Wednesday, December 3, 2014

MIT Scientist on Vaccines Containing Aluminum

 MIT Scientist Shows What Can Happen To Children Who Receive Aluminum Containing Vaccines

A claim often heard from the “pro-vaccination” community when it comes to linking vaccines to autism is that there is no evidence to substantiate those claims. This view is absolutely absurd and dangerous given the fact that a tremendous amount of scientific evidence exists and is available in the public domain that suggests some vaccines could possibly play a role in the development of autism. To say that there is no probability of some vaccinations contributing to the development of autism contradicts the science.

When it comes to Monsanto’s glyphosate and other commonly used pesticides (as well as other environmental toxins), the science linking them to possible causes of autism (among many other diseases like Alzheimer’s and cancer) seems to be irrefutable and abundant. You can read more about that here:
Furthermore, we’ve had statements made from scientists who’ve had long careers with vaccine manufactures, pharmaceutical companies and  health organizations like the CDC. We also have documents that indicate scientific fraud and manipulation of data when it comes to the adverse affects of vaccinations.(1)  Many examples of “funny business” within the food industry are also making their way into the public domain  when it comes to the role of GMO’s and pesticides regarding their link with various diseases. One example (out of many) is the fact that after a study was published showing that two Monsanto products, a genetically modified (GM) maize and Roundup herbicide were linked to cancer, kidney and liver damage, the journal that published the study appointed a former Monsanto scientist to decide which papers on GM foods and crops should be published. The study was then retracted, but has been republished in another journal since. (2) You can read more about (and view) this study HERE.
One thing we now know for sure is that the development of autism goes far beyond genetics.
The research suggesting that vaccines and glyphosate could possibly play a role in autism comes from various peer-reviewed scientific journals as well as independent research conducted by renowned scientists from all over the world. One of those scientists is Dr. Stephanie Seneff. This article will  focus mostly on her views regarding the connection between aluminum containing vaccines and autism. Information regarding autism and pesticides are linked in two articles above after the first paragraph.
Dr Seneff is a Senior Research Scientist at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. In recent years her research has focused specifically on biology, nutrition and health. Within the past three years alone she has written over a dozen papers in multiple medical and health related journals touching upon many modern day diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease and autism (among others). (3)

Vaccines and Autism

In North America alone, millions of doses of vaccines are administered to children every year. Various chemicals are added to the vaccines as preservatives, and theses chemical additives have been responsible for stirring up quite the controversy, especially within the past couple of years. One common substance found in vaccines is aluminum.
A paper published by Dr. Seneff in 2012 argues that severe adverse reactions to the chemicals (like aluminum) within vaccines can be associated with life threatening conditions that are associated with the heart and brain. The paper goes on to argue that there is a relationship between autism and acute adverse reactions to vaccinations.  Dr Seneff is not claiming that vaccines cause autism, she is simply claiming that children could be vulnerable to an acute reaction to an aluminum adjuvanted vaccine, which could cause neuronal damage. (4)
The study also outlines how autism is associated with elevated levels of nitrate in the blood stream, and that aluminum likely plays a role in in the excess nitrate production. Furthermore, the study shows how abnormally high levels of aluminum were recently found in hair analyses of over half of 34 autistic children that were analyzed. Another important factor mentioned in her research is that autism is associated with abnormal immune function, and this (she argues) is enhanced by aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. (4)
In summary, the paper argues that autism develops as a result of a deficiency in the supply of cholesterol sulfate to stabilize the colloidal suspension system of the blood. Cholesterol sulfate supply is maintained by nitrate levels  “acting in the epidermis, the endothelium, and the suspended blood cells, and that it requires the substrates cholesterol and sulfur, as well as sunlight, to provide the necessary activation energy for the reaction.” (4)  Vaccines come into the picture because:
“Aluminum-containing vaccines are problematic, not only because aluminum causes eNOS to switch from sulfate to nitric oxide production, but also because aluminum can induce necrosis of tissues at the vaccination site, emulating  the process of tissue damage to the placenta in preeclampsia. In both cases, the release of
mitochondrial DNA into the blood stream may trigger an acute autoimmune reaction.” (4)

The study concluded that:
“We have proposed in this paper a novel hypothesis for the underlying pathology that links autism, and extreme adverse reactions to vaccines. We would also recommend the elimination of aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines.” (4)
“Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s medical understanding of their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted.” (5)
 - Dr. Chris Shaw, with the UBC Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and Experimental Medicine and the Graduate Program in Neuroscience
I’d also like to mention that experimental research clearly shows that aluminum in adjuvant form creates a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and subsequent neurological complications and may as a result have profound and widespread adverse health complications.(5)
Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic of UBC (in a recent study) also show that the more children receive vaccines with aluminum adjuvants, the greater their chance is of developing autism, autoimmune diseases and neurological problems later in life.  A demonstrated neurotoxin, Aluminum is the only approved adjuvant in the US.   Its use presents the risk of brain inflammation, autoimmunity and other adverse health consequences.(6)
Just as a side note, it is known that aluminum accumulates in the brain and that this accumulation is associated with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases and with Gulf War Syndrome. (7)(8)

A role for the Pineal Gland In Neurological Damage Following Aluminum Adjuvented Vaccination

The paper discussed above by Dr. Seneff is from 2012. In more recent news regarding Dr. Seneff, she recently presented more scientific research at the Third International Symposium on Vaccines in March 2014. It was part of the 9th International Congress on Autoimmunity. She was invited by the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI) to discuss the adverse health effects of aluminum adjuvants and aluminum-adjuvented vaccines.
As noted above, Dr. Seneff commonly makes the case that neurological brain diseases are a result of an insufficient supply of sulfate to the brain. She argues that systematic sulfate deficiency “may be the most important factor in many of the health issues facing us today.”
“One of the consequences of insufficient sulfate in the brain is that it impairs the brain’s ability to eliminate heavy metals and other toxins. To make matters worse, those same toxic metals also interfere with sulfate synthesis. The net result can be an accumulation of cellular debris.” – (source) Claire I. Viadro, MPH, PhD
Some interesting studies have been done when it comes to Heparin Sulfate, which also plays a key role in fetal brain development, protecting against damaging free radicals. When it comes to autism and sulfate deficiency, intriguing evidence of what happens when heparan sulfate is deficient comes from both human and mouse studies of autism. In one study, “mice engineered to have impaired heparan sulfate synthesis in the brain displayed all the classic features of autism, including sociocommunicative deficits and stereotypies.” (9)
Another study published in the Journal Behavioural Brain Research found that this type of deficiency exists in the subventricular zone of the lateral ventricles of four autistic people. The authors concluded that this “may be a biomarker for autism, and potentially involved in the etiology of the disorder.” (10)
What Dr. Seneff is suggesting is that melatonin is a key factor in the delivery of sulfate to the brain. That sunlight exposure helps the pineal gland build up supplies of sulfate by the day, storing it in heparan sulfate molecules. When the evening comes around, the pineal gland produces melatonin, and transports it as melatonin sulfate to several parts of the brain. The significance here is that there is an association of autism with heparan sulfate depletion in the lateral and third ventricles, and the tip of the third ventricle is located within the pineal gland. (source) When everything is working how it’s supposed to be working, the pineal gland delivers sulfate to the third ventricle, among other parts of the brain. But when the brain is loaded with toxic chemicals, like aluminum, it hinders that process.
 “In addition, melatonin not only transports sulfate but also is an outstanding antioxidant and binds toxic metals to help dispose of them. It may come as no surprise, then, that melatonin impairment has been implicated in autism.” – (source) Claire I. Viadro, MPH, PhD
As far as aluminum goes, it’s a well known fact that it plays a role in various neurological diseases, and that it may disrupt the pineal glands ability to produce sulfate, which means the brain cannot cleanse itself of heavy metals and they just continue to accumulate.
“The pineal gland is particularly susceptible to aluminum and other heavy metals because it is not protected by the blood-brain barrier and has a very high blood perfusion rate.” (source) Claire I. Viadro, MPH, PhD
The pineal gland’s vulnerability to aluminum is illustrated in a 1996 paper showing that the concentrations of aluminum in the pineal gland were “consistently observed” and “markedly higher” than in other brain tissues examined (pituitary, cortex, and cerebellum) (11)
“Scientists are taking note of the fact that we live in an “age of aluminum,” with aluminum exposure occurring through vaccines as well as multiple other channels. Moreover, although many experts would have us believe that the question of thimerosal and vaccine safety went away after federal agencies issued lukewarm recommendations to reduce its use as a vaccine preservative in the early 2000s, Dr. Seneff noted that thimerosal is still very much relevant.” (source) Claire I. Viadro, MPH, PhD
In summary, Dr. Seneff is pointing to the fact that many neurological diseases of the brain have a common origin, which includes an insufficient supply of sulfate to the brain. She is concluding that enhanced toxic metal exposure (aluminum) impairs the brains ability to detox itself and eliminate them. As a result, these toxic metals interfere with sulfate synthesis, create a heparan sulfate deficency which in turn leads to autism (as mentioned and pointed out with the studies cited above.) (12)
I’d also like to mention that autism is comprised of a very large spectrum. Some of the ailments associated with diagnosis might not be ailments at all, but gifts that are in no way associated with vaccines. On the other hand, I do believe in some cases, characteristics that are seen in some autistic children are the cause of various toxins from pesticides to vaccines, especially children who have a genetic make up that makes them more sensitive to these chemicals. In some cases (I believe) it’s a result of these various toxins, and again, in other cases I believe it is a gift, and possibly an evolutionary step.

Full source for this article:
Collective Evolution

About the Author:
Arjun Walia
I joined the CE team in 2010 and have been doing this ever since. There are many things happening on the planet that don't resonate with me, and I wanted to do what I could to play a role in creating change. It's been great making changes in my own life and creating awareness and I look forward to more projects that move beyond awareness and into action and implementation. So stay tuned :)

My Articles 

Thursday, October 30, 2014


Many medical experts now agree it is more important to protect yourself and your family from the flu vaccine than the flu itself. Let’s take a look at the reasons behind this verdict:

1.) There is a total lack of real evidence that young children even benefit from flu shots. A systematic review of 51 studies involving 260,000 children age 6 to 23 months found no evidence that the flu vaccine is any more effective than a placebo. Also the shots are only able to protect against certain strains of the virus, which means that if you come into contact with a different strain of virus you will still get the flu.

2.) Medical journals have published thousands of articles revealing that injecting vaccines can actually lead to serious health problems including harmful immunological responses and a host of other infections. This further increases the body’s susceptibility to the diseases that the vaccine was supposed to protect against.

3.) Ever noticed how vaccinated children within days or few weeks develop runny noses, pneumonia, ear infections and bronchiolitis? The reason is the flu virus introduced in their bodies which creates these symptoms. It also indicates immuno-suppression i.e. lowering of the immunity.The flu vaccines actually do not immunize but sensitize the body against the virus.

4.) Its a known fact that Flu vaccines contain strains of the flu virus along with other ingredients. Now think about the impact such a vaccine can have over someone with a suppressed immune system? If you have a disease that is already lowering your body’s ability to fight a virus, taking the flu shot will put your body in danger of getting the full effects of the flu and make you more susceptible to pneumonia and other contagious diseases.

5.) The Flu vaccines contain mercury, a heavy metal known to be hazardous for human health. The amount of mercury contained in a multi-dose flu shot is much higher than the maximum allowable daily exposure limit. Mercury toxicity can cause memory loss, depression, ADD, oral health problems, digestive imbalances, respiratory problems, cardiovascular diseases and many more such serious health ailments.

And what about the elderly? Can the flu vaccine help them?

6.) There is mounting evidence that flu shots can cause Alzheimer’s disease. One report shows that people who received the flu vaccine each year for 3 to 5 years had a 10-fold greater chance of developing Alzheimer’s disease than people who did not have any flu shots. Also with age the immune system weakens, thus lowering your ability to fight off infections. Introducing the flu virus in the bodies of elderly could have dangerous consequences.

Can we trust the authorities who are promoting the wide-spread use of flu vaccines?

7.) The Center for Disease Control appoints a 15-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This committee is responsible for deciding who should be vaccinated each year. Almost all the ACIP have a financial interest in immunizations.It’s all about the money and may have very little to do with your health and well being. The very people pushing these vaccines stand to make billions of dollars. This itself creates a doubt on how effective these flu vaccines really are?

8.) Research shows that over-use of the flu-vaccine and drugs like Tamiflu and Relenza can actually alter flu viruses and cause them to mutate into a more deadly strain. Couple this with drug resistant strains and you have virtually no benefits with much risk.

9.) There is enough evidence that shows that the ingredients present in the flu vaccinations can actually cause serious neurological disorders. In the 1976 swine flu outbreak, many who got the flu shots developed permanent nerve damage. Flu vaccines can contain many harmful materials including detergent, mercury, formaldehyde, and strains of live flu virus. Is this what you want to put in YOUR body?

10.) Trying to guess what strain to vaccinate against each season has proved to be no more effective than a guessing game. This has been very true in recent years with the H1N1 strain. Moreover getting multi-shots will only prove more dangerous as different strains of viruses and harmful ingredients are introduced into your body.

Flu shots are indeed more dangerous than you could think, and it is best to rely on natural ways to protect against the flu rather than getting yourself vaccinated.

Isn’t it interesting that the main stream public health officials never promote the various proven ways to avoid the flu other than through vaccination? How about spending some of the billions of advertising dollars teaching us natural ways to boost our immune systems and avoid the flu without harmful and sometimes deadly vaccinations.

Help Us Spread This Article!

Source: Flu Shots are More Dangerous than Flu

Monday, October 13, 2014


DYOR: Do Your Own Research

Thomas made me aware of the following through the Jimstonefreelance mail box:

I have confirmed the following is real, and was written by a man living in Accra Ghana.

From Ghana: Ebola is not real and the only people who have gotten sick are those who have received treatments and injections from the Red Cross

Other than the original facebook post, this web site is the first one to carry this and it needs to be spread, the future may be riding on this one, ARCHIVE, POST POST AND RE-POST!

UPDATE: Nana Kwami's facebook became inaccessible from America and probably other places, but it still works from Mexico. They are censoring this geographically because it is too important. HERE IS HOW IT ALL APPEARS:Nana's facebook, referenced business facebook, and referenced business web site all proving this really did come from Ghana.


Nana Kwame wrote:

People in the Western World need to know what's happening here in West Africa. THEY ARE LYING!!! "Ebola" as a virus does NOT Exist and is NOT "Spread". The Red Cross has brought a disease to 4 specific countries for 4 specific reasons and it is only contracted by those who receive treatments and injections from the Red Cross. That is why Liberians and Nigerians have begun kicking the Red Cross out of their countries and reporting in the news the truth. Now bear with me:


Most people jump to "depopulation" which is no doubt always on the mind of the West when it comes to Africa. But I assure you Africa can NEVER be depopulated by killing 160 people a day when thousands are born per day. So the real reasons are much more tangible.

Reason 1: This vaccine implemented sickness being "called" Ebola was introduced into West Africa for the end goal of getting troops on the ground in Nigeria, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. If you remember America was just trying to get into Nigeria for "Boko Haram" #BULLSHIT but that fell apart when Nigerians started telling the truth. There ARE NO GIRLS MISSING. Global support fell through the floor, and a new reason was needed to get troops into Nigeria and steal the new oil reserves they have discovered.

Reason 2: Sierra Leone is the World's Largest Supplier of Diamonds. For the past 4 months they have been on strike, refusing to provide diamonds due to horrible working conditions and slave pay. The West will not pay a fair wage for the resources because the idea is to keep these people surviving on rice bags and foreign aid so that they remain a source of cheap slave labor forever. A reason was also needed to get troops on the ground in Sierra Leone to force an end to the diamond miners strikes. This is not the first time this has been done. When miners refuse to work troops are sent in and even if they have to kill and replace them all, the only desire is to get diamonds back flowing out of the country.

Of course to launch multiple campaigns to invade these countries separately would be way too fishy. But something like "Ebola" allows access to an entire area simultaneously...

Reason 3: In addition to stealing Nigerian oil, and forcing Sierra Leone back to mining, troops have also been sent in to FORCE vaccinations (Deadly "Ebola" Poison) onto those Africans who are not foolish enough to take them willingly.

3000 troops are being sent in to make sure that this "poison" continues to spread, because again it is only spread through vaccination. As more and more news articles are released as they have been in Liberia, informing the populous of the US lies and manipulation, more and more Africans are refusing to visit the Red Cross. Troops will force these vaccinations upon the people to ensure the visible appearance of an Ebola pandemic. In addition to this they will protect the Red Cross from the Liberians and Nigerians who have been rightfully ejecting them from their countries.

Reason 4: Last but not least, the APPEARANCE of this Ebola "pandemic" (should Americans not catch on) will be used to scare the countless millions into taking an "Ebola vaccine" which in reality is the pandemic. Already they have started with stories of how it has been brought to the U.S. and has appeared in Dallas, how white doctors were cured but black infected are not being allowed to be treated, etc.

ALL that will do is make blacks STRIVE to get the vaccine, because it appears that the "cure" is being held back from blacks. They will run out in droves to get it and then there will be serious problems. With all we have seen revealed about vaccines this year you would think we learned our lesson. All I can do is hope so, Because they rely on our ignorance to complete their agendas.

Ask yourself: If Ebola really was spread from person to person, instead of controlled spread through vaccination - then WHY would the CDC and the US Government continue to allow flights in and out of these countries with absolutely no regulation, Or At All? We have got to start thinking and sharing information globally because they do not give the true perspective of the people who live here in West Africa. They are lying for their own benefit and there aren't enough voices out there with a platform to help share our reality. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, paralyzed and disabled by these and other "new" vaccines all over the world and we are finally becoming aware of it. Now what will we do with all this information?

Original post


We Have Been Duped

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Human Rights Violation - Vaccine Experiments

The CDC and World Health Organization (WHO) have a history of violating the human rights of families by unethically experimenting on their babies with dangerous measles vaccines.
Excerpt  1) new measles vaccine on “high-titer” shots that are up to 500 times more potent than standard measles vaccines.(11) In the early 1980s, they tested one of these — the Edmonston-Zagreb (EZ-HT) strain — on Mexican and Gambian babies 4 to 6 months old.(12-15) During the next few years this high-titer measles vaccine was also tested on babies in Guinea-Bissau, Togo, Senegal, Haiti, and impoverished minority communities in Los Angeles, California.(16-22)

Excerpt 2) Children who received the Schwartz strain (SW-HT) died of other diseases at a rate 51% higher than children who received a standard vaccine. There were 48 excess deaths for every 1000 babies vaccinated. Children who received the Edmonston-Zagreb strain (EZ-HT) died of other diseases at a rate 80% higher than children who received a standard vaccine. There were 75 excess deaths for every 1000 babies vaccinated.(17) Mortality remained consistently high in the second and third year after the EZ-HT vaccine was administered, whereas it declined substantially in the control group. One of every six babies vaccinated with EZ-HT died within three years.(17)

Full Story:

Best regards,

Eileen Dannemann
Director,  National Coalition of Organized Women
319 855-0307

Friday, July 11, 2014



The cure for tetanus, a life-threatening and often deadly disease, has been sought from the very inception of the modern field of Immunology. The original horse anti-serum treatment of tetanus was developed in the late 19th century and introduced into clinical practice at the time when a bio-statistical concept of a randomized placebo-controlled trial (RCT) did not yet exist. The therapy was infamous for generating a serious adverse reaction called serum sickness attributed to the intolerance of humans to horse-derived serum. To make this tetanus therapy usable, it was imperative to substitute the animal origin of anti-serum with the human origin. But injecting a lethal toxin into human volunteers as substitutes for horses would have been unthinkable.

A practical solution was found in 1924: pre-treating the tetanus toxin with formaldehyde (a fixative chemical) made the toxin lose its ability to cause clinical tetanus symptoms. The formaldehyde-treated tetanus toxin is called the toxoid. The tetanus toxoid can be injected into human volunteers to produce a commercial human therapeutic product from their sera called tetanus immunoglobulin (TIG), a modern substitute of the original horse anti-serum. The tetanus toxoid has also become the vaccine against clinical tetanus.

The tetanus toxin, called tetanospasmin, is produced by numerous C. tetani bacterial strains. C. tetani normally live in animal intestines, notably in horses, without causing tetanus to their intestinal carriers. These bacteria require anaerobic (no oxygen) conditions to be active, whereas in the presence of oxygen they turn into resilient but inactive spores, which do not produce the toxin. It has been recognized that inactive tetanus spores are ubiquitous in the soil. Tetanus can result from the exposure to C. tetani via poorly managed tetanus-prone wounds or cuts, but not from oral ingestion of tetanus spores. Quite to the contrary, oral exposure to C. tetani has been found to build resistance to tetanus without carrying the risk of disease, as described in the section on Natural Resistance to Tetanus.

Once secreted by C. tetani germinating in a contaminated wound, tetanospasmin diffuses through the tissue’s interstitial fluids or bloodstream. Upon reaching nerve endings, it is adsorbed by the cell membrane of neurons and transported through nerve trunks into the central nervous system, where it inhibits the release of a neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). This inhibition can result in various degrees of clinical tetanus symptoms: rigid muscular spasms, such as lockjaw, sardonic smile, and severe convulsions that frequently lead to bone fractures and death due to respiratory compromise.

Curative effects of the anti-serum therapy as well as the preventative effects of the tetanus vaccination are deemed to rely upon an antibody molecule called antitoxin. But the assumption that such antitoxin was the sole “active” ingredient in the original horse anti-serum has not been borne out experimentally. Since horses are natural carriers of tetanus spores, their bloodstream could have contained other unrecognized components, which got harnessed in the therapeutic anti-serum. Natural Resistance to Tetanus discusses other serum entities detected in research animals carrying C. tetani, which better correlated with their protection from clinical tetanus than did serum antitoxin levels. Nevertheless, the main research effort in the tetanus field remained narrowly focused on antitoxin.

Antitoxin molecules are thought to inactivate the corresponding toxin molecules by virtue of their toxin-binding capacity. This implies that to accomplish its protective effect, antitoxin must come into close physical proximity with the toxin and combine with it in a way that would prevent or preempt the toxin from binding to nerve endings. Early research on the properties of a newly discovered antitoxin was done in small-sized research animals, such as guinea pigs. The tetanus toxin was pre-incubated in a test tube with the animal’s serum containing antitoxin before being injected into another (antitoxin-free) animal, susceptible to tetanus. Such pre-incubation made the toxin lose its ability to cause tetanus in otherwise susceptible animals—i.e., the toxin was neutralized.
Nevertheless, researchers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were baffled by a peculiar observation. Research animals, whose serum contained enough antitoxin to inactivate a certain amount of the toxin in a test tube, would succumb to tetanus when they were injected with the same amount of the toxin. Furthermore, it was noted that the mode of the toxin injection had a different effect on the ability of serum antitoxin to protect the animal. The presence of antitoxin in the serum of animals afforded some degree of protection against the toxin injected directly into the bloodstream (intravenously). However, when the toxin was injected into the skin it would be as lethal to animals containing substantial levels of serum antitoxin as to animals virtually free of serum antitoxin.[1]
The observed difference in serum antitoxin’s protective “behavior” was attributed to the toxin’s propensity to bind faster to nerve cells than to serum antitoxin. The pre-incubation of the toxin with antitoxin in a test tube, or the injection of the toxin directly into the bloodstream, where serum antitoxin is found, gives antitoxin a head start in combining with and neutralizing the toxin. However, a skin or muscle injection of the toxin does not give serum antitoxin such a head start.
Researchers in the 21st century have developed an advanced fluorescent labeling technique to track the uptake of the injected tetanus toxin into neurons. Using this technique, researchers examined the effect of serum antitoxin, which was induced by vaccinating mice with the tetanus toxoid vaccine ahead of time (the same one currently used in humans), on blocking the neuronal uptake and transport of the tetanus toxin fragment C (TTC) to the brain from the site of intramuscular injection. Vaccinated and non-vaccinated animals showed similar levels of TTC uptake into the brain. The authors of the study concluded that the “uptake of TTC by nerve terminals from an intramuscular depot is an avid and rapid process and is not blocked by vaccination.”[2] They have further commented that their results appear to be surprising in view of protective effects of immunization with the tetanus toxoid. Indeed, the medical establishment holds a view that a tetanus shot prevents tetanus, but how do we know this view is correct?

Neonatal tetanus
Neonatal tetanus is common in tropical under-developed countries but is extremely rare in developed countries. This form of tetanus results from unhygienic obstetric practices, when cutting the umbilical cord is performed with unsterilized devices, potentially contaminating it with tetanus spores. Adhering to proper obstetric practices removes the risk of neonatal tetanus, but this has not been the standard of birth practices for some indigenous and rural people in the past or even present.
The authors of a neonatal tetanus study performed in the 1960s in New Guinea describe the typical conditions of childbirth among the locals:
    The mother cuts the cord 1 inch (2.5 cm) or less from the abdominal wall; it is never tied. In the past she would always use a sliver of sago bark, but now she uses a steel trade-knife or an old razor blade. These are not cleaned or sterilized in any way and no dressing is put of the cord. The child lies after birth on a dirty piece of soft bark, and the cut cord can easily become contaminated by dust from the floor of the hut or my mother’s feces expressed during childbirth, as well as by the knife and her finger. [3]
Not surprisingly, New Guinea had a high rate of neonatal tetanus. Because improving birth practices seemed to be unachievable in places like New Guinea, subjecting pregnant women to tetanus vaccination was contemplated by public health authorities as a possible solution to neonatal tetanus.
A randomized controlled trial (RCT) assessing the effectiveness of the tetanus vaccine in preventing neonatal tetanus via maternal vaccination was conducted in the 1960s in rural Colombia in a community with high rates of neonatal tetanus.[4] The design of this trial has been recently reviewed by the Cochrane Collaboration for potential biases and limitations and, with minor comments, has been considered of good quality for the purposes of vaccine effectiveness (but not safety) determination.[5] The trial established that a single dose of the tetanus vaccine given before or during pregnancy had a partial effect on preventing neonatal tetanus in the offspring: 43% reduction was observed in the tetanus vaccine group compared to the control group, which instead of the tetanus shot received a flu shot. A series of two or three tetanus booster shots, given six or more weeks apart before or during pregnancy, reduced neonatal tetanus by 98% in the tetanus vaccine group compared to the flu shot control group. The duration of the follow up in this trial was less than five years.
In addition to testing the effects of vaccination, this study has also documented a clear relationship between the incidence of neonatal tetanus and the manner in which childbirth was conducted. No babies delivered in a hospital, by a doctor or a nurse, contracted neonatal tetanus regardless of the mother’s vaccination status. On the other hand, babies delivered at home by amateur midwives had the highest rate of neonatal tetanus.

Hygienic childbirth appears to be highly effective in preventing neonatal tetanus and makes tetanus vaccination regimen during pregnancy unnecessary for women who give birth under hygienic conditions. Furthermore, it was estimated in 1989 in Tanzania that 40% of neonatal tetanus cases still occurred in infants born to mothers who were vaccinated during pregnancy,[6] stressing the importance of hygienic birth practices regardless of maternal vaccination status.

Tetanus in adults

Based on the protective effect of maternal vaccination in neonatal tetanus, demonstrated by an RCT and discussed above, we might be tempted to infer that the same vaccine also protects from tetanus acquired by stepping on rusty nails or incurring other tetanus-prone injuries, when administered to children or adults, either routinely or as an emergency measure. However, due to potential biologic differences in how tetanus is acquired by newborns versus by older children or adults, we should be cautious about reaching such conclusions without first having direct evidence for the vaccine effectiveness in preventing non-neonatal tetanus.

It is generally assumed that the tetanus toxin must first leach into the blood (where it would be intercepted by antitoxin, if it is already there due to timely vaccination) before it reaches nerve endings. This scenario is plausible in neonatal tetanus, as it appears that the umbilical cord does not have its own nerves.[7] On the other hand, the secretion of the toxin by C. tetani germinating in untended skin cuts or in muscle injuries is more relevant to how children or adults might succumb to tetanus. In such cases, there could be nerve endings near germinating C. tetani, and the toxin could potentially reach such nerve endings without first going through the blood to be intercepted by vaccine-induced serum antitoxin. This scenario is consistent with the outcomes of the early experiments in mice, discussed in the beginning.

Although a major disease in tropical under-developed countries, tetanus in the USA has been very rare. In the past, tetanus occurred primarily in poor segments of the population in southern states and in Mexican migrants in California. It was swiftly diminishing with each decade prior to the 1950s (in the pre-vaccination era), as inferred from tetanus mortality records and similar case-fatality ratios (about 67-70%) in the early 20th century[8] versus the mid-20th century).[9] The tetanus vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1947 without performing any placebo-controlled clinical trials in the segment of the population (children or adults), where it is now routinely used.

Screen shot 2014-07-11 at 3.08.49 AMThe rationale for introducing the tetanus vaccine into the U.S. population, at low overall risk for tetanus anyway, was simply based on its use in the U.S. military personnel during World War II. According to a post-war report[10]:
    a) the U.S. military personnel received a series of three injections of the tetanus toxoid, routine stimulating injection was administered one year after the initial series, and an emergency stimulating dose was given on the incurrence of wounds, severe burns, or other injuries that might result in tetanus;b) throughout the entire WWII period, 12 cases of tetanus have been documented in the U.S. Army;
    c) in World War I there were 70 cases of tetanus among approximately half a million admissions for wounds and injuries, an incidence of 13.4 per 100,000 wounds. In World War II there were almost three million admissions for wounds and injuries, with a tetanus case rate of 0.44 per 100,000 wounds.
The report leads us to conclude that vaccination has played a role in tetanus reduction in wounded U.S. soldiers during WWII compared to WWI, and that this reduction vouches for the tetanus vaccine effectiveness. However, there are other factors (e.g. differences in wound care protocols, including the use of antibiotics, higher likelihood of wound contamination with horse manure rich in already active C. tetani in earlier wars, when horses were used by the cavalry, etc.), which should preclude us from uncritically assigning tetanus reduction during WWII to the effects of vaccination.
Severe and even deadly tetanus is known to occur in recently vaccinated people with high levels of serum antitoxin.[11] Although the skeptic might say that no vaccine is effective 100% of the time, the situation with the tetanus vaccine is quite different. In these cases of vaccine-unpreventable tetanus, vaccination was actually very effective in inducing serum antitoxin, but serum antitoxin did not appear to have helped preventing tetanus in these unfortunate individuals.

The occurrence of tetanus despite the presence of antitoxin in the serum should have raised a red flag regarding the rationale of the tetanus vaccination program. But such reports were invariably interpreted as an indication that higher than previously thought levels of serum antitoxin must be maintained to protect from tetanus, hence the need for more frequent, if not incessant, boosters. Then how much higher “than previously thought” do serum levels of antitoxin need to be to ensure protection from tetanus?

Crone & Reder (1992) have documented a curious case of severe tetanus in a 29-year old man with no pre-existing conditions and no history of drug abuse, typical among modern-day tetanus victims in the USA. In addition to the regular series of tetanus immunization and boosters ten years earlier during his military service, this patient had been hyper-immunized (immunized with the tetanus toxoid to have extremely high serum antitoxin) as a volunteer for the purposes of the commercial TIG production. He was monitored for the levels of antitoxin in his serum and, as expected, developed extremely high levels of antitoxin after the hyper-immunization procedure. Nevertheless, he incurred severe tetanus 51 days after the procedure despite clearly documented presence of serum antitoxin prior to the disease. In fact, upon hospital admission for tetanus treatment his serum antitoxin levels measured about 2,500 times higher than the level deemed protective. His tetanus was severe and required more than five weeks of hospitalization with life-saving measures. This case demonstrated that serum antitoxin has failed to prevent severe tetanus even in the amounts 2,500 times higher than what is considered sufficient for tetanus prevention in adults.

The medical establishment chooses to turn a blind eye to the lack of solid scientific evidence to substantiate our faith in the tetanus shot. It also chooses to ignore the available experimental and clinical evidence that contradicts the assumed but unproven ability of vaccine-induced serum antitoxin to reduce the risk of tetanus in anyone other than maternally-vaccinated neonates, who do not even need this vaccination measure when their umbilical cords are dealt with using sterile techniques.

Ascorbic acid in tetanus treatment
Anti-serum is not the only therapeutic measure tried in tetanus treatment. Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) has also been tried. Early research on ascorbic acid has demonstrated that it too could neutralize the tetanus toxin.[12]

In a clinical study of tetanus treatment conducted in Bangladesh in 1984, the administration of conventional procedures, including the anti-tetanus serum, to patients who contracted tetanus left 74% of them dead in the 1-12 age group and 68% dead in the 13-30 age group. In contrast, daily co-administration of one gram of ascorbic acid intravenously had cut down this high mortality to 0% in the 1-12 age group, and to 37% in the 13-30 age group.[13] The older patients were treated with the same amount of ascorbic acid without adjustments for their body weight.

Although this was a controlled clinical trial, it is not clear from the description of the trial in the publication by Jahan et al. whether or not the assignment of patients into the ascorbic acid treatment group versus the placebo-control group was randomized and blinded, which are crucial bio-statistical requirements for avoiding various biases. A more definitive study is deemed necessary before intravenous ascorbic acid can be recommended as the standard of care in tetanus treatment.[14] It is odd that no properly documented RCT on ascorbic acid in tetanus treatment has been attempted since 1984 for the benefit of developing countries, where tetanus has been one of the major deadly diseases. This is in stark contrast to the millions of philanthropic dollars being poured into sponsoring the tetanus vaccine implementation in the Third world.

Natural resistance to tetanus
In the early 20th century, investigators Drs. Carl Tenbroeck and Johannes Bauer pursued a line of laboratory research, which was much closer to addressing natural resistance to tetanus than the typical laboratory research on antitoxin in their days. Omitted from immunologic textbooks and the history of immunologic research, their tetanus protection experiments in guinea pigs, together with relevant serological and bacteriological data in humans, nevertheless provide a good explanation for tetanus being a rather rare disease in many countries around the world, except under the conditions of past wars.

In the experience of these tetanus researchers, the injection of dormant tetanus spores could never by itself induce tetanus in research animals. To induce tetanus experimentally by means of tetanus spores (as opposed to by injecting a ready-made toxin, which never happens under natural circumstances anyway), spores had to be premixed with irritating substances that could prevent rapid healing of the site of spore injection, thereby creating conditions conducive to spore germination. In the past, researchers used wood splinters, saponin, calcium chloride, or aleuronat (flour made with aleurone) to accomplish this task.

In 1926, already being aware that oral exposure to tetanus spores does not lead to clinical tetanus, Drs. Tenbroeck and Bauer set out to determine whether feeding research animals with tetanus spores could provide protection from tetanus induced by an appropriate laboratory method of spore injection. In their experiment, several groups of guinea pigs were given food containing distinct strains of C. tetani. A separate group of animals were used as controls—their diet was free of any C. tetani. After six months, all groups were injected under the skin with spores premixed with aleuronat. The groups that were previously exposed to spores orally did not develop any symptoms of tetanus upon such tetanus-prone spore injection, whereas the control group did. The observed protection was strain-specific, as animals still got tetanus if injected with spores from a mismatched strain—a strain they were not fed with. But when fed multiple strains, they developed protection from all of them.
Quite striking, the protection from tetanus established via spore feeding did not have anything to do with the levels of antitoxin in the serum of these animals. Instead, the protection correlated with the presence of another type of antibody called agglutinin—so named due to its ability to agglutinate (clump together) C. tetani spores in a test tube. Just like the observed protection was strain-specific, agglutinins were also strain-specific. These data are consistent with the role of strain-specific agglutinins, not of antitoxin, in natural protection from tetanus. The mechanism thereby strain-specific agglutinins have caused, or correlated with, tetanus protection in these animals has remained unexplored.

In the spore-feeding experiment, it was still possible to induce tetanus by overwhelming this natural protection in research animals. But to accomplish this task, a rather brute force procedure was required. A large number of purified C. tetani spores were sealed in a glass capsule; the capsule was injected under the skin of research animals and then crushed. Broken glass pieces were purposefully left under the skin of the poor creatures so that the gory mess was prevented from healing for a long time. Researchers could succeed in overwhelming natural tetanus defenses with this excessively harsh method, perhaps mimicking a scenario of untended war-inflicted wounds.

How do these experimental data in research animals relate to humans? In the early 20th century, not only animals but also humans were found to be intestinal carriers of C. tetani without developing tetanus. About 33% of tested human subjects living around Beijing, China were found to be C. tetani carriers without any prior or current history of tetanus disease.[15] Bauer & Meyer (1926) cite other studies, which have reported around 25% of tested humans being healthy C. tetani carriers in other regions of China, 40% in Germany, 16% in England, and on average 25% in the USA, highest in central California and lowest on the southern coast. Based on the California study, age, gender, or occupation denoting the proximity to horses did not appear to play a role in the distribution of human C. tetani carriers.

Another study was performed back in the 1920s in San Francisco, CA.[16] About 80% of the examined subjects had various levels of agglutinins to as many as five C. tetani strains at a time, although no antitoxin could be detected in the serum of these subjects. C. tetani organisms could not be identified in the stool of these subjects either. It is likely that tetanus spores were in their gut transiently in the past, leaving serological evidence of oral exposure, without germinating into toxin-producing organisms. It would be important to know the extent of naturally acquired C. tetani spore agglutinins in humans in various parts of the world now, instead of relying on the old data, but similar studies are not likely to be performed anymore.

Regrettably, further research on naturally acquired agglutinins and on exactly how they are involved in the protection from clinical tetanus appears to have been abandoned in favor of more lucrative research on antitoxin and vaccines. If such research continued, it would have given us clear understanding of natural tetanus defenses we may already have by virtue of our oral exposure to ubiquitous inactive C. tetani spores.

Since the extent of our natural resistance to clinical tetanus is unknown due to the lack of modern studies, all we can be certain of is that preventing dormant tetanus spores from germinating into toxin-producing microorganisms is an extremely important measure in the management of potentially contaminated skin cuts and wounds. If this crucial stage of control—at the level of preventing spore germination—is missed and the toxin production ensues, the toxin must be neutralized before it manages to reach nerve endings.

Both antitoxin and ascorbic acid exhibit toxin-neutralizing properties in a test tube. In the body, however, vaccine-induced antitoxin is located in the blood, whereas the toxin might be focally produced in the skin or muscle injury. This creates an obvious physical impediment for toxin neutralization to happen effectively, if at all, by means of vaccine-induced serum antitoxin. Furthermore, no placebo-controlled trials have ever been performed to rule out the concern about such an impediment by providing clear empirical evidence for the effectiveness of tetanus shots in children and adults. Nevertheless, the medical establishment relies upon induction of serum antitoxin and withholds ascorbic acid in tetanus prevention and treatment.

When an old medical procedure of unknown effectiveness, such as the tetanus shot, has been the standard of medical care for a long time, finalizing its effectiveness via a modern rigorous placebo-controlled trial is deemed unethical in human research. Therefore, our only hope for the advancement of tetanus care is that further investigation of the ascorbic acid therapy is performed and that this therapy becomes available to tetanus patients around the world, if confirmed effective by rigorous bio-statistical standards.

Until then, may the blind faith in the tetanus shot help us!

1. Tenbroeck, C. & Bauer, J.H. The immunity produced by the growth of tetanus bacilli in the digestive tract. J Exp Med 43, 361-377 (1926).
2. Fishman, P.S., Matthews, C.C., Parks, D.A., Box, M. & Fairweather, N.F. Immunization does not interfere with uptake and transport by motor neurons of the binding fragment of tetanus toxin. J Neurosci Res 83, 1540-1543 (2006).
3. Schofield, F.D., Tucker, V.M. & Westbrook, G.R. Neonatal tetanus in New Guinea. Effect of active immunization in pregnancy. Br Med J 2, 785-789 (1961).
4. Newell, K.W., Dueñas Lehmann, A., LeBlanc, D.R. & Garces Osorio, N. The use of toxoid for the prevention of tetanus neonatorum. Final report of a double-blind controlled field trial. Bull World Health Organ 35, 863-871 (1966).
5. Demicheli, V., Barale, A. & Rivetti, A. Vaccines for women to prevent neonatal tetanus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5:CD002959 (2013).
6. Maselle, S.Y., Matre, R., Mbise, R. & Hofstad, T. Neonatal tetanus despite protective serum antitoxin concentration. FEMS Microbiol Immunol 3, 171-175 (1991).
7. Fox, S.B. & Khong, T.Y. Lack of innervation of human umbilical cord. An immunohistological and histochemical study. Placenta 11, 59-62 (1990).
8. Bauer, J.H. & Meyer, K.F. Human intestinal carriers of tetanus spores in California J Infect Dis 38, 295-305 (1926).
9. LaForce, F.M., Young, L.S. & Bennett, J.V. Tetanus in the United States (1965-1966): epidemiologic and clinical features. N Engl J Med 280, 569-574 (1969).
10. Editorial: Tetanus in the United States Army in World War II. N Engl J Med 237, 411-413 (1947).
11. Abrahamian, F.M., Pollack, C.V., Jr., LoVecchio, F., Nanda, R. & Carlson, R.W. Fatal tetanus in a drug abuser with “protective” antitetanus antibodies. J Emerg Med 18, 189-193 (2000).
Beltran, A. et al. A case of clinical tetanus in a patient with protective antitetanus antibody level. South Med J 100, 83 (2007).
Berger, S.A., Cherubin, C.E., Nelson, S. & Levine, L. Tetanus despite preexisting antitetanus antibody. JAMA 240, 769-770 (1978).
Crone, N.E. & Reder, A.T. Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers. Neurology 42, 761-764 (1992).
Passen, E.L. & Andersen, B.R. Clinical tetanus despite a protective level of toxin-neutralizing antibody. JAMA 255, 1171-1173 (1986).
Pryor, T., Onarecker, C. & Coniglione, T. Elevated antitoxin titers in a man with generalized tetanus. J Fam Pract 44, 299-303 (1997).
12. Jungeblut, C.W. Inactivation of tetanus toxin by crystalline vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid). J Immunol 33, 203-214 (1937).
13. Jahan, K., Ahmad, K. & Ali, M.A. Effect of ascorbic acid in the treatment of tetanus. Bangladesh Med Res Counc Bull 10, 24-28 (1984).
14. Hemilä, H. & Koivula, T. Vitamin C for preventing and treating tetanus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD006665 (2008).
15. Tenbroeck, C. & Bauer, J.H. The tetanus bacillus as an intestinal saprophyte in man. J Exp Med 36, 261-271 (1922).
16. Coleman, G.E. & Meyer, K.F. Study of tetanus agglutinins and antitoxin in human serums. J Infect Dis 39, 332-336 (1926).

About the author
 Tetyana Obukhanych earned her Ph.D. in Immunology at the Rockefeller University in New York, NY with her research dissertation focused on understanding immunologic memory, perceived by the mainstream biomedical establishment to be key to vaccination and immunity. She was subsequently involved in laboratory research as a postdoctoral research fellow within leading biomedical institutions, such as Harvard Medical School and Stanford University School of Medicine.
Having had several childhood diseases despite being properly vaccinated against them, Dr. Obukhanych has undertaken a thorough investigation of scientific findings regarding vaccination and immunity. Based on her analysis, Dr. Obukhanych has articulated a view that challenges mainstream assumptions and theories on vaccination in her e-book Vaccine Illusion.

Dr. Obukhanych continues her independent in-depth analysis of peer-reviewed scientific findings related to vaccination and natural requirements of the immune system function. Her goal is to bring a scientifically-substantiated and dogma-free perspective on vaccination and natural immunity to parents and health care practitioners.

Her e-book can be purchased on AMAZON


Tuesday, June 24, 2014

HIV Vaccine Fraud

Researcher Charged in HIV Vaccine Fraud Case

Responding to a major case of research misconduct, federal prosecutors have taken the rare step of filing charges against a scientist after he admitted falsifying data that led to millions in grants and hopes of a breakthrough in AIDS vaccine research. 

Investigators say former Iowa State University laboratory manager Dong-Pyou Han has confessed to spiking samples of rabbit blood with human antibodies to make an experimental HIV vaccine appear to have great promise.

After years of work and millions in National Institutes of Health grants, another laboratory uncovered irregularities that suggested the results — once hailed as groundbreaking — were bogus. 

Han was indicted last week on four counts of making false statements, each of which carries up to five years in prison. He was set to be arraigned Tuesday in Des Moines, but he didn't show up due to an apparent paperwork mix-up. 

A prosecutor said Han will be given another chance to appear next week. Han, 57, didn't return a message left at his home in Cleveland, where he's been living since resigning from the university last fall. A native of South Korea, he surrendered his passport following his arrest and initial court appearance in Ohio last week. 

Experts said the fraud was extraordinary and that charges are rarely brought in such cases. The National Institutes of Health said it's reviewing what impact the case has had on the research it funds.
"It's an important case because it is extremely rare for scientists found to have committed fraud to be held accountable by the actual criminal justice system," said Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, which tracks research misconduct. 

Oransky, a journalist who also has a medical degree, said there have been only a handful of similar prosecutions in the last 30 years. He said Han's case was "particularly brazen" and noted that charges are rarely brought because the U.S. Office of Research Integrity, which investigates misconduct, doesn't have prosecution authority, and most cases involve smaller amounts of money. 

"It's a pretty extraordinary case involving clear, intentional falsification," added Mike Carome, a consumer advocate and director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. "The wool was pulled over many people's eyes." 

Carome noted that Han's misconduct wasted tax dollars and caused researchers to chase a false lead. He said such cases also undermine the public's trust in researchers. Finding an HIV vaccine remains a top international scientific priority.
—The Associated Press
Source:   June 24, 2014

Sunday, June 15, 2014

CDC’s Vaccine Safety Exposed - Flawed AND Falsified

CDC’s Vaccine Safety Research is Exposed as Flawed and Falsified in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journal 

Substantial Scientific Evidence Exists that Vaccine Ingredient is a Developmental Neurotoxin
Watchung, NJ, June 12, 2014
by PRNewswire

Just months after U.S. Congressman Bill Posey compared the Center for Disease Control (CDC)’s vaccine safety studies to the SEC’s Bernie Madoff scandal, malfeasance in the CDC’s studies of thimerosal-containing vaccines has, for the first time, been documented in peer-reviewed scientific literature. While the CDC states on its website that “low doses of thimerosal in vaccines do not cause harm, and are only associated with minor local injection site reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site,” the journal BioMed Research International now provides direct evidence that the CDC’s safety assurances about the mercury-containing preservative are not fact-based, according to the article’s lead author, Brian Hooker, PhD.

The paper opens by citing over 165 studies that have found Thimerosal to be harmful, including 16 studies that had reported outcomes in human infants and children of death, acrodynia, poisoning, allergic reaction, malformations, auto-immune reaction, Well’s syndrome, developmental delay and neurodevelopmental disorders including tics, speech delay, language delay, ADHD and autism. These findings by multiple independent research groups over the past 75+ years have consistently found thimerosal to be harmful. “Substantial scientific evidence exists and has existed for many years that the vaccine ingredient thimerosal is a developmental neurotoxin” says George Lucier, former Associate Director of the National Toxicology Program.

Studies showing harm from thimerosal sharply contradict published outcomes of six CDC coauthored and sponsored papers – the very studies that CDC relies upon to declare that thimerosal is “safe” for use in infant and maternal vaccines. Dr. Hooker, biochemist and vaccine industry watchdog, said of the six CDC studies, “Each of these papers is fatally flawed from a statistics standpoint and several of the papers represent issues of scientific malfeasance.  For example, important data showing a relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism are withheld from three of the publications (Price et al. 2010, Verstraeten et al. 2003 and Madsen et al. 2003).  This type of cherry-picking of data by the CDC in order to change the results of important research studies to support flawed and dangerous vaccination policies should not be tolerated.”

Dr. Boyd Haley, international expert in mercury toxicity and a co-author of the recently published paper said “There is no doubt that authorities in the CDC have initiated and participated in a cover-up of vaccine-induced damage from thimerosal to our children—-and this I consider criminal.” The paper, “Methodological Issues and Evidence of Malfeasance in Research Purporting to Show Thimerosal in Vaccines is Safe,” was published on June 6 and contains eight pages of evidence that the CDC has had knowledge of the vaccine preservative’s neurological risks, yet continues to cover them up.

The paper concludes, “five of the publications examined in this review were directly commissioned by the CDC, raising the possible issue of conflict of interests or research bias, since vaccine promotion is a central mission of the CDC. Conceivably, if serious neurological disorders are found to be related to Thimerosal in vaccines, such findings could possibly be viewed as damaging to the vaccine program.”

Dr. Hooker has submitted over 100 FOIA requests to the CDC over the past 10 years and has amassed thousands of pages of documents showing malfeasance in the CDC’s vaccine safety program.  Hooker revealed that one CDC document quoted a top official instructing CDC employees to “Review all correspondences and documents to see if there is ‘foreseeable harm’ to the agency if they were released” so the documents could be redacted by CDC attorneys prior to release.
Barry Segal, founder of the Focus Autism Foundation and former entrepreneur whose company sales peaked near $2 billion said, “We are in the process of exposing what may be the biggest federal scandal ever with immense damage to our economy and our people, especially our children who are the future of our country. Their health has been compromised by mercury in vaccines. We need Congress to take action now. Thimerosal must be banned.”

A more effective vaccine preservative “2PE” has replaced thimerosal in many other vaccines and possesses a much better safety profile according to Dr. Hooker.

The Focus Autism Foundation is dedicated to providing information to the public that exposes the cause or causes of the autism epidemic and the rise of chronic illnesses – focusing specifically on the role of vaccinations.

BioMed Research International -
A Shot of Truth -

See Also:

CDCCaught Hiding Data Showing Mercury in Vaccines Linked to Autism

Thursday, May 8, 2014

Rebuttal To CHOP Doc's Radio Broadcast

From: Kreider, Susan
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 6:35 PM
To: ''
Subject: Editorial by CHOP MD advocating elimination of religious and philosophical vaccination exemptions by Parents

Dear Radio Producers,

Sunday morning I had a ‘kitchen moment’ while listening to a rerun of your weekly health news program, The Pulse. Unlike your so-called ‘driveway moment,’ this consists of being in the kitchen and yelling “Idiots!!” at the radio at the top of my lungs, in response to the female CHOP doctor who believes “for the Greater Good,” Parents should not be able to choose whether their children are vaccinated.

Does 4 years of medical school and at least as many years of residency make her God, not a doctor? Vaccines are not without risk. My (hypothetical) child should risk being crippled by injection of toxic substances in order to (hypothetically) protect your child who cannot receive vaccines? Perhaps your child was damaged in utero because you foolishly chose to vaccinate while pregnant. Of course, vaccines for pregnant woman have never been tested because it is unethical to test vaccines on pregnant women. Doesn’t it therefore follow that a woman must be a risk-taker if she accepts vaccines while her fetus is most vulnerable? Does the female doctor even remember when we used to be concerned about even drinking coffee while pregnant?

If my perfect child becomes damaged after receiving vaccines to protect your defective child who cannot receive vaccines, does my vaccine-injured child get written off as collateral damage? Who will pay for the medical bills and additional care? Our broken dreams? Since manufacturers cannot be sued for defective products, why would I want to take such a chance? What makes the industry care if their products are defective? Doesn’t that, in fact, offer opportunity to sell more products to treat vaccine-induced maladies?

It is rather like the folks who protest a woman’s right to choose. Are they going to step up to the plate to adopt the unwanted child? I seriously doubt it. They should mind their damn business and worry about their own souls.

Prior to vaccinations I was forced to receive in 1990-91 as a nursing student, I was the picture of health. Seventeen years later I settled with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program because –more likely than not—the subsequent sensory variant of Guillain Barré Syndrome I developed left me crippled. People ask me if I have post-polio syndrome. I am happy to educate them that vaccines caused me to be crippled. It is the only satisfaction I have from the experience.

If CHOP doc is stupid enough to volunteer for an annual flu shot so that she can maintain her employment at CHOP, she can be my guest –I hope she does! She can have my dose as well.



Susan Kreider MS, RN, CPC
Surgical Clinical Nurse Reviewer
ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
Clinical Effectiveness Quality Improvement
3535 Market Street, Ste. 50
Philadelphia, PA 19104
tel.: 215.662.6185
fax.: 215.662.7399

Complete Article:


Saturday, April 26, 2014

Congressman Lashes CDC for Vaccine-Autism Cover-Up

Please share this article widely. Congressman Posey has some very hard hitting comments about the CDC and their conflicts of interest.   Dr. Hooker has studied CDC de-classified documents more thoroughly than anyone else.

Full Story: 
(DTaP vaccine) include thrombocytopenic..., SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, AUTISM, grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia  (etc.)"   Tripedia Insert, 12/05 page 11.
‘The evidence convincingly supports a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and measles inclusion body encephalitis in individuals with demonstrated immune deficiencies.’ P.110 Institute of Medicine Report on Adverse Effects of Vaccines/2011

For more info contact:

Thursday, March 27, 2014


"although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease."

FDA study helps provide an understanding of rising rates of whooping cough and response to vaccination


For Immediate Release: Nov. 27, 2013
Media Inquiries: FDA- Jennifer Rodriguez, 301-796-8232,
NIH- Nalini Padmanabhan, 301-402-1663,
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA,
FDA study helps provide an understanding of rising rates of whooping cough and response to vaccination
A new study is helping to provide a better understanding of vaccines for whooping cough, the common name for the disease pertussis. Based on an animal model, the study conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and published November 25, 2013, in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that acellular pertussis vaccines licensed by the FDA are effective in preventing the disease among those vaccinated, but suggests that they may not prevent infection from the bacteria that causes whooping cough in those vaccinated or its spread to other people, including those who may not be vaccinated.
Whooping cough rates in the United States have been increasing since the 1980s and reached a 50-year high in 2012. Whooping cough is a contagious respiratory disease caused by Bordetella pertussis bacteria. Initial symptoms include runny nose, sneezing, and a mild cough, which may seem like a typical cold. Usually, the cough slowly becomes more severe, and eventually the patient may experience bouts of rapid, violent coughing followed by the “whooping” sound that gives the disease its common name, when trying to take a breath. Whooping cough can cause serious and sometimes life-threatening complications, permanent disability, and even death, especially in infants and young children.
There are two types of pertussis vaccines, whole-cell and acellular. Whole-cell pertussis vaccines contain a whole-cell preparation, which means they contain killed, but complete, B. pertussis bacteria. The acellular pertussis vaccine is more purified and uses only selected portions of the pertussis bacteria to stimulate an immune response in an individual. In response to concerns about the side effects of the whole cell pertussis vaccine, acellular vaccines were developed and replaced the use of whole-cell pertussis vaccines in the U.S. and other countries in the 1990s; however, whole-cell pertussis vaccines are still used in many other countries.
“This study is critically important to understanding some of the reasons for the rising rates of pertussis and informing potential strategies to address this public health concern,” said Karen Midthun, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, where the study was conducted. “This research is a valuable contribution and brings us one step closer to understanding the problem. We are optimistic that more research on pertussis will lead to the identification of new and improved methods for preventing the disease.”
While the reasons for the increase in cases of whooping cough are not fully understood, multiple factors are likely involved, including diminished immunity from childhood pertussis vaccines, improved diagnostic testing, and increased reporting. With its own funds plus support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the FDA conducted the study to explore the possibility that acellular pertussis vaccines, while protecting against disease, might not prevent infection.
“There were 48,000 cases reported last year despite high rates of vaccination,” said Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. “This resurgence suggests a need for research into the causes behind the increase in infections and improved ways to prevent the disease from spreading.”
The FDA conducted the study in baboons, an animal model that closely reproduces the way whooping cough affects people. The scientists vaccinated two groups of baboons – one group with a whole-cell pertussis vaccine and the other group with an acellular pertussis vaccine currently used in the U. S. The animals were vaccinated at ages two, four, and six months, simulating the infant immunization schedule. The results of the FDA study found that both types of vaccines generated robust antibody responses in the animals, and none of the vaccinated animals developed outward signs of pertussis disease after being exposed to B. pertussis. However, there were differences in other aspects of the immune response. Animals that received an acellular pertussis vaccine had the bacteria in their airways for up to six weeks and were able to spread the infection to unvaccinated animals. In contrast, animals that received whole-cell vaccine cleared the bacteria within three weeks.
This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.
For more information:

Pertussis infection in fully vaccinated children in day-care centers, Israel.