo:
Capture CO2. You don’t want plants breathing that and making too much oxygen.
Create hydrocarbons. Clean up water supplies. See kids? It’s good for the environment.
Create “food substances”. Not food, but food substances. In other words, Soylent Green. Most of what we eat these days is ‘food substance anyway’, so why not?
Immediate use: Speeding-up flu vaccine production. Create self-replicating grey goo and the next logical step is to make vaccines with it and inject it into people. Right along with those insect cells they approved for the H1N1 flu shots, I would suppose. Makes sense.

Find all this disconcerting?

Not to worry, it’s only a genome, not a whole cell, and it only works if you inject it or spray it into a goat. Not to worry. Unless you happen to be a goat.
Not to worry, it’s not really that different from existing DNA altering techonolgy. Such as GMO produce that contaminates regular crops and causes organ damage and brain shrinkage if you eat it. Not any worse than that.
And the best part, according to the article, is that all this is being done with transparency. In other words, the are telling you they are making grey goo and are about to not only feed it to you, but also inject it into your babies.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Maverick+scientist+creates+first+synthetic+genome/3052392/story.html?id=3052392
In another article from Black Listed News, I learned that this same Craig Venter is now working on creating a bacteria that makes methane. That’s right, methane, the greehouse gas. Self-replicating artificial bacteria that makes greenhouse gases. Now they bring us the problem, next year it will be the solution.

“The link between BP, Geoengineering and GM”- The Ecologist.
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/522729/the_link_between_bp_geoengineering_and_gm.html

Swine Flu and Vaccine: The Aftermath

According to a February 3rd article in the Quebec paper, La Presse, 45% of Canadians have been vaccinated for H1N1 ‘swine flu’. During this vaccination campaign, which began in late November, 24 cases of vaccine-associated GBS have been reported in just over 3 months, compared to 79 cases in the last 12 years of regular flu shots. This shows that the concerns about GBS associated with the swine flu shot, which were raised before vaccine mass vaccination began, have turned out to be very real.
La Presse reports that there have been 12 deaths associated with vaccine in Canada- officially, in any case. Of note, just in my own personal contacts, either through friends or people I met while flyering, I found 2 people who had developed GBS after the H1N1 shot. One was a young woman, the other was an old lady. The old lady’s doctor, despite the fact that she developed GBS within days after receiving the shot, declared that it was not from the vaccine, but from some illness she must have contracted before receiving the vaccine. I also know of one man in Quebec, the daycare provider of a friend-of-a-friend, who died a few days after the vaccine. Again, this was not in the news and was not reported as a vaccine-related death, although everyone who knew of this death personally believed it was associated with the shot because he developed a reaction immediately after receiving it and died within a few days. Also, the 41-year-old woman who died in Quebec after receiving her shot was said in the media to have died from ‘swine flu’ that she must have caught just before receiving the vaccine. If just among my own contacts, I could locate 2 cases of GBS and one death, it seems that these occurrences are not all that rare. Considering this and the fact that some deaths that were given media attention were claimed to have been caused by coincidentally –occurring swine flu, it goes to show that probably many additional death or reactions have occurred that were not officially reported to have been vaccine-associated.
Risk of severe side effects are said to be 1/100000. Weigh this against your actual risk of catching flu and having severe complications from it. If you have no underlying health concerns your risk is much lower than 1/100000. Factor in the effectiveness of the vaccine at reducing deaths and hospitalizations- this will be a problem because the vaccine has never proven to have these benefits for the population in general and the evidence for it giving them to seniors in homes is sketchy, according to the Cochrane review.
See the LaPresse article here:
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/dossiers/la-grippe-a-h1n1/201002/02/01-945676-un-vaccin-juge-sur-malgre-12-deces.php
Notice that NO flu shot flyer or ad will ever claim that receiving the vaccination reduces your risk of hospitalization and/or death. This is because these benefits have never been demonstrated. All propaganda only states that the flu is highly contagious, results in deaths and hospitalizations, and the vaccine reduces your chance of contracting the flu- they leave it up to you to extrapolate that by reducing your chance of getting sick you will reduce your chance of ending up in the hospital or dying. But in reality, this benefit has never manifested. I don’t know whether this is because ‘benefit’ of the temporary immunity the vaccine gives you against one strain of flu is offset by the overall damage the vaccine causes by weakening or damaging your immune system. Complications from flu are rare to begin with in otherwise healthy children and adults, who make up the majority of the population, so perhaps the noxious effects of injecting these people with viruses, neurotoxins and other junk can in and of themselves cause just as much trouble as catching the flu. And for those with weakened immune systems, who respond poorly to the vaccines anyway, it’s possible that again the vaccine does more harm than good. Remember that studies have shown that receiving a flu shot one year actually increases your chance of catching the flu the next year- probably because you have traded short-term vaccine-induced immunity for long-lasting natural immunity. Instead of topping up your immune system naturally every fall, you give it a short boost and then leave in compromised in the long term. That is one possibility. Studies such as the one from the Mayo clinic have also shown that asthmatic children who received flu vaccinations were more, not less, likely to be hospitalized from flu-related complications.
In any case, the flu shot doesn’t work and this one in particular has resulted in an uncommonly high number of severe side effects like GBS. In addition, it has been found that the supposed ‘pandemic swine flu’ was actually 1/10th as deadly as the regular seasonal flu.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7006043/Swine-flu-was-a-textbook-case-of-a-scare.html
Canada’s purchase of 50 million doses of this garbage vaccine was a phenomenal waste of money and will probably have additional repercussions as Canadians suffer delayed damaging effects from the adjuvanted vaccine. It looks to me like this is what happens when you have politicians deciding public health policy instead of physicians, and when those politicians are under the orders of the WHO, who is now being investigated for falsely declaring a pandemic and acting in the interests of vaccine manufacturers instead of the public good.
According to Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, former head of health at the Council of Europe, “ It looks like the WHO is under the influence of industry. It was stated in panic-stricken terms that this was a flu that could threaten humanity. This is why billions of medications were bought.”
Visit Wodarg’s website here:
http://www.wodarg.de/english/2948146.html