By, Dr. Gary Null
The origins of vaccination can be traced back to a hypothesis that has continued through the centuries and remains the basic rationale for mass inoculation of populations to this day. Humanity has always experienced the threat of communicable illnesses, which more so in the past, had a huge toll on nations and populations. Vaccines were first developed with the worthy goal to protect people from the possibility of viruses and bacterium being transmitted from one person to the next. If vaccines in deed provided someone with complete immunity from an infectious disease, then if all members of a community or nation were vaccinated, so the theory goes, the illness can be halted in its tracks and eventually disappear. When the infectious organism can no longer find an unprotected human host, then it would either die or find a different species to serve as its host.
Health agencies, the community of physicians, and the drug makers all agree that no vaccine is one hundred percent safe and completely free from possible adverse reaction. Every vaccine package insert is required by FDA regulations to list the known side effects individuals and doctors should look out for after vaccination. All together a list of documented adverse effects would include numerous conditions ranging from temporary minor effects, such as edema, mild fevers and nausea to more severe debilitating immunological and neurological diseases and even death. The rationale for continuing to promote aggressively vaccination programs upon the population by the medical establishment and health agencies can be narrowed to a very simple summary: the benefits of mass vaccination outweigh the risks of not having a vaccinated population.
In a 2007 pro-vaccination article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the authors, Drs. Alison Galvani and Timothy Reluga, stated clearly the conventional argument for why flu vaccination programs are essential. “Influenza vaccination,’ the authors wrote, “is vital for reducing infection-mediated morbidity and mortality.”[i]
Well, so the theory goes.
However, this theory has now remained dogma in the medical establishment at all levels: vaccine manufacturers, government health agencies, professional medical associations, medical schools, and the majority of practicing physicians, in particular pediatricians.
There is a growing consensus among doctors, researchers, health agencies and independent medical laboratories that flu vaccines are largely ineffective in protecting people from infection.
Squalene is a precursory biomolecule to cholesterol that directly stimulates the body’s immune system. It is now known that the pandemic H1N1 vaccines now being manufactured by six pharmaceutical companies will contain one of two squalene adjuvant formulas: AS04 (GlaxoSmithKline) or MS59 (Novartis). In May 2009, the government HHS contracted the production of these two squalene formulas, at a cost of $283 million, in an effort for rapid readiness for launching a national swine flu vaccination campaign.[ii]
The Karolinska Institute has been conducting clinical studies on the safety of injectable squalene adjuvant oil since 2000 and has documented repeatedly its association with adverse immunological responses contributing to T-cell mediated induced arthritic conditions. It has been proven to give rise to pathogenic cells developed within the lymphatic system.[iii]
The introduction of squalene oil, first, provokes a burst of pro-inflammatory arthritogenic cells in the lymphoid organs and, second, transmits arthritogenecity to other lymph nodes that in turn precipitate disease in peripheral joints.[iv]
Yet curiously, such a relationship
Histopathological analyses have also shown that rats injected with the adjuvant oil quickly showed singes of bone and cartilage erosion, indicative of polyarthritic diseases.[v]
Yet such a relationship between such oil-based adjuvants and polyarthritis and their adverse interaction with the lymph system has been known as far as the mid-1960s during the course of veterinary research and with further confirmatory data produced in the 1980s.[vi]
The biotechnology firm Chiron Corporation first developed the MS59 squalene adjuvant. Before being purchased by the multinational pharmaceutical company Novartis, Chiron was a leading vaccine research and development firm. Novartis is currently in the forefront among the drug manufacturers preparing the release of a swine flu vaccine, which will include squalene as an adjuvant. The company announced as early as June 12 their preparedness to release a first batch of H1N1 vaccine in early fall. A review of the studies contradicting squalene’s health risks, in addition to negating the body’s immunological response against squalene, reveal that Novartis Vaccines has been a major source behind this research with the specific goal of trying to extend its safety profile for use in its vaccine development.[vii]
How dangerous is Swine Flu
According to Nancy Cox, Director of the influenza division at the Centers of Disease Control, “intensive analysis” studies seem to indicate that the novel H1N1 variant has lower respiratory transmission than the common seasonal H1N1 flu. Webster P. Infectious disease experts expect the unexpected with respect to swine flu.[viii]
The WHO is estimating that 2 billion or approximately one third of the world’s population might become infected during the course of the next two years. In the US, the Centers for Disease Control estimates that “swine flu could strike up to 40 percent of Americans.”[ix] For this reason, world and national health agencies are mobilizing rapidly a massive vaccination campaign to vaccinate as much of the planets population as possible. The Director General of the WHO, Dr. Margaret Chan, estimates that vaccine makers could produce 4.9 billion pandemic flu shots.[x]
International scholar of political and social affairs, Michel Chossudovsky, states, “There is ample evidence, documented in numerous reports, that the WHO’s level 6 pandemic alert is based on fabricated evidence and a manipulation of the figures on mortality and morbidity resulting from the H1N1 swine flu.” Chossudovsky has uncovered evidence that the CDCP and WHO are “recadorizing a large number of cases of common influenza as H1N1 swine flu.”[xi]
There are countless scientific reports and case studies to support the position that vaccine ingredients, particularly the adjuvants and preservatives used in the flu vaccines, are far more dangerous and pose a much higher health risk than the reported incidences of H1N1 infection.
Patti White was a school nurse who testified before the House Government Reform Committee in 1999l. In her statement she said, “Vaccines are supposed to be making us healthier; however, in twenty-five years of nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick kids. Something very, very wrong is happening to our children.”[xii]
Guillain-Barre Syndrome — a demyelinating disorder
Many manufacturers of flu and other vaccines use chicken eggs as a growth medium for the vaccine’s antigen. Dr. Robert Chen at the CDC’s Immunization Safety Branch raised the possibility that a cause for Guillain-Barre syndrome following influenza vaccination may be due to infected eggs. According to Dr. Chen, 40-50 percent of chickens are infected with the Campylobacter bacteria which is difficult to detect and eradicate in eggs. He believes that vaccine lots that used contaminated egg medium may be a cause for GBS risk.[xiii]
SWINE FLU THREAT SO FAR
As of September 4, 2009, the World Health Organization has reported 2,837 deaths from H1N1 infection. The WHO report further claims 250,000 have been infected worldwide; however, there is argument over this actual general figure. The United Nations argues the number is much higher. At the same time, UN earlier has relieved its member countries from reporting individual cases of H1N1 infection.[xiv] The media continues to make the threat look much worse than it might actually be. For example, China, with a population of 1.3 billion people, reported 5,592 cases and no deaths. Given the enormous population size compared to the US, this is far less serious than a mild normal flu season, yet it is being reported to the world as “a grim situation.”[xv]
But when we look at the statistics of a normal flu season, there is no indication that the new H1N1 strain poses now nor will it pose in any foreseeable future a pandemic warranting serious alarm. For Canada, the Canadian Medical Association Journal reports that annual flu infection kills approximately 2,500 of its citizens, and about 36,000 Americans. Worldwide, annual flu deaths range between 250,000 and 500,000.[xvi] The Mexican case, from where first evidence of infection by a new H1N1 strain emerged, there were 176 flu deaths, yet only 7 of these deaths were actually corroborated by laboratory analysis to be the result of the H1N1 swine flu strain.[xvii]
The H1N1 flu shows no unique physical symptoms that would distinguish it from a normal seasonal flu. As with other flu infections, symptoms include various degrees of coughing, a fever, fatigue, and a sore throat
Peter Doshi, a doctoral student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has performed a thorough analysis of comparing several flu pandemics. His conclusions, published in the prestigious British Medical Journal, predict that the H1N1 swine flu is of “the same subtype as seasonal H1N1 that has been circulating since 1977.”[xviii] He believes we may be witnessing substantial confusion between the high public attention the present H1N1 scare is receiving and the very low level of scientific certainty that H1N1 is more severe than other seasonal influenza.
Effectiveness of the flu vaccine
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is one of the nations leading anti-vaccination advocates. In her review of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on the efficacy of the flu vaccine, she found the following facts:
In a review of more than 51 studies involving over 294,000 children, there was “no evidence that injecting children 6-24 months of age with a flu shot was any more effective than placebo.
In children over 2 years of age, flu vaccine effectiveness was 33 percent of the time preventing flu.
In children with asthma, inactivated flu vaccine did not prevent influenza related hospitalizations in children. The database shows that children who received the flu vaccine were at a higher risk of hospitalization than children who did not receive the vaccine. In a separate study involving 400 children with asthma receiving a flu vaccine and 400 who were not immunized, there was no difference in the number of clinic and emergency room visits and hospitalizations between the two groups.[xix]
In 64 studies involving 66,000 adults, “Vaccination of healthy adults only reduced risk of influenza by 6 percent and reduced the number of missed work days by less than one day. There was change in the number of hospitalizations compared to the non-vaccinated.
In 64 studies during 98 separate flu seasons involving elderly adults residing in nursing homes, flu vaccinations were non-significant for preventing infection.[xx]
According to investigative journalist Gary Matsumoto, there is a “close match between the squalene-induced diseases in animals and those observed in humans injected with this oil: rheumatoid arthritis, multiple schlerosis, and systemic lupus erythematosus.[xxi] Matsumoto writes, “There are now data in more than two dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers, from ten different laboratories in the US, Europe, Asia and Australia, documenting that squalene-based adjuvants can induce autoimmune diseases in animals…. Observed in mice, rats, guinea pigs and rabbits. Sweden’s Karolinska Institute has demonstrated that squalene alone can induce he animal version of rheumatoid arthritis. The Polish Academy Sciences has shown that in animals, squalene alone can produce catastrophic injury to the nervous system and the brain. The University of Florida Medical School has shown that in animals, squalene alone can induce production of antibodies specifically associated with systemic lupus erythematosus.”[xxii]
Micropaleontologist, Dr. Vera Scheibner: squalene contributors to a cascade of reacetions called Gulf War Syndrome. Arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, chronic fatique, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, memory loss, seizures, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate, systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Raynaud’s phenomenon, Sjorgren’syndrome,
Aside from common milder reactions such as low-grade fever, headaches, dizziness, weakness.
A major concern among anti-vaccination advocates and many independent medical entities and practitioners is that the new swine vaccine will be launched before sufficient, complete human trials to determine the vaccine’s realistic efficacy and safety. Vaccine manufacturers typically run human clinical trials to discern whether or not trial participants develop immunity against a virus. The current information about the vaccine makers’ human trials are reveal that the fast-tracking to have a vaccine ready by October 2009 is allowing for less-than-required testing protocol to assure certainty over the vaccine’s safety. For example, according to the British Herald, GlaxoSmithKline, one of the swine flu manufacturers are conducting a two-inoculation trial with a very small sampling of 128 enrolled, healthy participants. A thorough trial and follow-up analysis otherwise could not be completed until later in 2010.
A report from the British Neurological Surveillance Unit, a division within the British health ministry, warns that the vaccine has the potential be more dangerous than a swine flu infection. The report warms there is a strong likelihood that the vaccine might cause Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a severe nerve disorder that resulted in the deaths of 25 vaccine recipients during the 1976 swine flu outbreak in the US.[xxiii]
Is there any indication of a precedent among vaccine manufacturers and the developers of the ingredients used in vaccines that would establish wrongful intent to withhold safety information that vaccines pose a serious risk to the health of those who are inoculated?
Thimerosal, the ethylmercury preservative commonly found in vaccines, is perhaps the most controversial ingredient. Although thimerosal has been removed or greatly reduced from most vaccines, it remains a major ingredient in flu vaccines. The pharmaceutical company Eli Lily tested thimerosal back in 1930, giving it a clean record of safety even though its own trials had shown this highly toxic form of mercury had caused serious neurological damage and even death in both animals and humans. During that decade, a competitor vaccine maker, Pittman-Moore, had also conducted toxicological studies, but with dogs, on thimerosal and concluded the preservative was “unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs.” “Eli Lily Knew of Thimerosal Dangers for Decades” June 18, 2009. During the Second World War, vaccines with thimerosal were required to be labeled as “poison,” and later in 1972, Eli Lily itself discovered that thimerosal in doses a hundred times weaker than in a typical vaccine at that time, was “toxic to tissue cells.” Nevertheless, the drug maker continued to promote the illusion that thimerosal was safe and highly suitable as a vaccine preservative. Government health officials and vaccine manufacturers to this day have known of the long history of research confirming thimerosal as a toxic poison unsuitable for human delivery. A former leading vaccine developer for Merck had once warned his firm of the dangers of administering mercury-laced vaccines to newborns and infants and declared that the industry knows very well there are “nontoxic alternatives” that were equally effective and could be used to replace thimerosal.
Between 1989 and 1999, childhood vaccines doubled from 11 to 22.
check – recall of fluvirin — october 2008?
Swine vaccine makers: GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Roche/Gilead Sciences, Baxter Labs, Sanofi Pasteur, a few others
Prof. Elizabeth Miller, the head of the Immunization department in the UK’s Health Protection Agency, warned in a confidential letter that the swine flu vaccine is linked to Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a neurological disease that attacks nerve linings and causes respiratory paralysis and even death. Daily Mail (date?) The confidential letter was obviously not a mild warning. Instead it was sent to nearly 600 practicing neurologists thereby confirming the high level of warning issuing from the highest levels of the government’s health ministry. Neurobiologists have since spoken out against mass-vaccination and the lack of thorough research before the vaccines’ launch. A later warning letter from the Association of British Neurologists stated, “following the 1976 program of vaccination against swine influenza in the US, a retrospective study found a possible eight-fold increase in the incidence of GBS.”[xxiv] During the 1976 swine flu epidemic, there were 500 cases of GBS and 25 deaths after four million Americans were vaccinated. Yet, there was only reported death due to the swine flu.
Squalene
The prestigious Cochrane Collaboration, an independent medical research group without any affiliations with private drug makers, reviews drug research and develops concise objective reports on drug and vaccine efficacy and safety. Cochrane’s coordinator of vaccines, Dr. Thomas Jefferson, stated that “New vaccines never behave in the way you expect them to do… But it could end up being anything because one of the additives in one of the vaccines is a substance called squalene, and none of the studies [from the drug makers] we’ve extracted have any research on it at all.”[xxv] In summary, the new swine flu vaccines will have a potentially disease-threatening ingredient. What squalene research, independent of the pharmaceutical industry, has been performed to determine its adverse effects?
There is a serious issue about transparency between our government health officials and the citizenry, and between the pharmaceutical vaccine makers and the professional medical associations who keep practicing physicians and clinicians educated with the latest findings and warnings about the drugs and vaccines they administer daily to their patient cliental. A statement by a Conservative member of the UK’s Parliament’s Health sector, Mike Penning, concerning the government’s secrecy regarding the swine flu vaccine is apropos for leveling against our own White House health leaders. He stated, “The last thing we want is secret letters handed around experts within the NHS (National Health Service). Our job is to make sure that the public knows what’s going on. Why is the government not being open about this? It’s also very worrying if doctors, who will be administering the vaccine, aren’t being warned.”[xxvi]
Among some of the more serious ingredients in common flu vaccines, which may or many not be included in the new generation of swine flu vaccines, include:
Thimerosal: Afluria (CSL Biotherapies), Fluraix and FluLaval (GlaxoSmithKline), Fluviral (Shire), Fluvirin (Novartis/Chiron), Fluzone (Aventis Pasteur), Vaxigrip (Sanofi Pasteur)
Formaldehyde: Begrivac (Wyeth), Fluarix and FluLaval (GlaxoSmithKline), Fluviral (Shire), Fluzone (Aventis Pasteur), Influvac (Solvay), Vaxigrip (Sanofi Pasteur)
Chick protein: Afluria (CSL Biotherapies), Begrivac (Wyeth), Enzira (CSL), Flurarix and FluLaval (GlaxoSmithKline), Fluviral (Shire), Fluvirin (Novartis/Chiron), Fluzone (Aventis Pasteur), Inflexal (Sanofi Pasteur), Influvac and Mastaflu (Solvay)
Squalene: Fluad (Novartis/Chiron), Focetria (Novartis)
Latex: Fluraix (GlaxoSmithKline), Fluzone and Mutagrip (Aventis Pasteur)
Gelatin: Fluzone (Aventis Pasteur)
Hydrocortisone: Fluraix (GlaxoSmithKline)
MSG: FluMist-nasal (Medimmune)
Dog Kidney Cells: Optaflu (Novartis)
[i] Galvani A, Reluga T, Chapman G. Long-standing influenza vaccination policy is in accord with individual self-interest but not with the utilitarian optimum. Proc. Natl Acad Sci. USA 2007 March 27; 104(23): 5692-5697
[ii] www.medicalcountermeasures.gov/barda/mcm/panflu/factsheet.aspx
[iii] Holm BC, Svelander L, Bucht A, Lorentzein JC. The arthritogenic adjuvant squalene does not accumulate in joints but gives rise to pathogenic cells in both draining and non-draining lymph nodes. Clin Exp Immunol. 2002 March 127(3): 430-435
[iv] Holm BC, Lorentzein JC, Bucht A. Adjuvant oil induces waves of arthriogenic lymph node cells prior to arthritis onset. Clin Exp. Immunol. 2004 July 137(1): 59-64.
[v] Carlson BC, Jansson AM, Larsson A, Bucht A, Lorentzein JC. The endogenous adjuvant squalene can induce a chronic T-cell mediated arthritis in rats. Am J. Pathol. 2000 June 156(6): 2057-2065.
[vi] Glenn EM, Gray J. Adjuvant induced polyarthritis in rats. Am. J Vet Res. 1965 September 26(114):1180-1194; Pearson CM, Wood FD. Passive transfer of adjuvant arthritis by lymph node or spleen cells. J. Exp Med. 1964 October 1:120: 547-560; Zamma T. Adjuvant-induced arthritis in the temporomandibular joint of rats. Infect. Immunol. 1983 March 39(3): 1291-1299
[vii] Webster P. Infectious disease experts expect the unexpected with respect to swine flu. CMAJ 2009 August 4; 181(3-4): E38-39. Del Guidice G, Rappuoli R, Fragapane E, Henriksson T, Bugaarini R, Palla E. Vaccines with the MS59 adjuvant do not stimulate antibody responses against squalene. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 2006 September 11(9): 1010-1013.
[viii] Webster P. Infectious disease experts expect the unexpected with respect to swine flu. CMAJ 2009 August 4; 181(3-4): E38-39.
[ix] Associated Press. July 24, 2009.
[x] Quoted by Reuters, July 21, 2009.
[xi] Chossudovsky, Michel “Martial Law and the Militarization of Public Health: The Worldwide H1N1 Flu Vaccination Program.” Globalresearch.ca July 30, 2009.
[xii] Kennedy Jr., Robert. “Vaccinations: Deadly Immunity” Salon.com, June 2005.
[xiii] Marwick C. Possible link between flu jab and Guillain-Barre syndrome under investigation. BMJ. 2003 march 22; 326(7390): 620.
[xiv] Reuters. “H1N1 has killed 2,837, virus has not mutated: WHO” September 4, 2009.
[xv] Reuters. “China faces grim situation as H1N1 escalates, minister.” September 8, 2009.
[xvi] Walkom, Thomas. The Toronto Star. May 1, 2009.
[xvii] Chossudovsky, Michel “Martial Law and the Militarization of Public Health: The Worldwide H1N1 Flu Vaccination Program.” Globalresearch.ca July 30, 2009.
[xviii] “Was the Public Health Response to Swine Flu Alarmist?” Science Daily. September 4, 2009.
[xix] 105th International Conference of the American Thoracic Sociey, May 15-20, 2009 (quoted in , Sherri. “The Truth about Flu Shots”. Idaho Observer, June 1, 2009)
[xx] Tenpenny, Sherri. “The Truth about Flu Shots”. Idaho Observer, June 1, 2009.
[xxi] Watson, Paul Joseph. “Government Swine Flu Advisor On Vaccine Maker Payroll” Globalresearch.ca July 27, 2009.
[xxii] Watson, Paul Joseph. “Government Swine Flu Advisor On Vaccine Maker Payroll” Globalresearch.ca July 27, 2009.
[xxiii] Herald August 24, 2009
[xxiv] Engdahl, F. William. “Swine Flu Vaccine Linked to Paralysis.” Globalresearch.ca September 8, 2009.
[xxv] Engdahl, F. William. “Swine Flu Vaccine Linked to Paralysis.” Globalresearch.ca September 8, 2009.
[xxvi] Engdahl, F. William. “Swine Flu Vaccine Linked to Paralysis.” Globalresearch.ca September 8, 2009.