The Spiral Ladder

Climb over the Wall

Tag Archives: Vaccine injury

Measles Is Good For You!

From the Centre of the Psyclone blog

Before I get on to showing you how measles is good for you, I’d like to examine various aspects of this latest scare show.

It’s been commented on before that some of the posts on this blog are quite long. This post is no different. The reason for that is the purpose of the blog itself, which isn’t just to share my thoughts or opinions on an issue, but to provide a wide  spectrum of relevant and balanced information. That said, most of the most important data herein is in the form of links to external sources of information.

I’ve come to it a little late and The Measles Scare is in full swing. The media are keeping people poised with up to date information about the epidemic. A national immunisation catch-up program is running smoothly. If we’re careful and do as we’re told, we may avoid a catastrophe.

We’re not out of the woods yet though. The Independent recently predicted that a ‘very large outbreak’ of measles could hit London.’

Some vectors identified as virus-carrying have been ‘subsections’ of society known to have decided against vaccinating their children. According to experts these parents are putting others at risk from their potentially infected children. Interestingly, the pupils of private schools have been identified as one of the subsections because of the number of middle-class parents who decided against the vaccination programs in the 1990s.

Middle class, that’ll be the same income bracket that has the means to choose organic food for its higher nutritional content and absence of agrochemical poisons and genetically modified aspects. A social segment whose academic and media parameters are generally wider than the parameters set by the birdseed papers and TV media looked to for information by what Huxley would have called the Epsilons, and by Orwell, the proles.

Gypsies and travellers have also been identified as ‘reservoirs of the disease’.

That phrase, ‘reservoirs of the disease’, along with numerous others has at times made the researching for this post quite frustrating. In the last couple of days I’ve read around 200 current articles, papers and posts concerning measles and vaccinations. Prior to that has been an over two-decade interest in and study of human health, particularly in relation to the health industry (note the phrase).

Reading through government health industry statements and press releases, and media reports has angered me several times, even to the point of cursing the sly, manipulative deceiving and outright lying of various outlets and individuals, who very often appear to be working together to promote the pro-vaccination party line and denigrate any opposition. A gaggle of ‘experts’, ‘specialists’, ministers, coordinators, et cetera, ad nauseum have been trotted out to bleat the doctrine, measles is potentially fatal, vaccinate now. Parents, those who it is hinted at are responsible, along with Dr Wakefield who instigated the MMR mistrust, for this ‘epidemic’, are reassured that nobody judges them for the decision they made back then, they had just based their decision on a, as the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport called it, ‘piece of extremely bad science’, but now they had to vaccinate for everybody’s benefit.

Now even before the BBC reported the collapse of Building Seven of the World Trade Centre before it fell down, I’ve known not to trust anything that comes out of its mouth.

One of the experts trotted out by the BBC was Dr Paul Offit, variously described as a US-based measles expert, vaccine specialist and director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr Offit is a fairly well known and frequent commentator in favour of vaccinations who dismisses many vaccine risks and promotes vaccine mandates. He is currently advocating American-style mandatory vaccinations in Britain.

Vaccine entrepreneur is another way Paul Offit has been described. In fact, he’s also known as Dr Paul “For Proft” Offit. What the BBC doesn’t tell us is that their measles expert Offit has already made millions of dollars profit from his ties to vaccines and the measles MMR vaccine maker Merck. Counting Offit’s Millions: More on How Merck’s Rotateq Vaccine Made Paul Offit Wealthy is an update to an earlier investigative research piece that revealed details of Offit’s ‘conflicts of interest’, a cliché too moderate to describe the shady goings-on.

In 2009 it was reported:

“Offit, of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, earned millions of dollars as part of a $182m sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck RotaTeq vaccine. The amount of income distributed to Offit could be as high as $46 million. Offit has refused to say how much he made from the vaccine.

The high price placed on the patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the American CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to help create the “market” for rotavirus vaccine – effectively, to vote himself rich.”

Coincidentally, the Department of Health has just successfully created a £25m market for a rotavirus vaccine in Britain, to be used on babies within weeks of them being born. It was reported last November that the government hopes to roll out GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) new Rotarix vaccine program. Rotovirus is not known to cause deaths in British infants but to cause sickness and diarrhoea. From this September GSK’s Rotarix vaccine is to be given to 840,000 babies every year in Britain, which will cost around £25m. The Department of Health claim they “believe” it will save the NHS £20million.

But what the BBC did not report in their current measles stories is that Dr Offit, in his position of authority on the American Advisory Commitee on Immunization Practices, voted in 1998 for drug manufacturer Wyeth’s ‘Rotashield’ rotavirus vaccine to be approved to be given to babies. Just a year after the approval of Rotashield, the vaccine was linked to an increased risk of a serious bowel complication called intussusception. It was quickly taken off the market.

Dr Paul “For Profit” Offit was one of the members who voted yes three times to introduce this Rotashield vaccine (despite it not having FDA approval) and then abstained from the vote to suspend the use of the Rotashield vaccine despite the links to serious complications for babies.

An American government report, “Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making”, was critical of the decision to introduce this vaccine in the first place “as it had not even been approved by the FDA” and noted that “It is clear that the VRBPAC and the ACIP (the American body that approves vaccines) are dominated by individuals with close working relationships with the manufacturers of vaccines”. It went on to say, “The end result was that a product was placed on the market that had to be withdrawn within one year because it was injuring the children it was meant to protect.”

Because of Offit’s and others’ votes to introduce Rotashield, this helped other rotavirus vaccines to be approved for use in America, one of which was GSK’s Rotarix.  This was suspended from the market when it was found to be contaminated with pig virus DNA. The American Food and Drug Agency found Merck’s RotaTeq vaccine, from which Offit had made considerable profit, was also contaminated.

The FDA stated when they announced the reinstatement of the Rotarix vaccine that they would continue to monitor both vaccines for continued problems with contamination”

Did MPs or the BBC do their homework on the rotavirus vaccines being monitored by the FDA in America?  Did the Department of Health read the latest update on Glaxo’s Rotarix announced by the FDA on 12Th September 2012, issued not long before the DoH announced the rollout of the Rotarix vaccine in Britain from this September? Because the FDA concluded from a GlaxoSmithKline Rotarix study in Mexico that, “as expected, because of the routine use of Rotarix in Mexico, most (698) of the 750 babies studied who developed intussusception had been vaccinated with 1 or 2 doses of Rotarix.” Intussusception is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition that occurs when the intestine gets blocked or twisted.

Despite the possible link to babies developing serious health problems and contamination of the major rotavirus vaccines the Department of Health has just approved Rotarix to be given to 840,000 British babies every year in Britain, with the vaccination programme due to be promoted by doctors in Britain within the next few months.

What do the FDA now recommend regarding GSK’s Rotarix vaccine on the back of the results of the Mexican study?

“Parents should closely watch their infants for signs of intussusception, especially within the first 7 days after vaccination with Rotarix. These include, stomach pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, blood in the stool or change in bowel movements. It is important to contact the child’s healthcare provider if the child has any of these signs at any time after vaccination, even if it has been several weeks since the last dose of vaccine.”

With the addition of Rotarix vaccine from this September, babies and children in Britain will now subjected to ten jabs and two oral doses of vaccine drops before the age of five with Department of Health claims that this is to protect them against 11 different diseases.

Should we consider this man, widely known as Dr. Paul “For Profit” Offit, to be an “expert” in vaccine safety when he champions contaminated vaccines and abstains from voting to remove a vaccine linked to a life threatening condition?

Should we trust Offit’s claims on the BBC that MMR vaccines should be made compulsory, especially when he has consulted for the MMR vaccine manufacturer Merck and has personally made considerable profit from Merck and vaccines? In fact, in light of the facts around Dr Offit’s  ‘conflict of interest’, shouldn’t the financial connections of other ‘experts’, ‘leading doctors’, ‘specialists’ and ministers be taken into account when reviewing what they say on the issue?

But what of Dr Wakefield, author of the paper said to have been responsible for parents in the 90s deciding against the vaccines?

Contrary to the impression cultivated by the media, Dr Wakefield is a vaccine advocate, not a critic. The conclusion of his research, which included a study of a number of autistic children, was that there was sufficient evidence to show that the triple vaccine played a causative role in the development of autism of those studied, and recommended that the shots be administered singly with 12 month intervals between.

One country that has eliminated the MMR vaccine in favour of three separate doses is Japan.

A slightly less obvious impression given by the media in their targeting of Dr Wakefield is that his was and is the only research to show a link between vaccines and autism. Well, happily for those of you that really are seeking to make an informed choice, I can tell you the Wakefield research isn’t the only research. Not by a long shot. Numerous scientists from around the globe have presented credible peer-reviewed research studies that indicate a direct link between the exposure to adjuvants and additives like aluminium and mercury, both widely known neurotoxins that have damaging effects on the brain and nervous system. Links are provided below for data sources

Despite the extent of the scientific research that proves a link between vaccines and a long list of induced damage, Department of Health mouthpieces still come out and make statements such as, ‘Every time there’s a health scare, parents withdraw their children from vaccination. But there is no evidence to show that the MMR jab is linked to autism and bowel disorders.’

However, thousands of families (between 2,000 and 5,000, the numbers vary between sources) have had enough evidence to have taken legal action claiming their children have been damaged by the MMR jab. About half believe it has triggered autism in their toddlers even though the Government has ruled out any link. Back in 2008, the US Court of Federal Claims also admitted that vaccines can cause autism. A young girl, whose identity was sealed for the family’s protection, was awarded compensation after a series of vaccines caused her to develop severe autism symptoms, including loss of language skills, no response to verbal direction, and no eye contact, among other things.

A year prior, a young boy named Bailey was also awarded compensation after suffering a seizure and developing Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following vaccination with MMR. Bailey’s family was eventually awarded compensation for the boy’s injuries, which the court reluctantly admitted were caused by the vaccine.

Did you know the UK government has a Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme? I didn’t until I read the accounts of the parents of teenagers who died just days after receiving a combined Measles and Rubella vaccination as part of a government campaign.

Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme? A curiously named scheme if, as we’re supposed to believe, vaccines are safe.

In 2008 an Italian court found that “there was a reasonable scientific probability that the MMR jab had triggered in Valantino Bocca an autistic disorder associated with medium cognitive delay”, and awarded Valentino’s parents compensation, to be paid by the Italian ministry of health. Valentino, developing normally, was given the shot at 14 months and started to suffer from diarrhoea, lost interest in food and within a few days lost the ability to use his spoon. Worse was soon to come when he began to be restless at night, screaming in pain for hours. It was later found that he was suffering from a painful bowel condition that is common in autistic children. With an adjusted diet of no wheat or milk, he was able to sleep but the autism symptoms continued, and even at the age of nine, he still does not speak.

Other recent court rulings against the MMR include a £90,000 payout for brain damage to a boy called Robert Fletcher, and a $1.5 million payout for Hannah Poling who received MMR and six other vaccinations in one day and then developed autism.

So, a large number of scientists and doctors have produced peer-reviewed research that demonstrates links between vaccines and a list of induced damages, courts are awarding compensation to the victims based on evidence that proves a link, but still the media promotes the mantra, ‘measles are deadly, vaccines are safe’.

Doing the research this time round, I was struck with the similarity to another piece I’d written that was evident even in the research stage. The same pattern, the same Modus Operandi, the same players, only back then the bogeyman was Swine Flu. I think the fact that I wrote an article on it, but also the fact that it wasn’t that long ago has made the parallels easier to see.

More often than not the criminal events conducted today copy a template of criminal events of the past, following an ‘if it worked before, it’ll work again’ mentality. An aspect of criminal investigations is the search for a modus operandi (MO), a particular way of working, which can act as a signature and reveal, if not specific agencies, a particular method that points to specific agency.

Everything You Wanted To Know About Swine Flu, But Didn’t Know You Should Ask was going to be called Those Who Forget History II, The Swine Flu Hullabaloo. Among other things it discusses the parallels between the ‘epidemic’ in the 1970s and the hype at the time, and clearly shows the recurring MOs and patterns mentioned. The article also links to one of the most comprehensive books on the subject of Swine Flu and the vaccination industry. The 1997 book Swine Flu Exposé by Eleanora McBean. Ph.D..N.D. (readable online) needs to be read by everyone. As McBean says, it’s about time a large and comprehensive book of the long concealed facts about vaccination is brought forth. This is the largest and most informative book on the subject ever written in America. It contains data collected from medical records, army reports, and startling findings from researchers all over the world. The book is intended to help combat the disastrous effects of vaccine promoters and their deceptive propaganda.

Another excellent insider’s view on how the health industry really functions in relation to immoral marketing, corruption and bribery, is Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You To Know About. Kevin Trudeau, an industry insider takes the lid off the American health service to expose very dodgy dealings that are replicated internationally. Fundamentally, it’s all about the money.

Humans are intrinsically healthy and tend to remain so if they are given nutritious, non-GMO foods, fresh air, and clean water. We have extremely effective protective barriers against infectious diseases, including our skin and immune system.

Knowing that these facts are true for all members of the human species, how did we come to embrace the idea that injecting solutions of chemically-treated, inactivated viruses, parts of bacteria, traces of animal tissue and heavy metals was a reasonable strategy for keeping human beings, babies, children and adults healthy?

I’ll tell you how. Marketing. But don’t take my word for it.  The publications linked to above and the links below to sources of information provide the data you need if you want to know the truth about the health industry and/or the pharmaceutical industry. Industries both, one being effectively a subsidiary of the other, or its retail outlet. In fact, Big Pharma has potentially the biggest sales department in the world, using as it does international medical bodies like the World Health Organisation, national bodies like the Centre for Disease Control,  the Federal Drug Agency, their counterpart health and drug authorities in most other countries, doctors, etc as marketing and promotion departments and sales personnel.

Seeing the collusion, corruption and bare-faced manipulation by so many supposedly independent entities, more than one observer has described this latest scare as a Psychological Operation or PsyOp. Using such language in a context like this invariably opens one up to the charge of conspiracy theorist. A PsyOp then, for those of you that missed that class, has been described by an ex-military veteran in the field as,

‘the planned use of communications to influence human attitudes and behaviour … to create in target groups behaviour, emotions, and attitudes that support the attainment of national objectives… disseminated by face-to-face communication, television, radio or loudspeaker, newspapers, books, magazines and/or posters’.

The hype and behaviour I’m witnessing certainly fit that bill. As does the details of the Natural News article UK Children Brainwashed into MMR Vaccine Support Through Manipulation of Academic Exam

The General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) test is the most widely taken academic qualification exam among 14- to 16-year-olds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The test questions are designed by the United Kingdom’s Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA).

Question 5 on the Science portion of the January 2008 test concerned the 1998 study that first raised concerns between the MMR vaccine and autism. In that study, published in the The Lancet, Andrew Wakefield and colleagues examined

12 autistic children after their parents raised concern that their conditions might have been caused by the MMR shot. Although the study did not find any causal relationship between the vaccine and autism, the authors concluded there was enough concern to recommend that parents instead give their children individual vaccines for each of the three diseases, spaced a year apart.

The GCSE test question was split into two parts. In the first part, students were asked to explain how the MMR vaccine functions to protect children from the three diseases. The second part briefly described Wakefield’s study, concluding by saying, “Dr Wakefield’s research was being funded through solicitors for the twelve children. The lawyers wanted evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers.”

The students were then asked, “(i) Was Dr Wakefield’s report based on reliable scientific evidence? … (ii) Might Dr Wakefield’s report have been biased?”

Students were given points for part (i) only if they criticized the study for having a small sample size and for relying on parents’ anecdotal reports as evidence. They were given points for part (ii) only if they agreed that Wakefield might have been biased by being paid by parents/lawyers.

Wakefield accused the test writers of making false claims about him and his research.

Back to vaccines. Vaccines have several components:

  1. Micro-organisms, either bacteria or viruses, thought to be causing certain infectious diseases and which the vaccine is supposed to prevent. These are whole-cell proteins or just the broken-cell protein envelopes, and are called antigens.
  2. Chemical substances which are supposed to enhance the immune response to the vaccine, called adjuvants
  3. Chemical substances which act as preservatives and tissue fixatives, which are supposed to halt any further chemical reactions and putrefaction (decomposition or multiplication) of the live or attenuated (or killed) biological constituents of the vaccine.

Vaccine ingredients include mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium hydroxide, ammonium sulphate, monkey kidney tissue, canine kidney tissue, fetal bovine serum albumen, human aborted fetal cells, human diploid lung fibroblast cells, squalene, phenol, Tween 80, MSG, hydrolysed porcine gelatin, peanut oil, alcohols, etc, etc, etc.

If a “dirty bomb” exposed a large segment of US citizens simultaneously to Hepatitis B, Hepatitis A, tetanus, pertussis, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenza B, three strains of polio viruses, 3 strains of influenza viruses, measles, mumps, and rubella viruses, the chickenpox virus, and 7 strains of Streptococcus bacteria, we would declare a national emergency. We would call it an “extreme act of BIOTERRORISM”. The public outcry would be immense and our government would act accordingly.

And yet, those are the very organisms that we inject through vaccines into our babies and our small children, with immature, underdeveloped immune systems. Many are given all at the same time. But instead of bioterrorism, we call it “protection.” Reflect a moment on that irony. (Sherri J. Tenpenny)

Do an Internet search on the chemicals listed above, if you want to shock yourself and really test your faith in the medical industry. Tween 80, for instance, is a chemical compound used in formulating the pesticide DDT.

Tween 80  can:

* Be used in pharmaceuticals to deliver nano-particles to the brain because they cross or disrupt the Blood Brain Barrier – which protects the brain.

* Suppress the immune system

* Promote epileptic seizures in rats

* Accelerate the development of female organs in rats

* Trigger cell death or ‘suicide’ called apoptosis

* Cause cancer in rats at the injection site

* Damage and promote intestinal damage in rats

* Cause bleeding disorders, kidney failure, liver failure, and death in infants who received a vitamin E product combined with Tween 80

* Possibly promote viral or bacterial infections

* Break down Red Blood Cells

* Cause damage to the heart when injected into rats

Tween 80 can be found in

* DtaP (Infanrix, Tripedia)

* DtaP-HebB-IPV (Pediarix)

* DtaP-Hib (TriHIBit)

* Human Papillomavirus (Gardasil)

* Influenza (Fluarix)

* Rotavirus (RotaTeq)

* Tdap (Adacel, Boostrix)

And then there’s the vaccination concept itself. The Government’s chief scientific adviser would have shown more medical understanding and professional integrity had he more fittingly described the concept itself as the ‘piece of extremely bad science. The subject can’t be summarised or paraphrased, so those who want to further their understanding of the concept and history of vaccinations will find links below that are good places to begin your own research, and there’s plenty of it to trawl through.

For now, I leave you with the wisdom of one Dr Richard Moskowitz who explains in plain terms Genuine Immunity vs Vaccine Immunity, an extract from his book Dissent in Medicine. He says,

Childhood illnesses like measles, mumps and chicken pox produce symptoms which reflect the efforts of the immune system to clear the virus from the blood, which it does by sending it out exactly the same way it came in. When a child recovers from measles, you have true immunity. That child will never, never again get the measles no matter how many epidemics he is exposed to. Furthermore, he will respond vigorously and dramatically to whatever infectious agents he is exposed to. The side benefit of that disease is a nonspecific immunity that charges or primes his immune system so that it can better respond to the subsequent challenges that it is going to meet in the future.

Now, by contrast, when you take an artificially attenuated measles vaccine and introduce it directly into the blood and bypass the portal of entry, there is no period of sensitization of the portal of entry tissues. There is no silent period of incubation in the lymph nodes. Furthermore, the virus itself has been artificially weakened in such a way that there is no generalized inflammatory response. By tricking the body in this way, we have done what the entire evolution of the immune system seems to be designed to prevent. We have placed the virus directly and immediately into the blood and given it free and immediate access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it.

The result of this, indeed, is the production of circulating antibodies, which can be measured in the blood. But that antibody response occurs purely as an isolated technical feat, without any generalized inflammatory response or any noticeable improvement in the general health of the organism. Quite the contrary, in fact. I believe that the price we pay for those antibodies is the persistence of virus elements in the blood for long periods of time, perhaps permanently, which in turn presupposes a systematic weakening of our ability to mount an effective response not only to measles but also to other infections. So far from producing a genuine immunity, the vaccine may act by interfering with or suppressing the immune response as a whole in much the same way as radiation and chemotherapy, corticosteroids and other anti-inflammatory drugs do.

Chronic long-term persistence of viruses and other proteins within cells of the immune system produce chronic disease. We know that live viruses are capable of surviving or remaining latent within host cells for years without continually provoking acute disease. They do this by attaching their own genetic material to the cell, and replicate along with the cell. That allows the host cell to continue its normal functioning but continuing to synthesize the viral protein.

Latent viruses produce various kinds of diseases. Because the virus is now permanently incorporated within the genetic material of the cell, the only appropriate immunological response is to make antibodies against the cell, no longer against the virus. So, immunizations promote certain types of chronic diseases. And far from providing a genuine immunity, the vaccines are actually a form of immunosuppression.

Knowledge is Power. Your ignorance is their bliss.

The Flawed Theory Behind Vaccinations, and Why MMR Jabs Endanger Your Child’s Health

Important Information regarding Cervical Cancer, HPV, and Vaccines

Scientists Sue Merck: allege fraud, mislabeling, and false certification of MMR vaccine

What are the consequences of injecting aluminium?

International Medical Council on Vaccinations

Dr. James Howenstine — Why You Should Avoid Taking Vaccines

Transcript: Statement from Andrew Wakefield

Genuine Immunity vs Vaccine Immunity

Vaccine-autism studies quotes

MMR vaccine information

Vaccine Ingredients

The Vaccine Website

Vaccine Liberation

Safe Minds

The following sites provide information and links that can be utilised by anyone to protect and maintain their own health and that of their family and friends.

Natural News

greenmedinfo.com

What Doctors Don’t Tell You

Off The Radar (New Zealand-based information “one stop shop”)

Advertisements

Important Information Regarding Cervical Cancer, HPV, and Vaccines

This post, like other posts on this blog, has been written with the intention of connecting readers with as much data on the subject as possible. The information in it has been collated from a variety of credentialed sources to facilitate as deep a comprehension of the subject as possible. For that reason, and because of the importance of the subject and the data, I would recommend that after reading it you save it as a PDF and return to it for at least  another once over, including following the links, which connect to both specific information and to valuable suppressed information sources. A PDF is also a more constructive way to share the information, and this is information that needs to be shared.

Cervical Cancer

Last week in the UK was Cervical Cancer Prevention week. Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, one of the leading voices in the campaign, is the UK’s only charity dedicated to providing support and information services for people affected by cervical abnormalities and cervical cancer. The following are statements from their website:

Cervical cancer forms in tissues of the cervix (the organ connecting the uterus and vagina). It is usually a slow-growing cancer that may or may not have symptoms but can be prevented through regular screening (a procedure in which cells are taken from the cervix and looked at under a microscope).Cervical cancer is not thought to be hereditary.

Cervical cancer kills 3 women a day in the UK whilst every 3 hours a woman is diagnosed. Cervical cancer is the most common cancer in women under the age of 29 and the second most common cancer in women under 35.

99.7% of cervical cancers are caused by persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) infection which causes changes to the cervical cells. HPV is an extremely common virus; around four out of five people be exposed to the virus. Anyone who is sexually active can be infected with HPV at some time and the body’s immune system will usually clear it up.

Cervical abnormalities are caused by persistant HPV infection. These abnormal cells found through cervical screening are not cancerous but given time (often years) they may go on to develop into cancer. However, often the cells return to normal by themselves. Information from the NHS National Screening Programmes 2010-11 showed that 7-9% of women will have abnormal cells of which only a small percentage will go on to have cancer.

The most effective method of preventing cervical cancer is through regular cervical screening which allows detection of any early changes of the cervix and for younger women the HPV vaccination can help prevent 70% of cervical cancers.

Cervical cancer is a preventable disease. Despite this in the UK in 2010, 20% of women did not take up their invitation for cervical screening and only 50% of girls offered the HPV vaccine in the catch-up programme have elected to have this potentially life saving jab. Raising public awareness of cervical cancer prevention is more necessary than ever.

The strategy recommended by this and other UK cancer charities consists of regular smear test screening for early detection and treatment with HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix. The Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust states,

Gardasil can be prescribed for women between the ages of 9 and 26. Cervarix can be given to women over the age of 10. The vaccines work best if given before women come into contact with the virus. As the virus is transmitted by skin to skin contact, usually by sexual activity, this age will vary. In practical terms, the most effective and easiest way to reach everybody is for girls to be vaccinated before they are sexually active. In the UK, the HPV vaccination programme is offered to girls from the age of 12 to 18. HPV vaccination has been shown to prevent infection and abnormal cells changes to the cervix for at least 9 years but it is expected to last longer. Ongoing studies will show how much longer you will be protected for and whether booster shots will be required.

Both Gardasil and Cervarix, will protect against the two highest risk HPV types. But unfortunately women can be infected with more than one type of HPV. Having the vaccine will provide protection against 70% of all cervical cancers and it will also prevent most of the more serious precancerous changes (CIN 2 and 3) 

Both the vaccines have shown evidence for providing cross protection for other strains of HPV which may mean that it has a much higher protection level than first thought

On the issue of side effects, it says,

Thousands of girls and women of different ages took part in the clinical trials for the HPV vaccines. These trials found that the vaccine offers 99% protection against infection with the high-risk types of HPV in girls who haven’t previously been infected with the virus. Side effects from both vaccines are usually mild. 

Side effects for the Gardasil HPV vaccine include:

Very common side effects (side effects which may occur in more than 1 per 10 doses of vaccine) reported by girls who have received the vaccine are:

injection site problems such as redness, bruising, itching, swelling, pain or cellulitis

headaches

Common (side effects which may occur in less than 1 per 10 but more than 1 per 100 doses of vaccine):

fever

nausea (feeling sick)

painful arms, hands, legs or feet

Rare (side effects which may occur in less than 1 per 100 but more than 1 per 1,000 doses of vaccine):

More than 1 in 10,000 people who have the Gardasil HPV vaccine experience:

An itchy red rash (urticaria)

Fewer than 1 in 10,000 people who have the Gardasil HPV vaccine experience:

Restriction of the airways and difficult breathing (brochospasm)

The above vaccine information is from that provided by the NHS.

Parallels with breast cancer campaigns and treatment

breast-cancer-ribbonNow at this point  it would be useful to consider an historical precedent with many almost carbon copy aspects, namely, breast cancer. The past years have seen an increase in breast cancer and as a result an increase in awareness campaigns like last week’s Cervical Cancer Prevention Week. Pink ribbons, are displayed on TV, poster and magazine advertisements as well as proudly adorn women’s lapels, and charity events are run, which generate millions of pounds/dollars.

These campaigns also, as it happens, recommend early detection and treatment with a pharmaceutical drug. As with smear tests the ever-widening target age group among women are encouraged to have regular mammograms.

Dr. Sherrill Sellman N.D., is an international author, passionate advocate for women’s health care issues and psychotherapist.  She has extensively researched the most vital and up to-date information necessary for hormonal health and well being, which is in her best selling books “Hormone Heresy: What Women MUST Know About Their Hormones” and “What Women MUST Know To Protect Their Daughters From Breast Cancer”, and as she says, there is something you must know.

As with most campaigns, breast cancer and indeed cervical cancer campaigns receive sponsor funding. As is often the case corporate sponsor funding is often present, particularly from companies that have something to gain from the hoped-for effects of the campaign.

In the article Seeing Deception is Your Only Protection by Dr Sellman, she points out a Breast Cancer Awareness month campaign whose primary sponsor of the event was Zeneca Pharmaceutical’s, now known as AstraZeneca. Zeneca is the company that manufactures the controversial and widely prescribed breast cancer drug, TAMOXIFEN. All TV, radio and print media were paid for and had to be approved by Zeneca.

It is less known that Zeneca also makes herbicides and fungicides.  One of their products, the organochlorine pesticide, acetochlor is implicated as a causal factor in breast cancer.  Zeneca’s Perry, Ohio chemical plant was the third largest source of potential cancer-causing pollution in the US, spewing 53,000 pounds of recognised carcinogens into the air in 1996.

Perhaps we can forgive Zeneca’s involvement with carcinogenic chemicals, since it researched and patented the most popular breast cancer treatment, tamoxifen, grossing 500 million dollars annually. Perhaps not. On May 16, 2000 the New York Times reported that the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences listed substances that are known to cause cancer.

Tamoxifen was included in that list!!

It is known that tamoxifen causes uterine cancer, liver cancer and gastrointestinal cancer.  After just two to three years of use, tamoxifen will increase the incidence of uterine cancer by two – three times. The treatment for uterine cancer is an hysterectomy.  In addition, tamoxifen increases the risk of strokes, blood clots, eye damage, menopausal symptoms, and depression.

The biggest shock of all is the fact that tamoxifen will increase the risk of breast cancer!  The journal Science published a study from Duke University Medical Center in 1999 showing that after 2-5 years, tamoxifen actually initiated the growth of breast cancer!

So, Zeneca, the originator of Breast Cancer Awareness month is the manufacturer of carcinogenic petrochemicals, carcinogenic pollutants and a breast cancer drug that causes at least four different types of cancer in women, including breast cancer.  Is something wrong with this picture?

It gets worse!

Since the Breast Cancer Awareness Month spin doctors claimed that breast cancer is “simply not a preventable disease”, the focus shifted to the theme of early detection.  Women are now encouraged to get their early mammogram. At one time, only women 50 years or older were told to get this screening.  Now the campaign is targeting 40 year old and even women as young as 25. However, detecting breast cancer with mammography is not the same as protection from breast cancer.  Questions are being raised about the validity of mammograms. A mammogram is an x-ray.  The only acknowledged cause of cancer by the American Cancer Society is from radiation.  When it comes to radiation, there is no safe level of exposure.

“There is clear evidence that the breast, particularly in premenopausal women, is highly sensitive to radiation, with estimates of increased risk of up to one percent for every RAD (radiation absorbed dose) unit of x-ray exposure.  Even for low dosage exposure of two RADs or less, this exposure can add up quickly for women having an annual mammography,” notes Samuel Epstein, M.D., Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health.

In addition, mammography provides false tumour reports between 5 and 15 percent of the time. False positive results cause women to be re-exposed to additional X rays and create an environment of further stress, even possibly leading  to unneeded surgery.  “Mammograms increase the risk for developing breast cancer and raise the risk of spreading or metastasising an existing growth,” says Dr. Charles B. Simone, a former clinical associate in immunology and pharmacology at the National Cancer Institute.  Safer and even more effective diagnostic techniques like infrared thermography, have been vigorously attacked by the Breast Cancer Awareness organisations

Dr Sellman provides straightforward, practical advice on real prevention strategies in Seeing Deception is Your Only Protection,available in downloadable pdf at the bottom of the page.

Back to Cervical Cancer Prevention Week.

In 2009 after formally reviewing the evidence relating to risks and benefits of cervical screening in women under 25 years, including evidence regarding incidence and mortality in young women, the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening agreed unanimously there should be no change in the screening age as evidence showed that earlier screening could do more harm than good,citing evidence that treatment following screening in that age group can lead to an increased risk of subsequent premature births, increasing the risk of babies dying or having severe disabilities.

Six years later and the target focus age has dropped to between 12 and 18 years old, with suggestions that that be lowered to 9 years old. Maybe the risks seen by the committee have been eliminated. One would hope so.

A glance at Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust sponsor list sees the names GlaxoSmithKline and Merck & Co. These giant pharmaceutical companies are the manufacturers of Cervarix and Gardasil, the two government-mandated vaccines for HPV.

A quick look at Merck’s history reveals that in April 2012, Merck was ordered to pay $321m for criminal activities regarding their painkiller drug, Vioxx. In addition to that, Merck paid more than $600 million to the federal government, 43 states and the District of Columbia for a wider range of improprieties. Vioxx was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after it was found to cause heart attacks, strokes and death. Estimates (from the complicit FDA and from independent sources) put the death toll due to Vioxx between 1999 and 2003 to between 27,785 and 55,000. Dr David Graham, the FDA scientist who blew the whistle on Merck and the FDA also revealed that the expensive painkiller had caused 88,000 to 139,000 heart attacks – 30-40% of which were fatal.

$1 billion dollars in fines and compensation sounds like a lot of money, until compared with the fact that Vioxx generated nearly $2.5 billion dollars in sales per year during the time it was on the market.

Last year also saw GlaxoSmithKline paying out $3 billion after being found guilty of criminal fraud. A nine year investigation revealed GSK illegally marketing drugs, forging drug safety data, bribing doctors to promote dangerous and expensive drugs, ripping off Medicare and Medicaid, and lying about the effectiveness and safety of drugs.

The above examples are not isolated cases, merely the latest in a history of criminal practices. In fact, as has been pointed out, it seems standard business practice for big pharmaceutical companies to produce, market and sell dangerous drugs, with legal settlements being factored into the plans, settlements that invariably turn out to be thin slices of massive profits reaped at the cost of peoples health and lives.

For a number of years both Cervarix and Gardasil have come under intense criticism from independent scientists and researchers, due to an ever-increasing catalogue of adverse effects associated with the drugs, such as the young girl left unable to talk or walk after getting the Cervarix vaccine 

news007a

In August, 2011, in 49 Dead, Others Hospitalized After Gardasil HPV Vaccine, Anthony Gucciardi reported that

“Following controversy over U.S. state legislatures requiring young girls to take Gardasil, Merck’s vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), a number of severe side effects have been observed along with the recent deaths of 3 young girls. Gardasil is now marketed towards men and women up to age 26 as a “preventative” tool against anal cancer. As of January 2010, Gardasil has been linked to 49 deaths and countless side-effects, while cancer associated with HPV is only responsible for 1% of all cancer deaths. Why then, is it being recommended to millions worldwide?

As of June 2009, 15 million girls have been injected with the Gardasil vaccine. Out of 15 million people, 49 deaths may not seem like a lot. Unfortunately, however, there are many more cases of extreme side effects from the vaccination. In fact, the amount of adverse reactions was so high that Judicial Watch, a group that claims to expose government corruption, was forced to step in. Between May 2009 and September 2010 alone, Gardasil was linked to 3,589 harmful reactions and 16 deaths. Of the 3,589 adverse reactions, many were debilitating. Permanent disability was the result of 213 cases; 25 resulted in the diagnosis of Guillain-Barre Syndrome; and there were 789 other “serious” reports according to FDA documents

In seeking answers to why adolescent girls are suffering devastating health damage after being injected with HPV vaccines, SANE Vax, Inc, a vaccination research and watchdog group, decided to have vials of Gardasil tested in a laboratory. As SANE Vax explained in its announcement, these tests were conducted after an adolescent girl experienced “acute onset Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis within 24 hours” of being injected with an HPV vaccine. They found over a dozen Gardasil vaccine vials to be contaminated with rDNA of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). The vials were purchased in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Poland and France, indicating Gardasil contamination is a global phenomenon.

250123_10151418716898998_961007685_nThis means that adolescents who are injected with these vials are being contaminated with a biohazard – the rDNA of HPV. As if that wasn’t bad enough, not only is the rDNA found in Gardasil genetically engineered, the rDNA from both HPV-11 and HPV-18, were described as “firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant.”

That aluminum is also found in vaccines should be frightening all by itself, given that aluminum should never be injected into the human body (it’s toxic when ingested, and it specifically damages the nervous system). With the added discovery that the aluminum adjuvant also carries rDNA fragments of two different strains of Human Papillomavirus, this now reaches the level of a dangerous biohazard – something more like a biological weapon rather than anything resembling medicine.

As Dr. Lee, the pathologist who ran the laboratory tests identifying the biohazard contamination of Gardasil said:

“Natural HPV DNA does not remain in the bloodstream for very long. However, the HPV DNA in Gardasil is not ‘natural’ DNA. It is a recombinant HPV DNA (rDNA) – genetically engineered – to be inserted into yeast cells for VLP (virus-like-particle) protein production. rDNA is known to behave differently from natural DNA. It may enter a human cell, especially in an inflammatory lesion caused by the effects of the aluminum adjuvant, via poorly understood mechanisms. Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA.”

HPVHoax250Anyone wanting to know more about the subject should read the special NaturalNews report The Great HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed (link at the foot of the page).

NaturalNews has obtained documents from the FDA and other sources, which reveal that the FDA has been well aware for several years that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) has no direct link to cervical cancer.

NaturalNews has also learned that HPV vaccines have been proven to be flatly worthless in clearing the HPV virus from women who have already been exposed to HPV (which includes most sexually active women), calling into question the scientific justification of mandatory “vaccinate everyone” policies.

Furthermore, this story reveals evidence that the vaccine currently being administered for HPV — Gardasil — may increase the risk of precancerous cervical lesions by an alarming 44.6 percent in some women. The vaccine, it turns out, may be far more dangerous to the health of women than doing nothing at all.

If true, this information reveals details of an enormous public health fraud being perpetrated on  people. The health and safety of tens of millions of young girls is at stake here, and what this NaturalNews investigative report reveals is that HPV vaccinations may not only be medically useless; they may also be harmful to the health of the young girls receiving them.

Incidentally, it’s not only girls that are being targeted. Gardasil is now marketed towards men and women up to age 26 as a “preventative” tool against anal cancer, and it has been recommended for pre-sexually active boys.

Experts have spoken out, and the documents have been released. Gardasil is a deadly injection that claims to treat an infection that has a 90% chance to resolve itself within two years.

The Vaccination Concept Itself

Although what’s been discussed so far are specific vaccines, many of their aspects, and worse, are replicated by other vaccines. Given the toxic cocktail of vaccine ingredients, it’s not surprising.Vaccines have several components: 1. Micro-organisms, either bacteria or viruses, thought to be causing certain infectious diseases and which the vaccine is supposed to prevent. These are whole-cell proteins or just the broken-cell protein envelopes, and are called antigens. 2. Chemical substances which are supposed to enhance the immune response to the vaccine, called adjuvants. 3. Chemical substances which act as preservatives and tissue fixatives, which are supposed to halt any further chemical reactions and putrefaction (decomposition or multiplication) of the live or attenuated (or killed) biological constituents of the vaccine. Vaccine ingredients include mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium hydroxide, ammonium sulphate, monkey kidney tissue, canine kidney tissue, fetal bovine serum albumen, human aborted fetal cells, human diploid lung fibroblast cells, squalene, phenol, Tween 80, MSG, hydrolysed porcine gelatin, peanut oil, alcohols, etc, etc, etc.

But it’s not just the ingredients, the concept itself is fundamentally flawed, as Dr Richard Moskowitz describes in plain terms in Genuine Immunity vs Vaccine Immunity, an extract from his book Dissent in Medicine. Using the example of an infant vaccine he says,

Childhood illnesses like measles, mumps and chicken pox produce symptoms which reflect the efforts of the immune system to clear the virus from the blood, which it does by sending it out exactly the same way it came in. When a child recovers from measles, you have true immunity. That child will never, never again get the measles no matter how many epidemics he is exposed to. Furthermore, he will respond vigorously and dramatically to whatever infectious agents he is exposed to. The side benefit of that disease is a nonspecific immunity that charges or primes his immune system so that it can better respond to the subsequent challenges that it is going to meet in the future.

Now, by contrast, when you take an artificially attenuated measles vaccine and introduce it directly into the blood and bypass the portal of entry, there is no period of sensitization of the portal of entry tissues. There is no silent period of incubation in the lymph nodes. Furthermore, the virus itself has been artificially weakened in such a way that there is no generalized inflammatory response. By tricking the body in this way, we have done what the entire evolution of the immune system seems to be designed to prevent. We have placed the virus directly and immediately into the blood and given it free and immediate access to the major immune organs and tissues without any obvious way of getting rid of it.

The result of this, indeed, is the production of circulating antibodies, which can be measured in the blood. But that antibody response occurs purely as an isolated technical feat, without any generalized inflammatory response or any noticeable improvement in the general health of the organism. Quite the contrary, in fact. I believe that the price we pay for those antibodies is the persistence of virus elements in the blood for long periods of time, perhaps permanently, which in turn presupposes a systematic weakening of our ability to mount an effective response not only to measles but also to other infections. So far from producing a genuine immunity, the vaccine may act by interfering with or suppressing the immune response as a whole in much the same way as radiation and chemotherapy, corticosteroids and other anti-inflammatory drugs do.

Chronic long-term persistence of viruses and other proteins within cells of the immune system produce chronic disease. We know that live viruses are capable of surviving or remaining latent within host cells for years without continually provoking acute disease. They do this by attaching their own genetic material to the cell, and replicate along with the cell. That allows the host cell to continue its normal functioning but continuing to synthesize the viral protein.

Latent viruses produce various kinds of diseases. Because the virus is now permanently incorporated within the genetic material of the cell, the only appropriate immunological response is to make antibodies against the cell, no longer against the virus. So, immunizations promote certain types of chronic diseases. And far from providing a genuine immunity, the vaccines are actually a form of immunosuppression.

 __________

The vaccine industry, of course, has a long and dark history of its vaccines being contaminated with cancer-causing viruses and other frightening contaminants. The following video is an interview in which Merck scientist Dr. Hillerman openly admits that polio vaccines were widely contaminated with SV40 viruses that cause cancer.

The politics and profits involved in the medical industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the media industry become more obvious and prevalent every day. Before taking any pharmaceutical product, you should take ownership of your own health. Conduct your own research on the ingredients and side-effects. Find out where your doctor gets his information. Many of them are paid to promote specific pharmaceutical products. Others (like, I presume, Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust) simply get their information from sources they trust such as drug companies and other organisations. Still, others are told by their legal departments not to speak out.

The Good News

The following is allegedly from the John Hopkins Establishment, a world-renowned, well-respected medical establishment, although some including, allegedly again, the JHE refute any connection. It’s included here because of the nature of the information and advice. Saying that though, I would point out that some of the terminology has been changed, as I felt it was misleading. The original reference to ‘cancer cells’ has been changed to read ‘cancerous cells’. There is no such thing as a cancer cell, cells can become cancerous. The distinction is important.

1. Every person has cancerous cells in the body. These cancerous cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion.. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancerous cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancerous cells because they have not reached the detectable size.

2. Cancerous cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person’s lifetime.

3. When the person’s immune system is strong the cancerous cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.

4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.

5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancerous cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastrointestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.

7. Radiation while destroying cancerous cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.

9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancerous cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancerous cells to spread to other sites.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancerous cells by not feeding them with the foods they needs to multiply..

*Cancerous CELLS FEED ON:

a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancerous cells. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses, but only in very small amounts.

Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in color. Better alternative is Bragg’s aminos or sea salt.

b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk cancer cells are being starved.

c. cancerous cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.

d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment.. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines becomes putrefied and leads to more toxic buildup.

13. Cancerous cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancerous cells and allows the body’s killer cells to destroy the cancerous cells.

14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the bodies own killer cells to destroy cancer cells.. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body’s normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.

16. Cancerous cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancerous cells.

The following are links to source and additional material.

Knowledge is power. Your ignorance is their bliss.

Seeing Deception is Your Only Protection

Mammograms cause breast cancer

Tamoxifen

Dr. David Graham’s Vioxx testimony

GlaxoSmithKline pleads guilty to criminal fraud charges, pays massive $3 billion in fines

GlaxoSmithKline information

The Great HPV Vaccine Hoax Exposed

Vaccine Ingredients

HPV vaccine researcher blasts marketing

Cervarix Vaccine Programme to Cost UK Government £5.5 Billion

Gardasil Contains HPV DNA Bound to Insoluble Aluminum Adjuvant a New Chemical With Untested Toxicity

Gardasil page of Vaccination Liberation – Huge information resource

Gardasil

Vioxx

The Secret Origin of AIDS and HIV: How scientists produced the most horrifying plague of all time – and then covered it up.

The following sites provide information and links that can be utilised by anyone to protect and maintain their own health and that of their family and friends.

Natural News

greenmedinfo.com

What Doctors Don’t Tell You

What Women Must Know

Off The Radar (New Zealand-based information “one stop shop”)

Natural Cures ‘They’ Don’t Want you to Know About