14
Polysorbate 80, the ambusher
“I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.”
Harriet Tubman (American abolitionist and political activist)
M any ingredients go into the making of a vaccine. Once you’ve inserted them all into the vaccine batch, you need a way to blend them together. If you have ever spent time in the kitchen cooking or baking, (we’d imagine) you know that there are certain ingredients that don’t mix, like oil and water, unless they receive a helping hand.
The same goes for vaccines. In order to blend vaccine ingredients together a change in temperature won’t do the trick. A substance that stabilizes or blends the vaccine ingredients together is needed. One such ingredient is polysorbate 80 (p80), often referred to as tween 80. It’s a vaccine stabilizer, surfactant or emulsifier, which means something that evenly blends the ingredients together that wouldn’t otherwise blend.
When p80 is exposed to oxygen, it automatically forms formaldehyde (FA). In a Swedish study from 1997, it was shown to form the same amount of formaldehyde as found in “allergic individuals”. P80 already had allergens in it before being exposed to oxygen. But, after the exposure, new additional allergens were formed. The researchers conclude that it’s also a “possibility that allergenic compounds can be formed during storage and handling” [196] .
When p80 is added to the vaccine, it becomes aggravated. This was shown in a study from 2002 which comments that:
“Literature studies report that the oxidation of polysorbates is greatly accelerated once placed into aqueous solution.” [197]
Oxidation means that the molecule (p80 in this case) is giving away one of its electrons. For instance, when it attaches to an oxygen molecule, it is giving one of its electrons to the oxygen molecule.
A study by the biopharmaceutical company, Pfizer , showed the impact formaldehyde and other impurities can have on the proteins used in their pharmaceutical products. The authors of this paper made note of the fact that p80 is efficient at forming formaldehyde:
“Both formaldehyde and formic acid can be formed from oxidative degradation of polysorbates.” [198]
The authors don’t just concern themselves with polysorbates, of which polysorbate 80 appears most potent, they state that:
“These residual impurities and contaminants can potentially impact the protein stability significantly.” [199]
In their conclusion they summarize the limitations of the manufacturing process by saying that:
“Although many process-related impurities are routinely monitored, contaminants are generally not, […]. This is because the level of these contaminants in a drug product is often too low to be detected by traditional analytical methods, and does not lead to serious safety concerns.” [200]
We find their comment that “it does not lead to safety concerns” after stating these “contaminants can potentially impact the protein stability significantly” rather interesting given much of the paper is about safety concerns.
Stormtroopers
Polysorbate 80 has the ability to both form formaldehyde and attack our body.
In previous chapters we talked about how formaldehyde (FA) affects the body. In this chapter we’ll explain how p80 attacks the body.
A couple of important concerns we were unable to find papers on was how much of the p80 is converted to formaldehyde once injected and how the increased oxidation affects the process we’re about to describe.
The immune process that p80 emulates is called the MAC attack, or in more proper terms, the Membrane Attack Complex (MAC). In order to understand what we mean by that, let’s first brush up on what MAC is.
The MAC is a complement cascade that takes place within our innate immune system (first responders). It consists of proteins labeled with the letter “C” and a number (and a letter) that tells you its location in the cascade. A complement basically means that it consists of a bunch of proteins (in the blood) that form a structure (a complex). So, a complement cascade becomes a sort of a domino sequence where each protein activates the next.
There are three different pathways to a MAC. We won’t get into any of them in great detail, preferring to refer only to the relevant portion of it for this chapter. The portion that pertains to the p80 in vaccines consists of the proteins C5b through C9. This is called the Terminal Complement Pathway [ 201] .
When invading substances trigger the immune system, the proteins C5b through C8 link together to form a chain. On the end of this chain, a bunch of C9 proteins form a circle. This chain attempts to attach itself to both our own cells and invader cells. The circle consisting of a bunch of C9s burrow a hole in invading cells, allowing the contents to leak out. This kills the invading cell.
Fortunately, our cells found a way to protect themselves. So, even though the MAC doesn’t know the difference between our own cells and invading cells, it leaves our cells alone. This is not only fortunate, but logical in terms of evolution.
On the surface of our cells, we have something called protectin [202] . When this cascade is being assembled and C8 has been added, the protectin steps in and blocks C9 from attaching. This prevents the complement from being completed. Since C9 never gets attached, nothing happens. No drill, no spill [ 203] [ 204] .
Unfortunately, there are some germs that have figured this out. They have acquired protectin-like protein on their own cell membrane [ 205] . HIV, for instance, figured out how to insert this code into its own DNA and therefore blocks the MAC attack.
P80 attacks our cells in a very similar manner to that which our MAC attacks invaders. In addition, the polysorbate 80 also activates C3a, which is an anaphylatoxin, and C5a, which is another anaphylatoxin [ 206] . Anaphylatoxins trigger all the signs and symptoms of instant anaphylaxis (hypersensitivity). They do this without involving help from antibodies.
The C3a actually causes the B cells (acquired immunity) to respond, while C5a brings in the Th1 cells to strengthen the acquired immune response. This way they’re able to recruit immune cells to the site of inflammation, keeping the inflammation fired up.
This makes p80 yet another substance to increase the inflammation process in our body. A question we were unable to find the answer to was whether individuals who have been vaccinated with vaccines containing p80 have a higher incidence of anaphylaxis than individuals vaccinated with vaccines without p80.
P80 has been considered to be a concealed “inductor of anaphylactoid reactions.” [207] [208] What this means is that the protectin on our cell surface that protects us from the MAC attack does not protect us from a p80 attack. When the protectin is not protecting our cells, the cells will be punctured and start leaking. Consequences of this include damaged kidneys, arthritis and nerve damage [ 209] .
It's in everything
Vitamin E supplements are sometimes given intravenously to babies soon after they are born. Some infants have suddenly died after such a treatment. The authors of a study looking into toxic effects on intravenous administration of vitamin E conclude that:
“The life-threatening hazard of such treatment has been attributed mainly to polysorbates that are used as detergents in preparations of vitamin E for intravenous use rather than vitamin E itself”. [210]
Another paper covered p80’s role as an ingredient in antiretroviral therapy (ART), which is often used to treat HIV/AIDS patients. Here, the scientists coated nanoparticles with p80 and watched it spread inside the body. They then compared it to a drug not coated with p80.
They found that p80 coated nanoparticles magnified the “delivery into various organs by several fold in comparison to the free drug” [ 211] .
The study also discovered that organs containing numerous macrophages may be the reason for the increased uptake of p80 coated nanoparticles. The macrophages eat the p80 since it is a foreign substance. They will then transfer it straight to our organs, lymph nodes and brain. It was also shown that p80 coated particle “concentration in brain, was seven times higher and in lymph nodes six times higher than that of the free drug.” [212]
It appears to be a well-known fact in the medical field that p80 helps drugs across the blood-brain barrier (BBB).
One of the papers we looked at concludes:
“A non specific permeabilization of the BBB, probably related to the toxicity of the carrier, may account for the CNS [Central Nervous System] penetration of […] and polysorbate 80.” [213]
When the permeability of the blood-brain barrier is not being picky or specific about what it’s allowing into the brain, our nerve cells become vulnerable to foreign attacks. Continuing on with the paper, the authors also observed that in addition to causing a leaky blood-brain barrier, p80 also caused:
“[P]otent and prolonged analgesia, [. . .]. Locomotor activity dramatically decreased in mice [. . .] also caused occasional mortality.” [214]
P80 has also been shown to be toxic to the liver [ 215] [ 216] . The tricky part with p80 is that it takes very little of it to alter our cells. It changes some of the parts on the cell surface and also some of the functions inside the cell. The tricky part is that it does all this without changing the normal function of the cell [ 217] .
Perhaps P80 doesn’t alter the cell’s normal functions, as this study states. That doesn’t mean it will not damage or make the cell weaker so other substances have an easier access into our cells.
Another paper on how polysorbate coated particles affects the Central Nervous System (CNS), shows similar results. The authors observed that certain cells in the brain picked up 20 times more of the p80 coated particles than uncoated ones [ 218] .
The brain has fluid filled cavities called choroid plexuses. These cavities are lined with cells called ependymal ( covering in Greek) cells, which produce cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).
There is also a sensitive membrane that covers the brain and spinal cord called pia mater (Latin for tender mother ).
Polysorbate 80 is capable of increasing the space between the ependymal cells. When this happens, unwanted substances are able to squeeze through between the cells and make the brain and spinal cord toxic [ 219] .
Safety Data Sheet
Unfortunately, all the research papers we found on p80 were unrelated to vaccines. As with the other substances, in order to truly understand the potential effects when these are injected into the body, we dug deeper to gain a better understanding of p80. One of these angles in this case was looking at the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) for p80.
We discovered that safety data sheets often lack crucial information. Even so, we hoped to find information as it relates to being injected, as in liquid form in a vaccine. What we found was not exactly what we hoped for:
“May cause adverse reproductive effects based on animal test data. No human data found. May cause cancer based on animal test data. No human data found. May affect genetic material (mutagenic)” [220] .
We wondered what the potential chronic health effects were:
“CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. Repeated or prolonged exposure is not known to aggravate medical condition. . .. Exposure Limits: Not available.” [221]
According to this safety data sheet (SDS), the Routes of Entry: Inhalation. Ingestion does not include injection. Nowhere does it mention this substance (p80) should be injected.
This substance is injected into, dare we say, the entire human population, yet the SDS fails to cover this route of entry. When a route is this commonly used, it should at least warrant a mention in the safety data sheet.
The SDS continues:
“Special Remarks on Chronic Effects on Humans: May cause adverse reproductive effects based on animal test data. No human data found. May cause cancer based on animal test data. No human data found. May affect genetic material (mutagenic)” [222]
What about other effects that are not chronic? Have these effects been tested on humans?
The toxic effect segment states:
“Ingestion: This material is not likely to cause irritation upon ingestion. [. . .] Animal studies have shown it to cause cardiac changes, changes in behavior (altered sleep time) and weight loss (upon repeated or prolonged ingestion). However, no similar human data has been reported.” [223]
Here the SDS says it’s not likely to cause irritation. It appears to us this statement is based on the fact that there haven’t been any reports on it. But if it’s causing harm in animal studies, shouldn’t that be grounds for observational studies in humans? Why is there no human data? It’s very surprising to us that when a substance is tested on animals, and the observations are cause for concern, the very product is approved for use in humans.
Nor do we understand how a product with such concerning results from animal testing is not at least included in observational studies in humans, since it’s already being injected in us.
It feels like such a substance, until proven safe, should come with a warning label made known to the user. If we understand correctly, it’s not safe for human studies, but it is safe to use in humans without properly testing it first. How does that work?
We took a look at p80 SDS sheet from another company just to compare. We looked at the section covering chronic effects , mutagenicity , carcinogenicity , reproductive toxicity , specific target organ toxicity , specific organ toxicity , and there was only one entry:
“No information available.” [224]
When there is little or no data available, how can the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) show in the diamond (health hazard information label) that health hazard is only at 1, meaning it is slightly hazardous ? [225]
Neither of these SDS sheets include injection as a potential point of entry. The toxicology fact sheet on p80 on the website for National Institutes of Health (NIH) doesn’t say that p80 may be injected into the body [ 226] .
If it’s being injected into practically every single person, shouldn’t that qualify for at least a single mention on the SDS sheet?
We would assume the manufacturer is aware that one of the routes of entry being used is via injection. It’s surprising to us, then, that they aren’t required to either list it as one of the options, or warn against using it in injections. We don’t see how the safety hazard of 1 (meaning it is slightly hazardous) can apply to vaccines.
One of our concerns after reading the SDS sheets is whether the demonstrated toxic effects of p80 in animals, including damage to the uterus and ovaries leading to infertility, applies to humans as well.
15
Toxins – Accumulative harmful effects
“The truth is, natural organisms have managed to do everything we want to do without guzzling fossil fuels, polluting the planet or mortgaging the future.”
Janine Benyus (American writer)
I n a research paper from 1993, the researchers injected neonatal female rats with polysorbate 80 (p80). The effect was “accelerated maturation” which led to ovaries “without corpora lutea”. These are a cluster of cells that form inside the ovary early on in the pregnancy. They produce progesterone, and “degenerative follicles”. The follicles are a sac inside the ovary that carries the oocyte (egg) [ 227] .
So, we have known this for at least 25 years, yet when it’s added to vaccines scientists don’t bother to test it. It appears that once these substances have been added to the vaccine, the concern for toxicity magically disappears.
P80 attaches very well to Aluminum (Al). Now you have an adjuvant, like aluminum, coating the vaccine-antigen together with p80, and other substances within the vaccine. This new larger vaccine-antigen is then escorted across the blood-brain barrier (BBB). Note that anything that can cross the blood-brain barrier can most likely cross the gut-brain barrier. When in contact with p80, the blood-brain barrier has been shown to become weakened and penetrated, resulting in complications ranging from seizures to death [ 228] [ 229] .
In 2005 a study was published on “organic compounds leached from uncoated rubber stoppers in prefilled syringes containing polysorbate 80” [230] . After looking at patient data from 2001 to 2003, the researchers conclude:
“[…] leachates from uncoated rubber syringe stoppers caused the increased incidence of PRCA” [231] .
Pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) is the type of anemia where the bone marrow stops producing red blood cells. So, the question is how much p80 does it take to cause harm? Obviously, it depends on the individual. But we doubt very much that the amount of p80 contained in the rubber stopper which contaminated the prefilled syringe, was more than barely a trace amount. And yet it was shown to have serious effects.
The transformer
Polymyxin b, an antibiotic used in vaccines, has been shown to work in toxic synergy with p80. This means the toxic effect of both substances is potentiated.
This was known at least as far back as 1971, when it was noted in a study on the synergism between the two substances. It was observed that polymyxin b and p80 worked together to cause “leakage, death and lysis” to bacterial cells. The explanation was that p80 changes the surface membrane of the bacterial cell. This allows polymyxin b a better access to the cell [ 232] .
Not much is said about this substance in regards to vaccinations, so we had to be a little more creative in our research. We wanted to see what happens to the p80 substance itself once inside our body. It turns out our body tries to break it apart into individual molecules.
P80 consists mainly of oleic acid, ethylene oxide (EtO) and sorbitol. It has about 20 moles of EtO for every mole of sorbitol [ 233] .
We wondered if these molecules could be harmful to us after p80 was broken apart as the sweet-smelling gas EtO [234] is considered quite hazardous. The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) wrote about EtO in their Chemical Safety Information from Intergovernmental Organizations (INCHEM). They mentioned studies from various US states and countries, such as Sweden and Italy, where cancers of all sorts had been related to EtO exposure [ 235] .
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the potency of EtO and observed that in mammalian cells, its:
“[…] effects include gene mutations, micronucleus formation, chromosomal aberrations, cell transformation, unscheduled DNA synthesis, sister chromatid exchange, and DNA strand breaks.” [236]
Sounds to us like the perfect recipe for causing cancer. And on that note, how much does vaccine research take into account long term, harmful health effects as opposed to merely childhood health risks? For example, how much research takes into account whether vaccines in childhood could cause autoimmune disorders in early adulthood, or cancer in middle-age, or Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in old age?
IARC has EtO listed as having ‘ limited evidence in humans for breast cancer and Leukemia/lymphoma [ 237] . On IARCs website, EtO is classified as group 1 agent [238] , which means it is a “ Carcinogenic to humans ” [239] .
According to the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, EtO is incompatible with, among other things, aluminum [240] . This means it will react harshly when combined.
Although EtO is not directly injected into the body, it’s still a biproduct of an injected substance. The fact that it’s not meant to be injected into the body is patently evident given none of the safety and exposure information to be found on this element includes injection.
The CDC also mentions EtO on their website:
“Ethylene oxide [. . .] resulting in cellular and tissue dysfunction and destruction. Evidence for human exposure to this chemical is the presence of ethylene oxide adducts of DNA and hemoglobin. Direct contact with liquid ethylene oxide or solutions.” [241]
Another factor that makes it so difficult to assess research on chemicals or substances in relation to vaccines is that injecting infants, toddlers, older children or adults are not necessarily comparable with each other.
Although not vaccine-related, the CDC’s website confirms this when they state that:
“Children do not always respond to chemicals in the same way that adults do.” [242]
Something to keep in mind is that it can take up to three days to experience symptoms because it can take this long for nerve and respiratory reactions to present themselves [ 243] . This may be a reason why symptoms often are not considered to be related to vaccines.
During vaccine safety testing, the observational period often doesn’t last long enough to record delayed reactions. Yet, those are the studies on which vaccine safety is based.
A study was performed on pregnant women in South Africa who were exposed to EtO when sterilizing medical equipment. It was found that there seemed to be a strong connection between EtO exposure and “spontaneous abortion […] and pregnancy loss [...]” [244] .
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
“Many countries have banned the use of ETO on spices and other food due to concerns for public exposure to ETO and its reaction products. [. . .] due to its classification as a known human carcinogen and genotoxic agent. [. . .] some of the countries that have banned the use of ETO on spices (and other foods) include: Belize, China, the European Union (EU, currently numbering 25 countries), Australia, and Japan.” [245]
As we can see, there’s research out there showing the serious effects these substances may have on our cells. The dilemma is not whether these substances are toxic, but whether the amount used in vaccines, or the biproducts once injected, is enough to cause concern. Keeping in mind EtO isn’t directly in the vaccine but presents itself after our body has dissected p80.
Polysorbate 80 reacts to yet another vaccine substance. Namely mercury. Mercury was removed from almost all vaccines, but is still found in some multi-dose vials to prevent bacterial contamination. An example of such vaccine is the influenza vaccine [246] . Even though mercury was removed from childhood vaccines, there are still residual amounts left over from the manufacturing process.
A study we came across revealed that p80 is very efficient at removing mercury from contaminated water [ 247] . This sounds good right? Read on…
If p80 is attracting mercury, we can only assume it is likely some of the mercury is being escorted to the brain. So, if we receive traces of mercury in the vaccines or are exposed to mercury from other sources, and receive a p80 containing vaccine, then a mercury-free vaccine could still potentially cause mercury accumulation in the brain.
16
Mercury, the swift traveler
“It does indeed seem absurd that an organic disposition should make beings more fragile, more susceptible to poisons, for in most cases everything in living beings seems disposed to assure them a greater power of resistance.”
Dr. Charles Richet (French physiologist)
T he body has an amazing capacity to take care of itself. It contains highly intricate molecules that work hard at keeping our bodies as healthy as possible. One of the body’s very own molecules to do this is glutathione (GSH). Its job is to clean house. It makes sure your cells are not hoarding all kinds of garbage it doesn’t need. As diligent as this little molecule is, it is also sensitive to certain toxic exposures. Unfortunately, vaccines are adding hard-to-dodge obstacles in their path.
In order to understand the overall importance of what the glutathione does and the consequences of the potential exposure of some vaccines, we need to first take a look at its function within the body and then see what happens when it’s under attack.
Our body is constantly producing glutathione protein molecules. Its superpower is its sticky and stinky sulfur content. Because it is so sticky, heavy metals and toxins, such as free radicals and mercury, stick to it. When materials stick to the glutathione, it takes it out with the trash and the unwanted materials end up in our feces. It’s not surprising that glutathione also plays a vital role “in normal intestinal function.” [248]
Normally, our body just recycles our glutathione, which in turn recycles antioxidants. When our body experiences oxidative stress or is bombarded with too many toxins, it has a hard time keeping up. When this happens, the glutathione is overworked and the body is unable to recycle it fast enough and it gets used up (no more sticky stuff). This means we are no longer recycling our antioxidants to fight off free radicals. This in turn causes oxidative stress. Our battle is taking its toll and cellular functions suffer.
Glutathione (GSH) is extremely important if we want our immune system to work properly.
A paper published in 2014 on glutathione states:
“GSH also has crucial functions in the brain as an antioxidant, neuromodulator, neurotransmitter, and enabler of neuron survival.” [249]
Glutathione is produced in the liquid portion (cytosol) inside our cells. There are many cellular functions that need glutathione in order to operate properly. For instance, glutathione is also in the nucleus where it helps produce and repair DNA. The mitochondria also contain glutathione, the mitochondrial glutathione (mGSH). In this mitochondrial form, it helps keep the cell ali ve [250] .
Fighting the free radicals
The mitochondria are the parts inside the cells that consume the most oxygen. They contain a lot of antioxidants and detoxifying agents. The most important agent is perhaps the mitochondrial glutathione because it protects the mitochondria from things like premature cell death [ 251] . The mitochondria are constantly exposed to free radicals, and glutathione is at the forefront fighting against them.
When a cell dies, so does its glutathione content. So, when a cell prematurely dies, the body is losing its glutathione supply.
One of the organs that has the most glutathione is the liver. The kidney is another one with a lot of glutathione. It would therefore not be surprising if a disease of an organ, like the liver, would be related to lack of glutathione in liver cells.
Nor is it surprising that doctors warn that acetaminophen is hard on the liver when you understand that acetaminophen depletes the glutathione (GSH) in the liver cells. It reduces the mitochondrial glutathione (mGSH), which makes the cell more defenseless against free radicals or oxidative stress [252] .
We did some reading on neurological disorders and it seemed many are contributed to oxidative stress and mitochondrial dysfunction.
Scientists say:
“[…], a reduction in both cellular and mitochondrial GSH levels results in increased oxidative stress and a decrease in mitochondrial function […].” [253]
One cannot help but wonder about the vaccines’ role in all this. As our brain uses a lot of oxygen, it is prone to much oxidative stress. Compared to a healthy active person, the brain of an infant or an elderly person is less likely to be able to fight the stress. This can lead to such things as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease in the elderly [ 254] .
We wonder then if it is possible it could lead to neurological disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children.
Toxin magnet
The liver is an important organ that delivers glutathione into the blood and to other organs [ 255] . When it comes to protecting our organs, the glutathione’s most important job is to detoxify. It’s therefore also important to have plenty of glutathione in our lungs. As you know, lungs are a major oxygen-containing organ and can also be full of toxins from the air we breathe.
One toxin presented to us in some vaccines is thimerosal, even though mostly in only trace amounts. Glutathione draws it out of the body via the kidney and liver. Once thimerosal is in liquid, it decomposes into ethylmercury hydroxide and ethylmercury chloride [ 256] . Glutathione helps eliminate the ethylmercury. If our glutathione system doesn’t function properly, it won’t be able to help get rid of the ethylmercury [ 257] .
Glutathione is one of our main defenders against the toxic effects thimerosal has on our cells. When our cells are attacked by toxic levels of thimerosal, it depletes the glutathione within our cells [ 258] .
After our main defenders, glutathione, have been depleted and we continue to be repeatedly exposed to thimerosal, it’s not so surprising that our cells are easily invaded and killed. Perhaps lack of glutathione can be a genetic defect in some individuals? If such a thing exists, could some children suffer extreme reactions when vaccinated, even with just trace amounts of toxins?
As a matter of fact, after looking it up, glutathione deficiency exists. An example is glutathione synthetase deficiency. Individuals with this disorder are unable to produce glutathione. This specific disorder comes in a mild, moderate or severe form.
Those with the severe form may experience:
“[...] seizures; a generalized slowing down of physical reactions, movements, and speech (psychomotor retardation); intellectual disability; and a loss of coordination (ataxia). Some people [...] develop recurrent bacterial infections.” [259]
We feel it’s safe to assume that those who have some type of glutathione deficiency may react severely to vaccines. In addition, we find the above descriptions similar to that of severe reactions to vaccines. Perhaps vaccines can affect glutathione production even in healthy babies and consequently cause the above symptoms.
Girls and boys
Another link in the chain is uncovered in some of the research into neuroblastoma cell lines. Neuroblastoma cells are cancer cells often used when researching nerve cells. Neuroblasts are immature or naïve nerve cells that haven’t been told yet what they are.
Several online articles mention that boys are more prone to adverse reactions to thimerosal than girls. How can this be? Thimerosal affects the neuroblastoma cells by telling it to self-destruct. That sounds like a good thing, don’t we want cancer cells to self-destruct? As great as that sounds, it’s not so great considering the fact it will do it to normal cells as well. How can this be gender-based?
One reason males may be more prone to adverse reactions to thimerosal is the relationship between testosterone and nerve cell development. Testosterone causes almost an instantaneous increase in calcium (Ca) inside the neuroblastoma cells. The calcium is extremely important in growing neurons for proper brain function and proper function of the nervous system.
Researchers injected neuroblastoma cells with a small amount of thimerosal to see what would happen to the nerve cell. They saw physical changes in the cells, including changes in the cell surface, the membrane. The researchers watched as the cell withered away. They also noticed that important substances were leaking out of the mitochondria and identified these substances as ones that play an active role in cell destruction. Therefore, these events caused the cell to self-destruct prematurely [ 260] .
When the cells are exposed to too much testosterone it causes damage which may change a person’s behavior. Suicidal thoughts being one such change. We found a paper that explains the effects testosterone has on nerve cells. The authors of the paper showed a correlation between overstimulation of this self-destruction process and disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and Huntington disease [ 261] .
Sounds familiar? The effect of ethylmercury on neuroblastoma cells is quite similar to that of over-active testosterone levels in neuroblastoma cells. Not only is it similar to testosterone, but it also mimics formaldehyde’s (FA) effect on the microtubular structure in the cytoskeleton [ 262] . So not only is it messing with the self-destruction code, but the mercury also tears down our microtubules as we talked about in the book’s section on formaldehyde.
A healthy production of testosterone is necessary in order to keep the calcium in check inside the cell. Too much testosterone, can kill nerve cells. The above research paper concludes that “effects of testosterone on neurons will have long term effects on brain function.” [263] Mercury affects the production of testosterone [ 264] [ 265] .
The study tested this by using estrogen as well. Estrogen did not have any effect on the cell’s integrity. Their explanation was “that normal levels of testosterone are necessary” in order to have the right amount of calcium “to maintain homeostasis” [266] .
When we have an increased level of testosterone, this changes the calcium signal and results in the killing of nerve cells [ 267] . It has also been shown that estrogen is able to keep the calcium (Ca) levels stable. This maintains the functional homeostasis and protects mitochondria from oxidative stress [ 268] .
The next question is why estrogen doesn’t do the same damage. The paper continues by explaining how estrogen is able “to protect neurons from a number of toxic insults” [269] . Not only that, but we learned it also protected the cell from dying by being exposed to heavy metals such as mercury. Estrogen has also been shown to protect us from diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s [ 270] . It’s also known to protect the nerves by ensuring the mitochondria are functioning properly.
The disturbance of testosterone and estrogen production in a developing body can potentially seriously affect the neurons. With mercury playing a role in this disturbance, especially in testosterone production, why are we concerned about its effect in terms of childhood vaccines? Mercury was removed from childhood vaccines and the trace amounts we spoke of earlier doesn’t seem to be enough to elicit a concern of this magnitude.
In order to understand how this can potentially cause serious issues in children who have some kind of immune weakness, we need to look at what mercury-free (trace amount) vaccines means to a compromised immune system.
17
Mercury, the ungodly element
"[E]ating a peppermint before bed justifies not brushing your teeth because it gives the same flavour"
Unknown
N ow that we know a little bit more about what’s going on inside our cells when we are exposed to heavy metals, let’s to take closer look at mercury. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are three forms of mercury:
“[...] elemental mercury, inorganic mercury compounds (primarily mercuric chloride), and organic mercury compounds (primarily methyl mercury). All forms of mercury are quite toxic, and each form exhibits different health effects.” [271]
Thimerosal is a type of organic mercurial compound [ 272] . Mercury (Hg) is elemental and a heavy liquid state. Methyl Mercury (CH 3 Hg) is organic and a solid state and Thimerosal (C 9 H 9 HgNaO 2 S) is organic and a solid state.
As you can see, these are three different compounds [ 273] . Both methylmercury and thimerosal are organic and solid. Note that it’s in the form of thimerosal and not ethylmercury. As mentioned earlier, thimerosal turns into ethylmercury when in liquid.
When reading the vaccine ingredient label, take notice whether it says thimerosal or mercury. Thimerosal contains about 50% mercury. So, when it says the thimerosal in a vaccine is “50 micrograms per 0.5 mL dose” [274] , which is a normal size dose [275] for injection, that means that it contains about “25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose” [ 276] .
You’ve most likely heard that mercury has been removed from vaccines. So it was, at least for the most part. Thimerosal, which is the ethylmercury component used in vaccines, is found in vaccines for influenza, tetanus, Japanese encephalitis, meningococcal and Td [277] .
There used to be a lot more mercury in vaccines and it was added for a very good reason. During the vaccine manufacturing process, it is likely the vaccine vial becomes contaminated with living organisms. It’s also likely that when performing multiple needle pokes into a multi-dose vial, it becomes contaminated with living organisms.
Mercury was added to multidose vials in order to protect us from being injected with these unknown living organisms. According to the FDA, the amount of thimerosal in vaccines “kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi.” [278]
The FDA gives a quick history of how thimerosal has been used in vaccines since the 1930s, stating:
“Since then, thimerosal has a long record of safe and effective use preventing bacterial and fungal contamination of vaccines, with no ill effect established other than minor local reactions at the site of injection.” [279]
How much is trace?
In the CDC’s pink book (referenced above), it says there can be up to 0.3 µg of mercury left in the vaccine after thimerosal has been removed. It’s important to note there is a difference between thimerosal and mercury. We have noticed when discussing mercury in vaccines with others, they use thimerosal and mercury interchangeably as if they were the same thing.
The FDA states:
“Since 2001, all vaccines manufactured for the U.S. market and routinely recommended for children ≤ 6 years of age have contained no thimerosal or only trace amounts (≤ 1 microgram of mercury per dose remaining from the manufacturing process), with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine.” [280]
We noticed the CDC and the FDA show two different cut-offs for what constitutes trace amounts. The CDC specifies 0.3 µg in one dose:
“Evaluated detection limits were 0.3 µg TM [thimerosal] and 3.0 µg Al, which corresponds to the smallest, but possible to recognize, visible peak.” [281]
The FDA doesn’t appear to agree with this lower limit, because as stated above, they specify 1.0 µg per dose as an accepted amount in their thimerosal-free vaccines.
We thought it strange that these two organizations would have such variation in what defines a trace amount . We looked into it a little closer and found the discrepancy to be even larger than expected. The CDC is actually referring to thimerosal, while the FDA is referring to mercury.
As mentioned above, the 0.3 µg thimerosal is derived from the fact that it’s the limit of detection for the methods used to test for thimerosal [ 282] . This means if there is 0.29 µg thimerosal in the vaccine, it will show up as no thimerosal detected. According to the FDA, these vaccines are labeled “thimerosal-free” [283] . The CDC demonstrated slightly more concern, and in 2001, they:
“[R]efused even to express a preference for thimerosal-free vaccines, despite the fact that thimerosal had been removed from almost every childhood vaccine produced for use in the United States.” [284]
When it comes to what the FDA considers a trace amount (1 µg mercury or less/dose) amounts to 2 µg thimerosal or less/dose.
So, when the FDA states there’s either no thimerosal or trace amounts of thimerosal in the vaccines, they are in reality saying thimerosal is anywhere from 0 µg to 2 µg.
According to the FDA website, in 1999 the FDA conducted an in-depth analysis on thimerosal and its use in childhood vaccines. They “found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions.” [285]
What is interesting here is that the FDA doesn’t seem to be concerned that thimerosal causes local hypersensitive reactions . This is interesting because, taking local hypersensitivity into account, the Pittman-Moore Company found Merthiolate (aka thimerosal) to be:
“[…] unsatisfactory as a preservative for serum intended for use on dogs” [286]
So, Merthiolate is not desirable for uses in dogs, but in humans it’s okay?
Let’s get back to the trace amounts and work on those numbers a little to see what they mean. One vaccine dose is 0.5 ml. We are going with the CDC’s guidelines where the maximum trace amount of mercury allowed is 0.3 µg/0.5 ml. This is the same as 600 parts per billion (ppb) [287] .
The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) safety levels are calculated in mg/l and ppb. According to the EPA, the maximum amount of inorganic mercury allowed in drinking water is 0.002 mg/l or 2 ppb. This means the max trace amounts in vaccines is 300 times above the maximum allowed in drinking water [ 288] . By the way, inorganic is considered less harmful than organic mercury.
Note that we are comparing inorganic mercury (drinking water) to thimerosal, which is organic mercury. This is why we mentioned the different types of mercury in the beginning of this chapter. We want you to be aware that although it’s all mercury, it’s not all the same.
We also want to mention that by the time mercury reaches the brain, it has changed into an inorganic form. When ethylmercury is transported out of the muscle and into the tissues, it quickly converts into an inorganic form of mercury. This has to do with the red blood cells’ ability to convert it [ 289] .
A multidose influenza vaccine contains 25 µg of thimerosal. As mentioned above, 1.0 µg/l is the same as 1 ppb. Since there is 25 µg in 0.5 ml dose, this is the same as 50,000 ppb in one single flu shot.
According to the Healthcare Environmental Resource Center, a waste substance that “contains more than 0.2 mg per liter mercury, the waste is considered hazardous.” [290] A quick reminder, 0.2 mg per liter mercury is the same as 200 ppb mercury. Thimerosal contains 50% mercury.
According to our calculations, this means that a substance needs to contain 400 ppb of thimerosal to be considered hazardous waste. Compared to the 50,000 ppb thimerosal in the influenza vaccine, we can safely say that it contains more than a hundred times more thimerosal than the legal limit of a toxic waste.
18
Mercury, it’s everywhere
“Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains.”
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (French philosopher)
A lthough not a part of the childhood vaccine schedule, the influenza vaccine is still given to children and childbearing women. We wonder what kind of impact this can have on a developing fetus or a breastfeeding infant. Even if what authorities say about mercury in the vaccine being safe or not toxic enough on its own is true, how does it fare when in contact with other vaccine ingredients?
It appears that our bodies have become a toxic dumping ground, but it’s okay, because only trace amounts are being dumped each time, right?
It’s important to note not all flu vaccines contain thimerosal. There are flu vaccines available that are labeled “thimerosal-free”. We encourage those who decide to be vaccinated against the flu to ask which flu vaccine you’re about to receive.
The ethylmercury in vaccines has often been compared to the toxic methylmercury contaminating our waters and the fish we eat. Because of this, pregnant women, for instance, are told not to consume fish. Many argue that we are injecting infants and pregnant mothers with a substance they are advised not to eat.
In one article Paul Offit says:
“Ethylmercury is broken down and excreted much more rapidly than methylmercury. Therefore, ethylmercury (the type of mercury in the influenza vaccine) is much less likely than methylmercury (the type of mercury in the environment) to accumulate in the body and cause harm.” [291]
This very article was reviewed by Dr. Paul Offit himself in 2018. It’s not our intent to pick on Dr. Offit. We are merely using him as a source due to his respected standing within the vaccine field in the scientific community. We feel confident his statements are based on what is considered to be solid opinions within the scope of vaccine research.
A 2002 paper by Pichichero, which supports Dr. Offit’s statement, is often used as a reference to prove mercury in vaccines is safe. This paper “aimed to measure concentrations of mercury in blood, urine, and stools of infants who received such vaccines.” [292] Interestingly, the authors stated that “allergic reactions have been rarely noted, but no harmful effects have been reported.” [293] They linked this statement to a paper from 1988. How about in the 14 years since the study? Were there no reports of value in those years? I’m sure any one of you can find reports of this sort.
After collecting samples from both test group and control group, the researchers found that “[m]ercury was undetectable in most of the urine samples from the infants in this study” [ 294] .
A test group consists of subjects receiving a substance being tested. In this case it’s mercury. A control group consists of subjects not receiving the substance being tested. These groups are then compared to each other to observe any impact the substance may have.
In the stool samples from infants in the test group, the researchers did find mercury, mostly inorganic mercury. This isn’t surprising given we now know thimerosal turns into inorganic mercury. And after finding out MSG eliminates mercury through the stool, this is to be expected. If you have been exposed to mercury then it should be there (in the stool) just as you’d see in healthy individuals exposed to mercury. The concern would be if there was no mercury measured in the stool.
Stool samples from infants in the control group were not collected.
How can the researchers compare the importance of finding mercury in the stool of the mercury-exposed test group? To us, the logical answer would be that it is an indicator the mercury is being excreted, but we’d like to see the amount excreted being compared to the amount of mercury being injected.
We’re not sure how relevant their findings are because, as we understand it, all they are saying is that it appears the GSH is clearing out the mercury as it’s supposed to do or that the body is actively eliminating the toxin. These are healthy infants, so this is to be expected. But the paper makes no mention of the expected amount of mercury to be excreted when injected with the vaccines these infants were given. Nor does it say anything about the elimination of mercury of infants with weakened immune response.
Since they didn’t collect stool sample from the control group, in order to compare and to see if dietary sources contaminated with mercury could be a factor, they chose nine other babies (unrelated to the study) who had not been injected with thimerosal-containing vaccine. The babies in this group, which was less than half the size of the regular control group, turned out to have a “significantly lower” amount of mercury in their stool. This is only to be expected and not at all surprising.
God only knows why they deviated from the study design in this manner, omitting the control group infants and picking nine other infants who were not a part of the study, is a mystery to us. They didn’t explain this.
The researchers also measured the blood half-life of ethylmercury by measuring the mercury blood levels consistently over many days. In the end they estimated the half-life to be seven days. This means that when the mercury was no longer measurable in the blood, it was assumed to be cleared out of the body.
Even though the researchers measured mercury levels in the infants, no blood samples were collected in the first 72 hours.
Could there be reasons, other than excretion, for mercury to leave the bloodstream? How about traveling to the brain with help of, for instance, polysorbate 80? Could this not explain the lack of mercury in the blood? We feel concerns of this caliber should warrant a proper study comparing levels of excreted mercury to injected mercury.
If not all sources are being measured, it’s difficult to accept a definitive conclusion.
Three years later, in 2005, another study was published comparing methylmercury to thimerosal in vaccines. This study was performed on macaque monkeys and focused on the mercury levels in the brain, not the urine or the stool.
The study was designed to see if the mercury dose in the vaccine was safe since it was based on methylmercury rather than ethylmercury.
The researchers state that:
“Studies in preterm infants indicate that blood levels of Hg after just one vaccination (hepatitis B) increase by >10-fold to levels above the US EPA guidelines.” [295]
The macaque monkeys in both the ethylmercury group and the methylmercury group showed similar levels of mercury immediately after distribution.
The methylmercury seemed to have a much higher tendency to accumulate in the blood while the ethylmercury cleared out very quickly from the blood. Instead of being eliminated from the body, the scientists noticed it was escaping across the blood-brain barrier (BBB).
When kidneys were tested, much higher levels of mercury were found in the thimerosal-injected group. This would correlate with the fact that mercury sticks to GSH and our kidneys have a large amount of GSH.
When measuring mercury levels in the brain, it was noted ethylmercury left much higher levels of inorganic mercury than did methylmercury (“up to 71% vs. 10%”).
While ethylmercury is quick to leave the blood and enter our organs, including the brain, we can’t see how this makes it safer than methylmercury which stays in the blood longer before it’s cleared out.
Life of mercury
What about the half-life of organic vs. inorganic mercury? “The estimated half-life of organic Hg in the brain” is about 37 days and “The estimated half-life of inorganic Hg in the brain [. . .] varied greatly across some regions of the brain, from 227 days to 540 days.” [296]
The researchers continue stating that:
“In other regions, the concentrations of inorganic Hg remained the same (thalamus) or doubled (pituitary) 6 months after exposure to MeHg had ended” [297] .
Their finding appears to be that the ethylmercury clears the blood quicker, but isn’t being eliminated from the body, rather it’s traveling to the brain and other organs, including the kidneys, while methylmercury lingers in the blood longer before it reaches the brain.
Therefore:
“Consequently, MeHg is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived Hg.” [298]
Another study concludes “that MeHg does not appear to be a good model for EtHg-containing compounds.” [299] Yet, the official guidelines don’t seem to make this distinction.
Drs. Thomas Verstraeten and Frank DeStefano , performed a study assessing “the possible toxicity of thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs) among infants.” [300]
They conclude:
“No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes.” [301]
Regarding the lifespan of ethylmercury from vaccine in the blood, a research summary from the Health & Human Services Committee, states:
“The half life is 5-7 days, meaning that half the injected dose of mercury leaves the blood in that time period, on average. There is considerable individual variation. […] exposures from non-vaccine sources would increase the blood mercury levels.” [302]
Through other research, we know that even though the mercury has left the bloodstream, it doesn’t mean it has left the body. The message is a little confusing. The researchers say the half-life is 5-7 days, but that’s when it is being measured in the blood. But what if in 5-7 days the ethylmercury has vanished because it has traveled to the brain and not because of its half-life? Maybe this is not the true half-life for mercury in blood, but rather a measure of how long it takes until it travels to organs.
We decided to look into this so we visited our favorite webpage on chemicals, the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) open chemistry database. We found what we were looking for in section 8.7 Biological Half-Life [ 303] . The NIH linked their source to the Drugbank [ 304] . The NIH, or the Drugbank, had completely different estimates for the half-lives of thimerosal. They link their sources to a research paper in the Environmental Journal [305] and the University of Minnesota [306] . Unfortunately, during the final polishing of this book, the latter source doesn’t appear to be available any longer.
The NIH summarizes its sources to:
“Estimated half-lives (in days) were 8.8 for blood, 10.7 for brain, 7.8 for heart, 7.7 for liver and 45.2 for kidney [L1685]. The long half-life of ethylmercury (~50 days on average in humans) results in accumulation that may be harmful to the developing fetal brain, as it is more susceptible to organomercurial compounds than the adult brain [L1687].” [307]
That being said, in section 8.5 they refer to Pichichero’s study, which we mentioned at the start of this chapter.
It states that:
“Estimated blood half-life of ethylmercury was 7 days.” [308]
Their discussion doesn’t end here. In section 8.8 they continue by explaining that thimerosal’s behavior is not well understood. For those who understand chemistry, you may prefer to read the section for clarification. However, for the rest of us, it says, in a nutshell, that thimerosal has the ability to release calcium from our cells. This results in an excess amount of calcium outside the cell. Because our body uses calcium for various functions, this transfer of calcium can mess up those functions.
Since ethylmercury is a lipophilic cation, meaning it is positively charged and dissolves in fat, it can cross the blood-brain barrier.
This is an important note, because, as this section states:
“It has been demonstrated that lipophilic cations accumulate inside mitochondria […]. " [309]
After reviewing various sources, it has now become apparent to us that research papers on the life of mercury in our body can reach various conclusions depending on which source is used to interpret the data.
We feel confident in the validity of our concern that ethylmercury, or thimerosal, travels to the brain and our other organs rather than being completely excreted from the body.
Skulls & bones
Thimerosal has two Globally Harmonized Systems (GHS) hazard statements. One is from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the other from NITE-CMC. The ECHA statements are a collection of statements from 84 companies. Let’s see what these agencies think about thimerosal.
ECHA has labeled thimerosal with health hazard and environment hazard warnings inclusive of the universal skull & crossbones images. That agency informs us thimerosal is both toxic and fatal when swallowed, fatal if it comes in contact with your skin or is inhaled. When there is an extended contact with thimerosal, it can damage the organs [ 310] .
NITE-CMC have labeled thimerosal similarly along with it being toxic if swallowed. They don’t mention it’s deadly, as ECHA did. Instead of saying it’s fatal at skin contact, they say that it “[m]ay cause an allergic reaction”. What they do mention, which ECHA doesn’t, is the fact that there’s a chance it can cause genetic defects and cancers. Both agencies agree on the damage it causes organs [ 311] .
The SDS sheet for thimerosal classifies it as class 6.1, which means it is poisonous [ 312] . What does it say the Potential Acute Health Effects are?
“Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of eye contact (irritant). Severe over-exposure can result in death.” [313]
What about Potential Chronic Health Effects ?
“CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. The substance may be toxic to kidneys, liver, spleen, bone marrow, central nervous system (CNS).” [314]
The Special Remarks on the toxic effects on humans are too long to list. They seem to cover just about any adverse health effect known to Man, and they detail such a wide variety of signs and symptoms.
The SDS sheet also states that thimerosal reacts adversely to oxidizing agents. These take electrons away from other molecules. As you may remember, polysorbate 80 (p80) has an electron to give away. Oxygen is an oxidizing agent [315] , so it takes the electron that p80 is giving away.
Our red blood cells carry oxygen on their surface. Thimerosal reacts badly to oxygen. When thimerosal enters blood, it’s converted from organic form into inorganic form.
We’re not chemists and find it difficult to connect the dots with all the research data we’ve gathered. Nevertheless, we feel there is more dot-connecting to be done in this area.
A study was performed using micro- and nanomolar concentrations of thimerosal to mimic the amounts used in products such as vaccines. After incubating thimerosal in live cell cultures for six hours, it became toxic. The researchers observed that even in these miniscule amounts, the thimerosal “rapidly induce membrane and DNA damage and initiate [. . .] apoptosis in human neurons and fibroblasts.” [316]
Apoptosis means cell death. It’s confusing to us to understand how this is even a discussion. We understand that most infants are healthy and appear to be vaccinated without any harm. But are they really? What about when symptoms present themselves months or years down the road?
More children are developing allergies than ever before. More children are developing learning difficulties than ever before. More children are developing gut issues than ever before. More children are developing neural disorders than ever before.
There could be many other immune system weaknesses that our children develop, which we are unaware of.
Society has gone through major changes in the past century with vaccines being but one of those changes. Despite that, it’s a change that impacts children all over the world, regardless of living conditions, nutrition, race, color or creed.
19
Monosodium glutamate – Fire away!
“ The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders is the most complicated object in the known universe.”
Michio Kaku (American theoretical physicist)
V accines need to be shipped from the manufacturing laboratory to their many destinations such as medical clinics and hospitals. In order to ensure they remain stable during shipping and storage, a substance to help vaccines maintain their integrity is added to their list of ingredients. One such additive is Monosodium glutamate (MSG).
Like many other vaccine ingredients MSG has been shown to affect our body, especially our nerves. Glutamate is not just a vaccine ingredient, it’s also an excitatory amino acid present in the human brain. This means it causes excitement. If its function is messed with in any way, it can become toxic to our nerves [ 317] .
In order to understand how this happens, we have to understand how a nerve cell works. The easiest way for us to do this is to look at the nerve cell as having four parts: dendrites, a body, axon and axon terminals.
Inside the nerve cell body, you’ll find the mitochondria, DNA and other organelles. The dendrites is where you receive electrical impulses. These impulses are coming from the axon terminals of another nerve cell. They go from axon terminal and over to the dendrites. The cells never actually touch, instead the impulses rely on the action potential in bringing the message across to the axon terminals. This is how a message can be shot across to another nerve cell [3 18] [3 19] .
Action potential is the rise and fall of movement along the axon. Reminiscent of a yoyo-like movement [ 320] . The action potential shoots the message across the axon by recharging the message with a new action potential at each Node of Ranvier , which are the gaps between the myelin sheaths along the axon. When a nerve cell doesn’t have the protection of a myelin sheath, the message takes a lot longer to process as it needs constant action potentials to move forward, rather than just at the Nodes of Ranvier . We have attached a YouTube video that shows an animation of this [321] .
Saying we have a lot of synapses wouldn’t really explain the vastness of our network. Maybe this quote will put it into perspective:
“In the cerebral cortex alone, there are roughly 125 trillion synapses, which is about how many stars fill 1,500 Milky Way galaxies.” [322]
To recap what we just explained, after a dendrite has received electrical impulses from axon terminal of a neighboring nerve cell, they travel down the axon. We need to ensure the message gets across fast and smooth. This is done by covering the axon with myelin sheath, which kind of looks like a row of bricks with a small gap between each brick. These gaps are called the Nodes of Ranvier and are filled with sodium (Na) and potassium (K). This is where action potentials are recharged. You can say they are kind of like charging stations.
The electrical impulses slide safely under the protection of the myelin sheath and each time they hit a Node of Ranvier , they become recharged and shot forward. In other words, this creates the energy needed to launch the message across the myelin sheath and over to the next Node of Ranvier for recharge (Saltatory conduction) [ 323] . This makes the message go faster, because it only needs to be reloaded at the Node of Ranvier , rather than constantly.
When the myelin sheath is damaged, because of how much slower the signal is being transferred, it becomes much like a bad Internet connection. Like watching a film that is constantly buffering.
At the axon terminals which are at the end of the axon you find multiple vacuoles. Inside these vacuoles are neurotransmitters. They help the electrical impulses to cross over to the dendrite part of the neighboring nerve cell. The most common neurotransmitter in our brain is glutamate. As mentioned, glutamate is an excitatory amino acid. This means it increases the positive charge in the cell and helps shoot the impulse across to the other cell.
On the dendrites on the nerve cells you find glutamate receptors (GluR). There are many different types of GluR and they all have different functions. They are needed for, among other things, proper “learning and memory, motor coordination, pain transmission, and neurodegeneration.” [ 324]
So excited, just can’t hide it
As mentioned earlier, glutamate is also excitotoxic. When there is too much glutamate in the space outside the cell, it is “a likely trigger of epileptic seizures” [325] . These seizures can cause a lifelong injury to our nerves [ 326] . This happens if there’s too much glutamate or if it’s hypersensitive. Both scenarios lead to over-excitation.
When there’s too much excitement going on, it affects the cell’s ability to produce energy and it starts producing more oxidants. This is very important when it comes to killing nerve cells [ 327] . So basically, the glutamate excites them to death. This can lead to neurodegenerative diseases [3 28] .
One concern regarding the use of monosodium glutamate (MSG) in vaccines is when it is given to pregnant women. The MSG can get through the placenta and into the tissues of the embryo [ 329] . Being exposed to MSG this early on can cause a continuous production of free radicals in the brain [ 330] . This can impair important brain functions [ 331] . In fact, a study was done in mice where they were “treated neonatally with monosodium glutamate (MSG)” and they ended up developing “learning and memory deficits” [332] in the task they were given to perform.
We carry the most amount of glutamate in our body at age two. From then on it tapers off. During this time, when the glutamate is decreasing, there’s not as much need for the glutamate receptors (GluR), so they start adjusting to other tasks [ 333] . During brain development period, the brain has more GluR than it will have later in life. This means that while we are young, our brain is more vulnerable to nerve cell damage.
This is not a big deal
Dr. Paul Offit does not appear to be concerned about MSG in vaccines having a negative effect on us. In response to spacing out vaccines, he says in his book Deadly Choices :
“[…] it’s the dose that makes the poison – and that spacing out vaccines to avoid exposure to quantities of chemicals so small that they have no chance of causing harm will accomplish nothing.” [334]
His statement was supported in a report which reviewed the “available literature from last 25 years about different clinical trials” [ 335] performed on both animals and humans by using multiple scientific databases. The authors of the paper bring up various concerns and make no intention of refuting the adverse effects.
They also state a few advantages of consuming MSG. One advantage being “it is used as a fuel for digestive system to enhance body metabolism.” [336]
The only time the paper mentions injected glutamate is during a mouse study, but other than that, there’s no mention of it. So, in their conclusion, the authors speak of MSG as a food additive, not a vaccine additive.
Like Dr. Offit, they also say:
“Excess of everything was bad, so MSG utilization up to a certain level does not have any adverse effects because glutamate is a nutritionally indispensable amino acid.” [337]
Yet again, the various research papers on a substance used in vaccines render different results. When looking at how each substance affects the body, and then combining all the substances and their effects into one big picture, it’s clear that our body’s immune system is surrounded by invaders coming at it from all directions.
A strong and healthy immune system may have an army of defenders large enough to keep toxins at bay. What about those who have weaknesses, or even a single weakness, in their immune system? While the immune cells are busy fighting, they may not have enough immune cells or strength to cover any other weakness in the body’s defense.
20
Glyphosate – It’s everywhere
“Vaccines, I would argue, are the best, safest things we put into our body. Obviously nothing is absolutely safe.”
Dr. Paul Offit, MD. (Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases)
I t’s a fact that vaccines include contaminants. One of these contaminants (in the vaccine) can affect the glutamate functions in our brain. This would be glyphosate, the controversial active agent in RoundUp . Its use in weed-killing is how it made its way into vaccines. Animals eat food contaminated or altered by RoundUp . Parts of these animals are then used directly or indirectly in the manufacturing of vaccines.
In order to understand why glyphosate is dangerous to our body, we need to understand how it works. Glyphosate is detrimental to the Shikimate pathway. This pathway is found in plants and microorganisms such as bacteria. It’s not found in human cells. One of this pathway’s important functions is to combine aromatic compounds, such as aromatic acids and certain vitamins [ 338] .
As just mentioned, human cells don’t contain the Shikimate pathway. So even though the aromatic acids are extremely important to us, our cells are not able to produce these acids. This is why the importance of getting them in our food is often stressed [ 339] .
Although human cells don’t have the Shikimate pathway, our vast number of gut bacteria do. We are therefore reliant on our gut bacteria to produce these aromatic amino acids for us.
There hasn’t been a lot of research on glyphosate in direct relation to vaccines, but there have been numerous studies on its effect on the Shikimate Pathway. Several studies have found that glyphosate can cause oxidative stress [ 340] [ 341] . Oxidative stress, which is also caused by glutamate, if you recall, is the product left over from free radical vs. antioxidant balance.
Ideally, this balance will even out and not result in oxidative stress. Oxidative stress is when we have an overabundance of free radicals damaging our cells. What makes a free radical dangerous is the fact that it’s missing an electron, so it bounces around searching for one. In the meantime, it’s causing damage and creating even more free radicals. This type of damage disrupts the mitochondria in our cells and has been linked to cancers [342] and many diseases [ 343] [ 344] .
Everybody has it
Studies show that “glyphosate is detectable in around 90% of the US population.” [345] So why do we care that we are injected with trace amounts of it in our vaccines? It’s not like the vaccines are being digested in our gut where they can harm our bacterial environment. But keep in mind some of the chemicals in the vaccines enable them to travel freely through the gut-brain barrier and the blood-brain barrier.
Since glyphosate isn’t really a vaccine ingredient, but rather a contaminant, how does it enter vaccines in the first place? Think about what vaccine viruses are grown in. The medium often consists of some type of animal source:
“Contamination may come through bovine protein, bovine calf serum, bovine casein, egg protein and/or gelatin.” [346]
Some vaccines contain gelatin, which is made from the bones and ligaments from farm animals such cows and pigs. And what have these animals likely been fed? Food like corn that has been treated with RoundUp . What is the active ingredient in RoundUp ? Glyphosate.
When gelatin is used in vaccines, it very likely comes from animals which have been fed glyphosate-treated food. When gelatin is used in live viral vaccines, the virus can take the genetic coding from the glyphosate and incorporate it into its own genetic material. This can lead to autoimmune disease [ 347] .
Another way for glyphosate to cause autoimmune disease is once it has been injected into your body, it will contaminate your proteins and make them difficult to break down. This causes your immune system to create antibodies against the proteins the glyphosate has attached itself to. Now you have created antibodies against your own proteins and you start attacking your own cells. You now have the perfect potential for autoimmune diseases.
A test was performed on “nineteen different vaccines, from five manufacturers” for the presence of glyphosate. It’s difficult to comprehend how glyphosate can even be detectable in vaccines considering the small role it plays in vaccine manufacturing. But in the Hepatitis B vaccine production process, for instance, genetically engineered yeast cells:
“[…] carry the surface antigen of the hepatitis B virus. The procedures result in a product that [. . .] could be a source of glyphosate if the yeast is grown on broths or media that utilize glyphosate-contaminated nutrient sources such as animal or plant proteins.” [348]
Of the 19 vaccines they tested, the vaccine that had the most glyphosate was the MMR II vaccine by Merck.
Both sugar beets and cow’s milk are contaminated with glyphosate. Keep this in mind when reading the ingredients of the medium (where the germ is grown). Think of yeast, for instance. The yeast needs to be living and therefore the medium is given nutrients [349] to keep it alive. These include nutrients such as galactose and glucose, or in simple terms, milk and sugar. The glucose being the sugar source and galactose is from the lactose in the milk.
The above paper says the MMR vaccine contained the most glyphosate, why is that?
“This vaccine uses up to 12% hydrolysed gelatin as an excipient–stabilizer; as well as foetal bovine serum albumin, human serum albumin and residual chick embryo; all of which are contaminated by glyphosate during animal production.” [350]
Monsanto realized that glyphosate kills bacteria, so, in 2010, they patented glyphosate as an antimicrobial [ 351] . The list of pathogens affected by glyphosate is very long. What needs to be considered also is the fact that bacterium that’s a pathogen in one part of the body is not necessarily a pathogen in another part of the body. Glyphosate doesn’t discriminate between the two.
The most common hospital-acquired bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa , can break down glyphosate. When it breaks it down, formaldehyde is produced.
Working together
Glyphosate actually blocks your cells from absorbing glutamate, so now you’ll have a bunch of glutamate floating around in the space outside the cells. As you now know from the previous chapter, this causes excitotoxicity and oxidative stress [ 352] .
As a matter of fact, it has been shown that glyphosate “damages DNA and is a driver of mutations that lead to cancer.” [353] This statement is based on using the US government GE crop data to find connections between glyphosate and 22 diseases, including stroke, diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), autism and multiple sclerosis (MS). This study also answers the question of how on earth crops can survive glyphosate while it’s killing everything else around it.
The researchers explain how they found genes in a bacterium that tolerates glyphosate. This gene was extracted and inserted into crop genes. Then the crops and their surroundings were covered in glyphosate. The crops, weeds and whatever else may be in the targeted area absorbed the glyphosate. Everything died except the crops because they had been injected with glyphosate-tolerant gene [3 54] .
Researchers from universities in Germany and Egypt collected blood and urine samples from dairy cows in Denmark. The purpose was to observe the presence of glyphosate and how it affects other markers such as those for the liver and its effect on important minerals such as manganese and zinc [ 355] . The researchers visited eight separate farms in Denmark and retrieved samples from 30 cows on each farm. All the cows tested positive for glyphosate.
In their discussion, the authors comment:
“It is amazing that more papers are not published about glyphosate excretion by farm animals since there are many papers reporting the detection of glyphosate in urine of humans, mostly of farmers using this herbicide.” [356]
Regarding the blood samples taken from the cows, the results, say the authors “point to livers, kidneys and muscles damage.” The authors continue explaining the behavior of glyphosate on nutrients:
“The glyphosate molecule grabs on to vital nutrients so they are not physiologically available. This process is called chelation and was actually the original property for which glyphosate was patented in 1964.” [357]
The authors continue explaining that it wasn’t until a decade later, in 1974, that it was used as an herbicide on crops. The authors’ concerns regarding chelation is noticed towards the end of their paper where they explain:
“When applied to crops, glyphosate deprives them of vital minerals necessary for healthy plant function[...]. This also happens after ingestion of glyphosate in the body of animals and humans. Deficiency in trace elements like Mn, Cu, Zn, Se, Co, B, and Fe as well as macro elements like Mg, Ca, and others occur. Deficiencies of these elements in diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause disorders and diseases.” [358]
One year later, the authors of the above papers, together with other researchers, performed another study. This time they set out to test not just dairy cows, but also “hares, rabbits and humans.” German researchers show when glyphosate containing crops is digested, the urine will test positive for glyphosate [ 359] .
Something we found interesting and even surprising, was that the “[f]armers who did not use rubber gloves had five times more glyphosate in their urine”. Sounds like what they are saying is that you don’t necessarily have to ingest (or be injected with) glyphosate to be contaminated, that it’s enough to be in contact with it and it’ll be absorbed through the skin.
In addition to testing humans for the presence of glyphosate, the authors also compared the results between those who are chronically ill with those who are healthy . The first mentioned had far more glyphosate in their urine than the latter [ 360] .
This wasn’t just a concern of German scientists. In 2014, there was an analysis performed by scientists in America on the correlation between glyphosate and 22 diseases that seem to be continuously on the rise.
Although all 22 diseases were highly correlated, the diseases with the highest correlation with glyphosate were senile dementia (R=0.994), autism (R=0.989), thyroid cancers (R=0.988) and bladder cancer (R=0.981) [ 361] . The “R” stands for correlation coefficient and has a value of -1.0 to + 1.0. The way this works is a negative value shows a negative relationship between the factors being compared. The factors in this case are glyphosate and various diseases. If the value is 0, it means there is no relationship at all between the factors, and a positive value shows a positive relationship between the factors being compared.
So, when you look at the correlation the authors found between glyphosate and dementia (R=0.994), you can see it is very close to 1.0, which is a near perfect relationship between the two.
The authors explain that glyphosate is toxic to our liver at as low as five parts per million (ppm). Even worse is it started messing with the glands that secrete hormones into our blood at 0.5 ppm. According to EPA in 2013 the maximum residual allowed in cattle was 5 ppm, and grain and cereal had a maximum residual allowance of 30 ppm [ 362] .
Another paper showed additional strong links between glyphosate and such diseases as “head and face anomalies [. . .], newborn eye disorders, newborn blood disorders, [. . .] new born skin disorders” and many more [363] .
Stranger danger
A ‘hazard assessment’ by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was released in March 2015 stating that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” [364]
Hugh Grant, the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer at Monsanto, a Fortune 500 company, assures us in their sustainability report that:
“At Monsanto, we’re committed to […] helping to take care of our planet, our people and the communities where we live and work.” [365]
According to the Monsanto’s webpage, an article written April, 2017, states that:
“[…] regulatory agencies have reviewed all the key studies examined by IARC – and many more – and arrived at the overwhelming consensus that glyphosate poses no unreasonable risks to humans or the environment when used according to label instructions.” [366]
Monsanto also state that: “no regulatory agency in the world considers glyphosate a carcinogen.” [367] They also quote and link to agencies all over the world, stating that glyphosate does not pose a great risk to humans.
What if glutamate comes in contact with other chemicals, like aluminum? A study on exactly that was done in 2015. The paper explains how “Glyphosate disrupts gut bacteria”. One example being Clostridium difficile , a bacterium that causes diarrhea, is given the opportunity to grow in abundance. This bacterium releases a toxin which boosts the aluminum to actions leading to anemia. Anemia is when red blood cells are either unable to carry normal amounts of oxygen, or there aren’t enough red blood cells to carry the necessary amount of oxygen. As a result, we will suffer from hypoxia (lack of oxygen). This forces the pineal gland to make transferrin, which is an oxygen transporter on the red blood cell.
Aluminum, like so many other toxins involved in the vaccine manufacturing process, causes aluminum excitotoxicity [ 368] . This can be problematic for some individuals when glyphosate attaches itself to aluminum and helps it cross over both the gut-brain barrier and the blood-brain barrier (BBB) [3 69] . The aluminum is no longer just causing problems in our blood stream, but also in the brain and gut.
Glyphosate also cloaks aluminum so it looks like calcium (Ca). This confuses the body in thinking glyphosate-aluminum compound is calcium. So, instead of absorbing calcium, the bones are absorbing glyphosate-aluminum compound. This can lead to the calcification of the pineal gland.
Besides making transferrin for oxygen transport, the pineal gland also produces melatonin. If we don’t receive enough melatonin during the first few weeks after birth, there’s a likelihood we’ll have delayed mental process in performing motor movements [ 370] .
21
Glyphosate – Golden slumber
“Sleep is the best meditation.”
Dalai Lama
S leep is very important to human health. Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) [371] , explains that in order for us to get good sleep, we need “to clear cellular debris” [ 372] .
In her presentation, Dr. Seneff explains how the pineal gland releases melatonin. The melatonin then enters the fluid in our brain and spinal cord. Melatonin puts us in REM sleep. Without the shikimate pathway, there is no melatonin because the shikimate pathway produces the precursor for melatonin [ 373] .
Dr. Seneff continues to explain how lack of REM sleep, together with a calcified pineal gland, has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The pineal gland makes it possible for us to clean up our cellular debris, but when it’s calcified it doesn’t function properly [ 374] .
Because the pineal gland is not protected by the blood-brain barrier (BBB), it’s more vulnerable to aluminum and mercury toxicity. When aluminum accumulates inside the pineal gland, it hinders its ability to clean cellular debris.
Another example of glyphosate’s ability to block the shikimate pathway’s functions is its relationship with sulfate. Sulfate is metabolized by the shikimate pathway. When sulfate is being stored, it’s called Taurine. When women are pregnant, they release Taurine to the fetus. Taurine is also found in breast milk “and it accumulates in the neonatal brain.” [ 375] If the mother doesn’t have enough Taurine to pass on to the child, it can lead to stunted growth in the child, the CNS doesn’t develop properly and the child will have low tolerance for glucose as well [37 6] .
Sulfate helps take care of acetaminophen, aluminum and mercury in the body. Children with autism only have about “1/3 the normal level of free sulfate in blood stream.” [377]
When a chemical that’s not supposed to be there enters our body, the consequences can range from not being a big deal at all to being life threatening. Most healthy individuals are able to take care of incoming toxicity and everything works out fine or at least seems to work out fine. We don’t always connect the dots to future illnesses. Then there are individuals who have some dysfunction in their biological makeup they may not even know about. These dysfunctions may not cause any harm until they’re exposed to certain elements or toxins.
Two-faced
If glyphosate is so bad for us, why do we have so many research papers saying how great it is? A paper published in 2010, states that:
“[…] glyphosate is a one in a 100-year discovery that is important for reliable global food production as penicillin is for battling disease.” [378]
A study involving injecting rats with MSG was conducted to find out whether male and female rats reacted differently. The results indicated they did. Glutamate caused a “dysfunction” in the male rats’ “sexual behavior” more so than in the female rats. This was “mainly due to CNS damage” [379] .
This was also observed in another study that looked into “the effects of testosterone on neuronal injury” [ 380] .
The conclusion was that the difference between male and female was:
“sex differences in response to brain injury are partly due to the consequence of damaging effects of testosterone.” [381]
Another paper argues that:
“We must be careful not to rush to label glyphosate as excessively toxic to humans because when used properly and in proper quantities it is probably no more dangerous and toxic than other effective herbicides on the market.” [382]
The same paper points out that Samsel and Seneff’s paper on glyphosate [383] is not a reliable study and argues it contains among other things:
“[…], disconnected correlations, and manipulation of number and conditions that create an epidemiological recipe for errors and nonvalid associations.” [384]
The paper concludes by saying that “we must establish factual cause and effect relationships, rather than promote fear mongering, food scares, and lawsuits.” [385] And under disclosures , the author states he has:
“[…] no conflict of interest, except as a consumer who has used this product for many years in my yard and would not like to see it banned unless glyphosate is found guilty as charged, [. . .].” [386]
This article is full of accusatory statements and written throughout in that tone. Without dismissing the content, it’s difficult to respect the statements in such an article or even take it (the article) seriously. There’s a way to disagree with other scientists without dragging their work through the mud. At the end of the article, a sub-article is attached which has statements from both Seneff and Samsel commenting on this attack.
There seems to be much controversy regarding the safety of glyphosate, not only amongst scientists, but also higher up the ladder. The disagreements continue with IARC’s contradicting statement that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” [387] , and the health risk assessment by the EPA, which was released in December 2017 stating that “glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” [388] (IARC is WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer).
Did the biological agent change? Did science change? How can they both be examining the same agent and reach opposite conclusions?
This is where science gets tricky and it’s easy to manipulate theories to mold a pleasing conclusion. Wordplay can be very confusing and misleading. The minority report from the Congressional hearing in February 2018, which can be watched online [ 389] , explains it this way:
“According to IARC, a cancer ‘hazard’ is an agent that is capable of causing cancer under some circumstances, while a cancer ‘risk’ is an estimate of the carcinogenic effects expected from exposure to a cancer hazard.” [390]
We have read this statement a hundred times and it’s still unclear, vague and misleading. Monsanto is not pleased with IARC’s assessment. In the Congressional hearing, Monsanto was presented with:
“hundreds of pages of internal Monsanto e-mails, memorandums, and other records that clearly show Monsanto engaged in a decades-long concerted effort to fend off any evidence suggesting potential adverse human health effects from glyphosate and more recently to undermine IARC’s findings. They ghost wrote scientific articles on glyphosate, established front groups to help amplify their anti-IARC message and scientific evidence they did not like, and they attempted to silence scientists who reached their conclusions questioning glyphosate’s safety.” [391]
If you’re interested in Monsanto, we highly recommend listening to the entire hearing, where the Committee on Science, Space & Technology:
“[…] describes some of the tactics Monsanto has used to control the public debate about glyphosate as well as the scientific studies that have been conducted to assess its potential harm. These efforts appear aimed at corrupting and disrupting any honest, thorough and complete scientific evaluation of glyphosate and its potential adverse impact on the public’s health.” [392]
Understanding how all these additional ingredients in the vaccine play on each other in some way, makes it easy to see how they can become magnified when combined. So, if, for instance, you’re measuring the amount of formaldehyde in the vaccine, you’re not taking into account whether the body is producing or being introduced to formaldehyde in any other way.
We also find it difficult to know which papers are legit, but we feel the research showing how glyphosate affects our cells on so many levels is worthy of notice. Although the argument is that glyphosate doesn’t affect human cells, through the research we did for this chapter it’s evident to us that our gut bacteria, which contains the shikimate pathway, is vital to many of our functions, especially its co-operation with our pineal gland.
22
Prions & nanobacterium – Do you see me now?
“Think of the earth as a living organism that is being attacked by billions of bacteria whose numbers double every forty years. Either the host dies, or the virus dies, or both die.”
Gore Vidal (American writer)
A mong the contaminants that perhaps appear to be more concerning than any others are the tiny particles we don’t know to test for. These particles sneak through the filtering process because they are so small, and they go undetected into the vaccines . Because we don’t always know how to test for them, we don’t even know they’re there or whether or not they cause harm. And if they do, evidently, we don’t know the severity of the harm.
Yet knowing this, the vaccines are still considered by some to be safe.
Prions
Prions are non-living proteins that cause the brain to die. They are known to be transmitted by eating the brain or nerve tissue from animals or humans infected by prions. This is normally called bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease in animals and transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) in humans.
The body is unable to defend itself against prions. This is because the prions are so small the body doesn’t realize they’re present and therefore fails to alert the immune system.
Since prions are not living organisms, but rather tiny pieces of proteins, it’s impossible to kill them, regardless of temperature, toxins or other factors we use to make the attempt.
Because prions are not living, they don’t have the ability to reproduce. Rather, they find a living cell and make copies of themselves. They don’t go hunting for hosts because there’s nothing driving them to do so. They are just protein fragments.
Interestingly, when these protein particles enter our body, the body reacts to them and starts making antibodies. But when we make vaccines out of chopped up proteins, we add adjuvants to aggravate the immune system because it doesn’t recognize protein units on its own.
A paper written by the Department of Basic Pharmaceutical Sciences at University of South Carolina, US, states:
“[…] hypothesized that various forms of prion diseases are essentially autoimmune diseases, resulting from chronic autoimmune attack of the central nervous system.” [393]
Their hypothesis was strongly “supported by an overwhelming body of experimental observations that are scattered in the biomedical literature.” [394]
Nano dose
The smallest bacteria we know of today are nanobacteria. These bacteria are so small they are able to pass through filters used in vaccine manufacturing. Not only that, they can also change their shape. When three lots of an inactivated polio vaccine were tested, two of them were positive for the presence of nanobacteria.
The Author of a paper from 1998 about contamination in cell cultures states that:
“Large-scale cell culture operations for biotechnology products use millions of litres of complex media and gases as well as huge quantities of organic and inorganic raw materials. These raw materials must always be assumed to contain contamination by adventitious agents […].” [395]
In 1985, an upper limit was determined on how much residual DNA could be in each vaccine dose. This limit was set by the FDA, the WHO and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA). The limit was 10 pg/dose. Later, in 1996, they determined they could have much more residual DNA without it causing any harm. They increased the limit to 10 ng/dose. This new limit did not include oral vaccines or vaccines from “microbial, diploid or primary cell cultures.” [396]
After some further research, they decided that:
“[…] further data for DNA from continuous mammalian cell lines suggest it poses less risk than previously thought. For live viral vaccines or less purified products […], it may not be possible to comply with the upper limit of the total DNA, i.e. 10 ng per dose.” [397]
The reason for being concerned enough about residual DNA to come up with an upper limit in the first place, is because there have been many studies on the safety of DNA fragments.
The same paper states:
“[…] number of studies raised potential safety issues with regard to residual DNA. Residual DNA from continuous mammalian cell lines may transfer activated oncogenes and infectious provirus DNA.” [398]
There you have it. Residual DNA is known to be cancerous and includes infectious proviruses.
As with anything else that enters our body, be it vaccines or other substances, we don’t understand how there can be such a thing as a safe amount. Two children of the same age can sit at the same table, one eating a sandwich and the other in danger of dying from ingesting as much as a bread crumb.
It is impossible to determine the maximum amount of a substance one child or infant can have based on the amount given to another child. We see evidence of this every day in our daily lives. Let’s take 20 kindergartners for instance. It’s the first day of school and they’re all playing together in the same classroom. Some will come home sick while others won’t. We’re not saying this is the same thing, we are merely pointing out that humans can react very differently even when exposed to the exact same environment.
Pigs and yeast in vaccines
Other proteins of concern are from pigs and yeast. Besides allergic reactions, many people have shown religious concerns regarding vaccines and their ingredients. Muslims and the use of gelatin (pig) being a case in point. Because of this, representatives from various religions have been consulted.
In regards to Kashrut or Jewish kosher dietary laws:
“according to Jewish laws, there is no problem with porcine or other animal derived ingredients in non-oral products. This includes vaccines, including those administered via the nose, injections, suppositories, creams and ointments.” [399]
The article also mentions:
“In 2001, the World Health Organization (WHO) consulted with over 100 Muslim scholars and confirmed that the gelatin used is considered halal and there is no religious reason not to receive vaccination.” [400]
There are many shortcomings regarding ethical use of vaccine ingredients. These range from using aborted fetal cells to using porcine proteins. It’s almost impossible to create a product that satisfies all belief systems so we cannot blame scientists for not being able to accommodate everyone.
A more important question would be whether there should be exemptions for people of different religious persuasions. We will not discuss the ethics of vaccine usage relating to different belief systems as we feel that would be a book on its own. Anyway, it’s each to his or her own as far as we are concerned.
23
Mycoplasma – It’s a sticky situation
“The only safe vaccine is one that is never used.”
Dr. James A. Shannon, MD, (Former Director, National Institutes of Health, 1955-1968)
O ne of the most common and notorious contaminants plaguing vaccine manufacturers is other bacteria. Laboratories do test for some bacteria, but not all are detected, especially if they are fastidious or slow-growing and therefore not detectible until late in the process. In this chapter, we are only going to mention one of them: mycoplasma.
There are multiple ways mycoplasma ends up in vaccines during the manufacturing stage. This bacterium is everywhere and it requires a good imagination to think of all the ways mycoplasma infiltrates the vaccine-making process. The opportunities are not isolated to locations inside the lab as the bacterium can easily be brought in via vents, humans or whatever else enters the lab.
According to a paper published in Vaccine , one of the reasons is plain and simple, lab hygiene:
“Mycoplasma contaminants can be considered important not only because of their role as pathogens but also because they may indicate that insufficient care has been taken during vaccine manufacture or quality control.” [401]
Mycoplasma can multiply undetected in the cell cultures and can grow even in presence of antibiotics.
Lab hopping
According to Corning Incorporated bulletin on ‘Understanding and Managing Cell Culture Contamination’, there have been various studies on mycoplasma contamination in vaccine manufacturing across the world. For instance, in the Netherlands, “1949 cell cultures” were tested and 25% of them were positive for mycoplasma; in Czechoslovakia, 327 cell cultures were tested and 37% of them were positive for mycoplasma; in Argentina, 65% of the cell cultures tested positive; and in Japan, 80% of the cell cultures tested positive for mycoplasma [402] .
As the brochure explains, the problem often lies in the particles that are stirred into the air during laboratory work. These particles can be from the preparation of cell cultures, lab coats and other clothing, skin (especially from much handwashing), lab equipment (i.e. pipets), incubators, even the air flow hood. The sources are many. This can become even more complicated if animals are stored nearby.
Potentially, the bacteria can piggyback on lab technician errors as well. To show how simple mistakes can be made in the lab, resulting in serious consequences, the brochure gives these examples:
“A technician retrieved a vial labeled WI-38 from a liquid nitrogen freezer thinking it contained the widely used diploid human cell line. once in culture, it was immediately discovered to be a plant cell line derived from a common strain of tobacco called Wisconsin 38, also designated WI-38.
“Two separate research laboratories, both attempting to develop cell lines from primary cultures, shared a walk-in incubator. One lab used the acronyms HL-1, HL-2, etc. to identify the primary cultures they derived from human lung. The other lab worked with cultures derived from human liver, but they too (unknowingly) used the identical coding system. It wasn’t long before a culture mix-up occurred between the two laboratories.” [ 403]
It’s one thing when mistakes are caught before the vaccines are distributed to the public. But what about those times they are not recognized and no-one’s aware that mistakes were made?
There appears to be enough toxic ingredients and unknown dangers packed into the solution we’re injected with. It should be mandatory to fully inform us before we consent to be vaccinated or have our children vaccinated. Such knowledge would empower us to make more informed decisions affecting our health and our children’s health.
To keep us in the dark on these dangers and force vaccination upon everyone feels highly unethical and undemocratic. To get a closer look at forced vaccinations, we visited a website for the vaccine schedules in EU countries [404] . It appears not all the countries in the European Union feel it’s necessary to force vaccinations on their children 18 months or younger. We discovered that although all 31 countries recommend vaccinations, 20 don’t mandate any of them. Surprisingly, some of the countries don’t recommend the varicella vaccine. Only two (Italy and Latvia) mandate all the vaccines on the list (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepB, polio, hib, measles, mumps, rubella, varicella).
In order for children in all 50 states in the US to attend public schools, they are required to be vaccinated. That being said, some states have religious or philosophical exemptions [ 405] . Australia as well has mandated vaccines insomuch as they will not pay “Child Care Benefit (CCB) and Child Care Rebate (CCR) payments” because the Government is “extremely concerned at the risk non-vaccinated children pose to public health.” [406]
For those who wish to hold off on certain vaccines, we recommend you look into the exemptions many countries offer, especially if you’re concerned about the status of your child’s immune system.
24
Wrapping up Part One
“All things can be deadly to us, even the things made to serve us; as in nature walls can kill us, and stairs can kill us, if we do not walk circumspectly.”
Blaise Pascal (Pensées)
M anufacturing vaccines can be a very complex procedure, requiring many different techniques, depending on the type of vaccine needed for certain diseases.
There is, for instance, as mentioned in an earlier chapter, a big difference depending on whether we are dealing with a bacterium or a virus. Bacteria can easily be grown in a nutritional growth media whereas viruses have to be grown in living cells. This is because bacteria are living organisms and viruses are not.
It’s also important to remember that as with any other mass-produced substances (and objects), each batch may vary. Even though it’s the same vaccine, some batches may be more contaminated than others. Examples of this will be mentioned in Part Two of this book. We will also highlight the fact that a disease can be caused by a germ that has multiple strains – another aspect of the production process.
It can be quite a challenge for scientists to know which strains to include in the vaccines.
Viruses are not considered living organisms and are unable to replicate without the help of a living host. It is therefore necessary to inject the vaccine virus into living cell cultures in order for it to make copies of itself. Therefore, many vaccines today are still being grown in live cell cultures. The cells contained in these cultures can contain thousands of different proteins and other substances that will cause our immune system to react.
So, when someone says the vaccine only contains one or two antigens, although maybe true in theory, it’s not accurate when all the other components involved in the manufacturing process are taken into account.
We hope we have given you enough information to carry with you into Part Two of this book. In the coming chapters we will be highlighting some of the childhood vaccines and illnesses known to be associated with vaccines. Because there are so many variants of vaccines throughout the world, it would take a much bigger book to detail each and every one. We will therefore focus mostly on the ones which have the most accessible information, namely those vaccines on the CDC’s childhood immunization schedule. We have, in addition, added a little table showing the various vaccines and their accompanying ingredients in appendix 1 .
We urge you to connect the dots between what you already knew about vaccines and what you now know after reading Part One. And we hope you now understand how very, very difficult it is to link an illness or disorder to one specific vaccine or substance. In addition to vaccines, we are also simultaneously and constantly exposed to toxins via food, products or the very air we breathe.
PART TWO
Vaccines: the illnesses they are meant to protect and the illnesses they potentially create.
25
Diphtheria, tetanus & pertussis – Sudden death
“Experiments to produce anaphylactic shock are facilitated by addition of pertussis vaccine to the solution: the mice (or rabbits, or hamsters, or whatever) die more rapidly, and in larger numbers. By the same token, addition of the vaccine to the sterile brain and spinal cord solution greatly enhances it's ability to generate an allergic encephalitis.”
Harris Coulter (Vaccination, Social Violence, and Criminality: The Medical Assault on the American Brain )
D iphtheria, pertussis and tetanus (DTP) vaccine is a cocktail of toxoids in one single shot.
When the vaccine is being manufactured, it’s actually manufactured as three separate vaccines: a diphtheria vaccine, a pertussis vaccine and a tetanus vaccine. After they have all been made, they are then combined into one single vial.
In the production process of the diphtheria vaccine, only the toxins are extracted from bacteria and used. The toxins inside Corynebacterium diphtheriae are proteins called exotoxins. These proteins help the bacterium grow. After the exotoxins finish their job they are released.
Unfortunately for we humans, when the exotoxins are released inside our body, they can be harmful. They destroy our cellular production of proteins and this eventually kills the cells.
When manufacturing the tetanus vaccine, the toxins from Clostridium tetani , diphtheriae’s cousin, are extracted and used. These toxins enter our body when we puncture our skin, such as when we step on a rusty nail. Just like diphtheriae , C. tetani is harmless without its toxins. C. tetani produces two toxins, but we’re only interested in the harmful one, tetanospasmin, which takes away our muscles’ ability to relax by blocking nerve signals.
The third vaccine added to this triple combination vaccine is called Bordetella pertussis . This one behaves quite differently to the other two. Instead of utilizing exotoxins, it contains endotoxins. Endotoxins are an actual part of the cell wall. When the bacterium dies, the cell wall breaks and the toxins leak into the surrounding environment.
Pertussis has three components that can make us sick. One of them is the cyclase toxin (CyaA), which causes the infamous whopping cough. Another one is the pertussis toxin (PT toxin), which attacks the macrophages in our throat, and the last one is filamentous hemagglutinin (FHA). This one’s a sticky son of a gun.
The sticky mucous substance, hemagglutinin, allows the bacteria stick to our mucosal lining. This makes it difficult to breathe, especially for a tiny baby with narrow airways.
Now let’s think about this for a second and summarize what we know so far. When a natural infection occurs, the germ becomes trapped in our mucosal tissue where immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies attack and produce memory immunity. In a vaccine injection, these toxins are not entering the body via mucosal lining in its natural state within the bacteria. Rather, they are injected straight into the bloodstream as toxoids.
The death DTaP
We were surprised to see Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) mentioned on a few of the package inserts. After some digging, we realized some argue SIDS is connected to the pertussis toxoids while others claim there are not enough cases to substantiate any such correlation.
One common adverse reaction, not only as a reaction to the DTaP vaccine, but many others as well, is apnea. Another one is cyanosis. So, we wondered whether this could be one of the many times where the wording confuses the consistency of diagnosis.
How would apnea and cyanosis be confused with SIDS? Apnea is the absence of breathing. Cyanosis occurs when the skin or tissues don’t receive enough oxygen and turn blue. When a baby dies with its skin turning blue and/or not breathing could it be diagnosed with SIDS?
There are cases where apnea or cyanosis occur and is caught in time to resuscitate the baby (and baby survives). These cases will then, of course, not be counted as SIDS. Does that mean they shouldn’t be a part of the statistics in the warning section of SIDS in adverse events? Aren’t the symptoms of SIDS the same as a child with apnea or cyanosis up to the point of resuscitation?
The only reason someone needs to be resuscitated is because he or she ceased to breathe. Are we missing something? Is it safe to say that if a baby’s death is attributed to apnea, it died from SIDS? If the baby’s death is attributed to apnea and not SIDS, does that lower the SIDS deaths stats?
In the 1970s, Japan experienced multiple infant deaths claimed to be caused by the DPT vaccine. This was quite concerning for the Japanese Government. So, by making some adjustments to Eli Lily’s own vaccine-recipe, they made a purer and safer acellular pertussis vaccine. Japan started using this new vaccine in 1981.
Although this incident was widely reported and well known, the US kept using the more reactive version of the vaccine. Not surprisingly, perhaps, by the mid-1980s in the US, the side-effects from the DTP vaccine had triggered about 300 lawsuits against the vaccine manufacturers.
Authors of another study, this one done in India, conclude that there is no association between SIDS and DTP vaccine. Something we found a little odd was that they exclude all the children who had “any history of risk of SIDS in family or to child” [407] . What makes us curious about this exclusion, is, would these children have been excluded from receiving vaccination if they were not a part of the study?
It seems to be a consistent flaw in study trial designs that they don’t include those at higher risk in the test (vaccine) group. This, of course, makes sense, but it’s also very misleading. It biases the study towards falsely high safety results.
A research paper on Infant Mortality Rates (IMR), states that ‘Crib death’, which is another term for SIDS, used to be so unheard of. It wasn’t even recorded in the ‘infant mortality statistics’ [408] .
The authors continue:
“For the first time in history, most US infants were required to receive several doses of DPT, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines. Shortly thereafter, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome. In 1973, the National Center for Health Statistics added a new cause-of-death category—for SIDS—to the ICD. […] By 1980, SIDS had become the leading cause of postneonatal mortality (deaths of infants from 28 days to one year old) in the United States.” [409]
The authors also mention conclusions drawn in other research papers as well. For instance, they state that in Australia it was found “when the SIDS rate decreased, deaths attributed to asphyxia increased.” [410]
Could this be another case of wide selection of diagnosis?
In the early 2000s, SIDS was replaced by diagnoses like ‘suffocation in bed’ and ‘unknown causes’. Not surprisingly, less children suffered from SIDS after that [ 411] .
Although their study or conclusion isn’t about whether the vaccines cause SIDS, they found that: “ nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates .” [412]
How safe do the FDA and the CDC feel this vaccine is? This question relates to a study that was funded by these two organizations. The conclusion of this study isn’t necessarily their official standing on the matter. The authors used the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to collect data on adverse events in relation to the DTaP vaccine from January 1, 1991 through December 31, 2016 [4 13] .
The authors of the study were not surprised to find SIDS to be the most prevalent since SIDS is “the fourth leading cause of death in the United States among infants” and according to the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), it’s “the second leading cause of death among children aged 0 to 18 months.” [414] They continue by explaining how the incidence of SIDS has actually gone down with time and don’t believe the DTaP vaccine is the causal factor for SIDS.
Keep in mind that all cases of adverse events from vaccinations reported to the FDA are believed to be less than one percent of all actual cases [ 415] . Despite this, in a 15-year period, with less than one percent of adverse events reported, 844 deaths of children who received the DTaP vaccine were officially acknowledged. They also found official records for 725 of these deaths, which they categorized under Cause of Death . In their list of reasons, SIDS was highest with 350 deaths (48.3%). Undetermined and Other (causes) equaled 119 deaths (16.4%).
Their argument is that rather than it being the vaccine causing SIDS, it’s merely a coincidental factor as it happens to be administered together with multiple other vaccines and at an age when children are most likely to die from SIDS.
Viral awakening
Apart from SIDS, there have been other incidences of death from this vaccine. As you may remember, formaldehyde (FA) is used to inactivate the toxins. It does this by randomly destroying some of the surface proteins. Unfortunately, because formaldehyde isn’t coded for specific proteins, we have no idea which proteins it will break.
An incident involving the use of formaldehyde is the 1948 Kyoto Disaster in Japan. Some 606 children received a vaccine containing the diphtheria toxoid. Something happened during the manufacturing that caused the toxoid to ‘wake up’ and revert back to its original toxin. This caused 68 of the 606 children to die. That’s more than 10%. Imagine if there had been hundreds of thousands of children vaccinated.
Authors of a paper that summarized a workshop on neurological effects of vaccines state:
“[…] there is sufficient experimental data to implicate both endotoxin and PT [pertussis toxin] in adverse neurologic reactions to pertussis vaccine.” [416]
In 2018, a paper on ‘the Pertussis Enigma’ the authors explain that:
“According to 2008 estimates, pertussis caused 16 million cases and 195 000 deaths in children younger than 5 years old worldwide, despite a global 82% vaccine coverage.” [417]
They continue:
“whole-cell and acellular pertussis (aP) vaccines do not protect against transmission and that waning of infection- or vaccine-derived immunity generates an endemic pool of adults, who act as a reservoir of transmission to young children.” [418]
The authors set out to look into the validity of these statements. They collected data from 32 countries, and only four (Australia, Israel, Netherlands, U.S.A) had increased incidences in pertussis from 1980 to 2012. The authors include graphs showing the 20 countries that switched from whole cell pertussis vaccine to the acellular pertussis vaccine, to see if there was a shift in incidence of disease. Interestingly, they were unable to find a solid answer.
The data is not consistent between all the countries. What seems to apply in one country doesn’t necessarily apply in another.
Besides the four countries mentioned above (four countries which actually showed a steady incline in pertussis incidence) , Italy had a drastic decrease in pertussis cases. South Korea continued to see a drop in cases after they switched over to acellular pertussis, but then suddenly, a decade later, the number of cases rose steadily.
The authors’ overall conclusion, after reviewing all their data, is that there isn’t enough consistency to draw even a hypothetical conclusion on the vaccine’s behavior [ 419] .
We don’t know if DTaP plays a role in SIDS, but we do find the circumstantial correlations undeniable. It would be interesting to pull the same data from other countries and compare their vaccine schedules with SIDS or similar infant deaths. Another aspect that would be interesting to look into is adding the vaccine brand used in each of these countries or cases.
26
Diphtheria, tetanus & pertussis - Controversy
“Leave your drugs in the chemist’s pot if you can cure the patient with food.”
Hippocrates (Greek physician 420 BC )
A nother illness that has been associated with, among other vaccines, the DTaP vaccine, is Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS). It’s said to be an autoimmune disorder caused by molecular mimicry.
Molecular mimicry is when invading antigens, like those in a vaccine, look a lot like our own proteins. This process starts when these invading particles activate our immune cells causing them to release cytokines to clean out invading germs or antigens. Cytokines are proteins that help cells communicate with each other by signaling certain commands and messages. So, in molecular mimicry, these cytokines, and other actions our body has initiated, start cleaning out their own antigens also, hence autoimmunity.
Another syndrome that has been associated with tetanus toxoid is antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). This happens when the body has too many antibodies (proteins) fighting the invading molecules [ 420] . It’s an autoimmune disease where the body attacks our phospholipids. Phospholipids is fat inside our cells. Such an attack damages our cells and causes our blood to thicken and clot. This can have many complicated health problems, including heart attacks and kidney damage. Other factors that cause this syndrome are bacteria, viruses and yeast [ 421] . Needless to say, these are all vaccine ingredients as well. Sometimes this syndrome is called Hughes Syndrome.
What about the Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS)? After a closer look this syndrome turned out to be more technical than expected. It’s normally associated with its synonym pediatric abusive head trauma (AHT).
A chapter on this subject in StatPearls , defines SBS as:
“Abusive head trauma with a pattern of injuries that may include retinal hemorrhages and regular patterns of brain injury.
“[…] used to describe brain injury symptoms consistent with vigorously shaking an infant or small child.” [422]
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) can be related to vaccines, including the DTaP vaccine. This has been linked with Barlow’s disease, which is vitamin C deficiency in infants. Barlow’s disease looks a lot like SBS and therefore has been mistaken for child abuse [4 23] .
This link between “Vaccine-induced vitamin C deficiency” and SBS was also acknowledge in Sweden in 2016 [ 424] .
Shaken Baby Syndrome is often referred to in scientific literature as ‘non-accidental injury’. Scientists have known for more than 80 years that the pertussis vaccine causes brain damage. The controversy isn’t really over the fact that it happens, but how often it happens.
One thing, many names
Another adverse event DPT vaccine is said to trigger, are seizures. This is included in the package inserts. As with so many other disorders, seizures have gone through multiple labels. You will find some of them in the package inserts.
What if your child is diagnosed with infantile spasm? This disorder is not included in the package insert, yet it is a form of a seizure. We wondered whether these children were automatically included in the seizure category or if they were not counted at all.
Other labels include cerebral palsy, convulsions and epilepsy. We’re aware these are all considered to be slightly different, but by dividing seizures into so many categories, does it make seizures as an adverse event look less frequent? Does it make a seizure appear to be a rare event when perhaps it isn’t all that rare?
Sick with it
Another concern is the fact that the vaccine appears to have the ability to cause the diseases it’s trying to protect us from. Whooping cough has re-emerged among those ailments vaccinated against all over the world.
A paper from 2016 states:
“[…] acellular vaccines, although protective against pertussis disease, do not protect against B. pertussis infection”. [425]
This means that you may not become sick, but you can still carry the bacteria in your body and infect others.
Another study suggests there are individuals who have been vaccinated and then catch the disease. They may not know they have it because the symptoms are not being expressed, but the bacteria are still present in their body. This way they become a walking reservoir for everyone around them [ 426] .
27
Bias
“Science is the search for truth, that is the effort to understand the world: it involves the rejection of bias, of dogma, of revelation, but not the rejection of morality.”
Linus Pauling (American scientist)
D r. James D. Cherry [427] from New Jersey has a very impressive medical career, especially within the field of infectious diseases. He has performed studies funded by, among others, Sanofi Pasteur and GSK. In 2003 he received the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society Distinguished Physician Award [ 428] . Among Dr. Cherry’s multiple studies on vaccine trials, he wrote one together with Stanley Plotkin [429] about the ‘one-size-fits-all’ bias used in data collection [ 430] .
In the paper the authors go on to explain how trials can be skewed by the fact that different countries have different case definitions for pertussis.
As an example, they state in the above paper that:
“France requires that cough be present for more than 7 days, whereas Australia accepts cough of any duration if it is accompanied by paroxysms, whooping, or vomiting. The EU also accepts any physician's diagnosis of pertussis and apnea as a clinically defining symptom in infants.” [431]
Their major concern is that pertussis is not being diagnosed often enough, which means the vaccine usage will not increase:
“Without knowing that the disease predominantly occurs in this population, attempts to increase vaccine use in adolescents and adults are unlikely to be made.” [432]
It’s perhaps not a surprise this was funded by Sanofi Pasteur. Either way, it shows that misdiagnosing can be a concern for both vaccine manufacturers and those expressing concerns over vaccine safety.
In another paper written by J.D Cherry in 2011, he expresses concern about the 2010 pertussis epidemic in California. The media attributed the epidemic to vaccine failures. When Dr. Cherry took a closer look, he determined the vaccine did not live up to its expectations due to case definition [4 33] .
Eventually, the World Health Organization (WHO) came up with a standardized case definition. The author, J.D Cherry, in his above-mentioned paper, shares something that surprised us a little:
“I was a member of the WHO committee and disagreed with the primary case definition because it was clear at that time that this definition would eliminate a substantial number of cases and therefore inflate reported efficacy values.” [434]
Which must surely raise the question if you are a vaccine researcher receiving funding from vaccine manufacturers, should you be on the WHO committee that determines the case definition? Maybe this is normal, we haven’t looked into it, but it just seems like conflict of interest.
There appear to be multiple biases in play when it comes to data collected for vaccine trials included in the package inserts. These include concerns such as when researchers interview parents or guardians to gather data and when researchers cherry-pick healthy individuals to participate in their vaccine trials. The latter is called Healthy User Bias (HUB). The end result being, of course, the vaccinated group will consist of stronger and healthier individuals.
A paper on HUB in a DPT vaccine study on SIDS reported in 1992 that, to reconfirm what we said above, those who have a predisposition for SIDS or encephalopathy would not be given the vaccine for the study. Therefore, it doesn’t represent the actual risk of the vaccine [ 435] . Instead, these individuals are put in the unvaccinated group, which makes this group unfairly prone to illness or death.
In a nutshell, as we understand it, the authors of the study are expressing concerns that the study design is excluding the very people who are prone to adverse effects potentially triggered or caused by the vaccine.
In their concluding remarks, they state:
“The fact that such biases do exist makes it difficult to demonstrate convincingly that a vaccine is not responsible for rare, severe, adverse reactions.” [436]
The WHO published a review on several DTP vaccine studies and infant deaths. They found the studies were designed or performed in a biased and inconsistent manner [ 437] .
Another concern to look out for is the fact that predisposed children may not be excluded from the study. Meaning, instead of being put in the vaccinated group, they are put in the group which does not receive the DTP vaccine. But since these children are already fragile, they are more prone to illnesses or even death. These two groups are then compared to each other.
Then authors of a paper published in 2017 discussed observations made in multiple studies on frailty and survival biases [ 438] . Another study by some of the same authors echoes the sentiment when they state that “[m]ost observations were repeated in several studies and generated new deductions” [439] . So, not only is the formerly biased data used to draw a conclusion, but it is then re-used for multiple studies. Studies which use the data for their own interpretations.
Perhaps the statement that stood out the most to us in the above-mentioned study was when the authors suggested that:
“All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.” [440]
Gender discrimination
Another observation the authors made was that vaccinated girls had a considerably higher mortality rate than vaccinated boys. This ratio was highly dependent on whether or not the oral polio vaccine (OPV) was given simultaneously. For instance, girls receiving the DPT were 12 times more likely to die than unvaccinated girls. But if the OPV was given simultaneously, the vaccinated girls were 9.5 times more likely to die than the unvaccinated girls.
Compare this to the boys, and the difference is surprising. The boys receiving DPT vaccine by itself were 8.9 times more likely to die than the unvaccinated boys. The boys receiving DPT vaccine combined with OPV were 2.2 times more likely to die than the unvaccinated boys [ 441] .
Now why would this be? Interestingly, at least according to the study referred to above, it appears to be gender specific.
How do the vaccines affect our immune system? If we go back to what we talked about in Part One of this book, you may remember that adjuvated vaccines will activate T helper 2 (Th2) cells. The oral polio vaccine is not injected, but rather is administered the same way a person would be exposed to the natural poliovirus: via mucosal lining. Therefore, it doesn’t contain adjuvants and also, it activates the T helper 1 (Th1) cells. This allows both the innate and the acquired immune system to become activated.
Morph-eus
Another concern is when we vaccinate against a germ it can adapt to its environment and survive by changing its appearance enough so the vaccine doesn’t recognize it anymore. This means we now have a new germ strain created by the vaccines. Another side to this coin is the fact that usually germs already have multiple strains. Vaccinating for only one or few of them gives the other strains the opportunity to take their place.
A Dutch scientist, Dr. Frits Mooi [442] , says his research suggests there is variance between the current pertussis vaccine and a new more virulent strain of the germ now in circulation.
An online article on KPBS’ website discusses how people who have already been vaccinated are still contracting whooping cough. KPBS is a news media outlet provided to us by San Diego State University. The authors mention that if you were to read the package insert of “the two most common pertussis vaccines in the U.S.”, you would see it says they are 85% effective.
J.D. Cherry, who was involved in the studies when the vaccines were licensed by the FDA, estimated they were 70% to 80% effective. According to the KPBS article, Dr. “Mooi said there’s no way to know how effective the vaccines are because they haven’t been tested against the new strain.” [443]
Then there is the herd immunity concept. This is when the majority of people in a country, region or other communities are vaccinated, thereby providing a kind of protective shield for those who are not immunologically fit to receive a vaccine. On the flip side, this has also been hypothesized to alter the virus, by allowing it to adjust to the tightly packed environment.
Researchers from Finland and China used Bordetella pertussis to analyze how the vaccine can affect the germ.
They state:
“[…] sequenced and analysed the complete genomes of 40 B. pertussis strains from Finland and China, as well as 11 previously sequenced strains from the Netherlands, where different vaccination strategies have been used over the past 50 years.” [ 444]
In the conclusion of their study, the researchers saw:
“[…] that evolution of the B. pertussis population was closely associated with the country vaccination coverage.” [445]
They also noted that “the immune pressure of vaccination” dictates the evolutionary growth of B. pertussis [ 446] .
We can only imagine it’s difficult enough to figure out the dangers of a vaccine covering three different illnesses, especially when also given simultaneously with other vaccines. With various countries having their own diagnostic criteria it can make it difficult for one country to know whether their results would mirror a safety trial conducted in another country. So, hypothetically could Americans, for instance, deem a vaccine safe in their country based on a trial performed in Germany?
Another concern we have is, if the criteria for what constitutes the symptoms keeps changing, should not the safety studies be reviewed or redone to mirror the updated criteria?
28
Polio – Or is it?
“When you inoculate children with a polio vaccine, you don't sleep well for two or three months.”
Jonas Salk (American medical researcher)
P olio is one of the most talked about illnesses in our modern history. The controversy surrounding this disease has become an important reference point in the development of vaccines and medicine in general. Those who lived through polio epidemics will remember the fear and the harrowing accounts of those struck down by the disease. Scientists worked around the clock to find a cure, many no doubt competing for the prestige that would come with being forever known as the one who discovered the cure for polio.
One of the vaccines released on the market ended up being contaminated and it caused quite a scare. In fact, this vaccine contamination was scarier than polio itself for some people. Some were terrified of becoming paralyzed as a result of contracting polio and couldn’t wait to get their hands on a vaccine. Others were very skeptical about these vaccines, some even to the point where they questioned whether the disease was actually the result of the poliovirus.
When you think of polio, you may be thinking about one particular virus. As of today, scientists have identified three separate strains of the poliovirus. This means there are three separate germs causing polio. Therefore, in order to have complete coverage, all three germs are added to the vaccines.
The way the polioviruses affect the body ranges from no symptoms at all to paralysis or even death. The viruses enter through the mouth and some settle in the throat while others go all the way down to the intestines. These are the two areas in the body the viruses replicate and then exit with our stool and potentially infect other people.
After the viruses replicate, they reach for the blood and from there find their way to the lymph nodes and sometimes to the central nervous system.
Over half of all polio cases occur in Southeast Asia and over 20% of all cases occur in Africa and the eastern Mediterranean. In countries where polio still occurs, it’s estimated that about 95% of those who contract polio don’t show any major symptoms and recover without permanent damage. Nevertheless, they are carriers and can pass it along through their stools.
When doctors first started diagnosing polio, they had no way of testing each person for what was causing their symptoms. Instead, in order to diagnose a person with poliomyelitis, the doctor would perform two physicals in a 24-hour period. If the patient showed paralysis in at least one muscle group, he/she was diagnosed with polio.
Were all these documented poliomyelitis diagnoses truly caused by one of the polioviruses? We will never know.
Once they figured how to isolate the poliovirus, they were ready to develop a vaccine. In order to inactivate the virus, they used formaldehyde. Unfortunately, there were problems where the virus came back to life in the vaccines. So instead of vaccinating those with a weakened virus, they injected full blown poliovirus into people. This caused more cases of poliolytic paralysis.
When vaccines came out, coincidentally or not, the way polio was diagnosed also changed. Instead of diagnosis being dependent on the symptoms occurring in two examinations within a 24-hour period, it was two examinations within a 60-day period. Most people recovered from the paralysis before the 60-day period was over. People who would previously have been diagnosed with polio were no longer diagnosed with polio.
Mix and match
We studied polio statistics before and after the final changes on polio diagnosis, which was in 1960. Aseptic meningitis used to be diagnosed as nonparalytic poliomyelitis.
One paper explains the three main categories of poliomyelitis as follows:
“These have been categorized into inapparent infection without symptoms, mild illness (abortive poliomyelitis), aseptic meningitis (nonparalytic poliomyelitis), and paralytic poliomyelitis.” [447]
Polio statistics are normally divided into categories showing how severe the polio cases were with a column of total polio cases at the end. We looked only at the numbers of total polio cases [448] [449] rather than per severity.
Another point to mention before we present our graph (see Chart 1), a child neurology textbook [ 450] , lists viruses with similar symptoms to polio. These include viruses such as Adenovirus, Coxsackieviruses (AKA atypical polio), Echo virus, and Roseola. Before polio was identified by symptoms, these viruses were sometimes diagnosed as polio.
For this book, however, we have chosen to stick to aseptic meningitis due to unreliable margin of error, as we were unable to find a website with accurate data for us to graph the other viruses. We just wanted to see if there was a trend and whether even just one diagnostic adjustment would change the graph by using the incidence rates in the US referenced to above.
We noticed an upward trend in aseptic anemia as the polio cases declined. Even before aseptic meningitis, it appears polio cases had plummeted. We cannot help but wonder what the true trend looks like with all the diagnostic adjustments considered.
Chart 1
In 1959, scientists looked into a polio incident that occurred in the Detroit, Michigan area, the previous year when 867 individuals were diagnosed with polio (520 paralytic and 347 nonparalytic). Staff at Herman Kiefer Hospital in Detroit, Michigan, collected stool samples from 556 of its polio-diagnosed patients for testing [ 451] .
Some 225 patients whose stool samples were submitted for testing were diagnosed with paralytic poliomyelitis and 208 with nonparalytic poliomyelitis [452] . As you may recall, there are three types of polio: Type 1, 2 and 3. All three types were tested in the patients, but only type one and three were detected.
Their findings in the stool samples from patients with paralytic polio found 162 of them were positive for type 1 or 3. They also tested the samples for Coxsackievirus and ECHO, but the 63 remaining patients tested negative for any of the viruses. This means that out of the 225 patients diagnosed with paralytic polio, only 162 or 72% of them actually had confirmed test results for a poliovirus [ 453] .
In the nonparalytic group, this was a little more interesting. Out of the 208 patients, only 42 of them tested positive for poliovirus type 1 or 3. Another 44 patients tested positive for coxsackie and ECHO viruses, while the remaining 185 tested negative for any of the viruses. This means that only 20% of the patients had diagnosable poliomyelitis [ 454] .
If these types of errors in the pre-vaccination statistics were taken into account , we can’t help but wonder whether the earlier epidemics were actually caused by polio or something else. Meaning, did the pre-vaccination period really consist of that many cases of polio?
Another interesting factor is that around the same time, the diagnosis was not the only thing that changed. The definition of what constitutes an epidemic changed as well. Instead of it being 20 polio cases in a population of 100,000, it was now 35 polio cases in a population of 100,000 [ 455] . The requirement almost doubled. It must have been quite difficult to spark an epidemic when not only were more sick people required to constitute an epidemic, but the diagnosis was changed drastically. There just weren’t enough individuals left sick with the actual virus.
There are many arguments over how all these requirements and criteria were introduced in order to make the vaccine appear safer. We feel there is another factor that should not be underestimated, and that is once they began working on a vaccine and identifying the virus in laboratories, scientists learned more about viruses and its behavior and that of other viruses as well.
So, this appears to us to be a natural evolution – a redefinition of the disease. But that doesn’t explain why this wasn’t considered when the statistics or case studies were being publicized.
It's alive
Angela Matysiak wrote an article in MIT Technology Review where she noted that Salk’s vaccine was not a great success:
“One of the main concerns was that the Salk vaccine did not prevent infection in the gut and thus did not break the chain of transmission.” [456]
Many of you may have heard of the “Cutter incidence”. When Jonas Salk introduced the very first polio vaccine, it was produced by Cutter Laboratories. As with so many other vaccines, the developers used formalin to kill the virus. When using a chemical to kill a virus, it’s important to use just the right amount of chemical. With the polio vaccine the objective was to inactivate or kill the virus so it wouldn’t make you sick.
In his book The Cutter Incident , Dr. Paul Offit shares the tragic story about scientists with Cutter Laboratories mass producing Salk’s vaccine and how in 1955 about 400,000 individuals, of whom the majority of were children, were vaccinated with it. After being vaccinated, recipients contracted polio. In fact, 40,000 became sick, leaving 200 children “severely paralyzed” and 10 died [ 457] .
Dr. Paul Offit writes:
“Children given Cutter’s vaccine were more likely to be paralyzed in their arms, more likely to suffer severe and permanent paralysis, more likely to require breathing assistance in iron lungs, and more likely die than did children naturally infected with polio.” [458]
Below is a picture you may recognize. It has infamously been associated with the scare of The Cutter incident. (One tiny little detail to keep in mind: The Cutter Incident occurred in 1955). According to Smithsonian National Museum of American History, this picture is a staged scene in the gym at Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center [ 459] . According to the Polio Survivors Association, this picture “was taken in 1953 as part of an information film produced by the March of Dimes.” [460]
The Smithsonian website underneath the picture states:
“At first glance, this image shocks and saddens from the enormity of the problem of sick children in need of iron lungs. On closer examination, it is clear that the equipment that usually accompanied people using iron lungs, such as tracheotomy tubes and pumps and tankside tables, is not present […].” [461]
Wikipedia states the picture is a “Photo of polio patients in iron lungs during 1953 epidemic”, but this description is sourced to a book that appears to believe the photo is from an epidemic in 1952:
“1952, the worst epidemic year in history: polio patients in iron lungs and rocking beds at Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center, Downey, California”. 462]
Regardless of the discrepancy, we feel certain the picture was taken prior to the Cutter incident.
There were other companies besides Cutter Laboratories that produced the disease-causing Salk vaccines, but none were stigmatized like Cutter Laboratories was. This makes us wonder how many individuals actually became sick from polio vaccines. Keep in mind this happened at the same time as polio incidences dropped and the incidences of other illnesses rose. Which begs the question whether it’s possible a mutated polio vaccine-strain could have played a hand in this rise in polio-like illnesses. Early in 1960, they started using Sabin’s oral polio vaccine instead.
29
Polio – Syndromes
“…Your body is SET to repair and restore, not degenerate.”
Dr. Jack Stockwell CGP
C hronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), also known as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) or ME/CFS, is one serious illness that has been linked to polio.
It has been estimated that “15-30 million people around the world are suffering from ME” [463] . Some argue this new syndrome has aided in the eradication of polio. Meaning, because the vaccines have caused mutations in the polioviruses, this syndrome is actually a form of polio. Therefore, it appears the diagnosis has changed yet again.
Would we still have a polio epidemic or scare today had the definition never changed?
It’s also argued that ME/CFS includes what used to be called Atypical Polio or coxsackievirus. (As you may recall from the study in Michigan, many of the polio patients tested positive for the coxsackievirus and not polioviruses). We did some digging into this assumption to see where the association would be. Some people who became ill with a viral infection, including the coxsackievirus, came down with post-viral fatigue syndrome (PVFS) which is sometimes written as postviral fatigue syndrome (PFS).
Authors of an article from 1988 conclude:
“However, it is likely that although enteroviruses are major aetiological agents of PFS, other viruses, particularly Epstein-Barr virus, may induce the syndrome. We suggest that this disease is a chronic metabolic myopathy induced by persistent virus infection.” [464]
What is PVFS? The first thing we did was to look it up in ICD-11, the most recent ICD code we could find, to see if it’s a recognized disease. We found it under the code 8E49. According to that code, this syndrome includes benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome [ 465] . We understand that to be the same as ME/CFS.
The encyclopedia for ME lists multiple studies where mice infected with the coxsackievirus showed that exercise had detrimental effects on their health. It continues on to say that one of its symptoms is induced aseptic meningitis (nonparalytic polio) and that it has “been linked to myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, as well as type 1 diabetes.” [466]
According the Oxford Textbook of Medicine :
“Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is also known as post-viral fatigue syndrome, neurasthenia, and myalgic encephalomyelitis. All describe an idiopathic syndrome characterized by disabling fatigue and other symptoms occurring chronically and exacerbated by minimal exertion.” [467]
We feel we have a good enough reason to consider ME/CFS to be identical to ME/CFS/PVFS.
You’d expect there to be differences in diseases caused by different viruses, but if these viruses are all of the same family then perhaps it’s not surprising there are similarities.
We found a paper written by, among others, Dr. R. Bruno [468] , former director of the Post-Polio Institute and current director of International Center for Post-Polio Education and Research.
After explaining there are other types of viral infections on the brain, the authors state:
“Still other agents (e.g., Coxsackie, echo and herpes viruses) have been associated with symptoms of chronic fatigue. And, although there is no convincing clinical or immunological evidence that post-polio fatigue or CFS is caused by a persistent poliovirus infection, only poliovirus has been directly or indirectly associated so often throughout this century with acute and chronic impairment of cortical activation, decreased attention and symptoms of fatigue.” [469]
But if ME/CFS is a type of polio, why doesn't everyone exposed to the relevant viruses develop ME/CFS just as they did in the case of polio?
Numbers and figures
The CDC appears to have recently changed its breakdown of the symptoms for contracting polio. It’s surprising to us they don’t acknowledge it or even mention that in the past year some new research has come to light that has drastically changed the percentages.
In 2017 their webpage stated that 95% of those infected with polio had no visible symptoms [470] . In 2018 this percentage dropped to show 72% of those infected had no visible symptoms [471] .
We will stick to the most recent figures. In addition to the 72% having no visible symptoms, they state that 25% will have flu-like symptoms that go away in only a few days. These cases combined mean 97% of those with poliovirus will probably never know they were affected. This leaves only 3% of those infected with poliovirus to have serious symptoms as opposed to less than 1% as specified on their webpage in 2017. Both statistical versions agree that 10% or less out of those who become paralyzed die.
By using the CDC’s most recent statistics, let’s see if we can put this into a perspective. Say 1,000,000 people become infected with polio. Some 720,000 of them have no clue they are harboring the virus at all. Another 250,000 feel like they may have the flu. They may have a sore throat, a headache or feel tired, but in a few days the symptoms are gone and they most likely never knew it was polio. This adds up to 970,000 individuals with either no symptoms or minor symptoms. This leaves 30,000 individuals who will react much stronger to the poliovirus. Some 200 individuals will experience paralysis or weakening of limbs, and between four and 20 individuals will die.
Normally when there is an outbreak of a disease, it doesn’t affect as many as 1,000,000 individuals. If 100 people contracted polio, the media would be all over it with sensational headlines announcing the return of the deadly paralyzing virus. How deadly or paralyzing would it really be if a 100 people became infected? Statistically, 97 of them would never even know they had polio until they were tested for it. If the stats are correct, the disease would also leave their body without much, if any, medical attention. Which begs the question how accurate such statistics are.
Another page on CDC’s website refers to nonparalytic aseptic meningitis and flaccid paralysis as clinical features of polio [ 472] . We’ve come to realize that it’s an entire project on its own just to map out the diagnostical changes to solve the polio conundrum.
China’s polio
Since we are on the path of neurological diseases, why don’t we throw Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) into the mix? This disease has been tied to multiple vaccines, including polio vaccine. We won’t discuss it further in this chapter, but we want to share with you our discovery of a syndrome we had never heard of until now, Chinese Paralytic Syndrome (CPS).
In a thesis on the subject, written for partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science , the student explains simply that:
“CPS is often confused with GBS. From a clinical perspective, the only differences between the CPS and GBS stems from the fact that CPS has a seasonal variation and is predominantly seen in northern China. It has been suggested that CPS is not a variant of GBS but a variant of poliomyelitis caused by an altered poliovirus.” [473]
Apart from that, it appears new names for neurological diseases are constantly increasing. Soon, the neurological effects of vaccines will disappear into oblivion because the categories are too many to singularly show a statistical significance worthy of inclusion in reports.
Africa’s polio
A cheaper version of the polio vaccine is the live oral polio vaccine. The danger with using a live viral vaccine is the high likelihood of the virus mutating. Sometimes the mutations can be even more dangerous than the strain it’s derived from. As mentioned earlier, polioviruses are passed on via feces. This can be especially troubling in countries such as Nigeria where the water source is used for multiple purposes like bathing and drinking. The oral version is used in Nigeria and in 2007 nearly 70 children became paralyzed from a mutated poliovirus traced back to the vaccine.
An online CBS news article from 2009 reports that Nigerian leaders and residents have been skeptical about vaccines for quite some time. Back in 2003, rumors had it that the polio vaccine was laced with sterilizing agents and HIV. The Nigerian authorities put a stop to all polio vaccinations. Tests were performed to ensure there were no such contaminants or tampering with the vaccines. In 2004, when these were shown to be empty rumors, the Nigerian authorities continued vaccinating its people.
Besides Nigeria, polio persists in a few other countries, including Afghanistan, Angola, Chad, China, Egypt, Haiti, India, Madagascar, Pakistan, Philippines and Sudan. The polio strains causing illnesses in these countries can often be traced back to vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPVs).
A paper published in 2005 highlights the struggles of eradicating polio and how the use of oral polio vaccine is making eradication more difficult. The authors discuss the advantages of injectable polio vaccines (IPV) by summarizing another study from the same year, co-authored by Plotkin [474] :
“[…] demonstrate that enhanced-potency inactivated vaccine reduces both the titer of poliovirus excreted in stools and the duration of excretion. These findings suggest that currently available IPV will inhibit circulation of polioviruses and, consequently, should provide a greater degree of herd immunity than the original Salk vaccine.” [475]
The authors concern is the consistent use of the oral polio vaccine (OPV) in countries where the vaccine coverage is not high enough to cause herd-immunity.
They state:
“Many of the poorest countries in the world are unable to vaccinate even 50% of their children. Under these circumstances, continuing to use OPV after eradication is very risky”. [476]
This fear makes sense considering how easily the live virus in the oral vaccine is spread via feces, thereby giving more opportunity for revertant [477] strains to cause vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis to occur.
The comment in the paper co-authored by Plotkin, regarding areas that are unvaccinated, would be of concern in countries where less than half the children are vaccinated.
They explain:
“[…] the spread of excreted vaccine-derived strains would be much higher and could result in their own transformation into pathogenic variants. This provides additional justification for the continued use of IPV, at least until the risk of reemergence of poliovirus is eliminated.” [478]
The concerns scientists have with polioviruses and their mutations may already be too late to resolve the way they hoped. When children aren’t being vaccinated, as is the case in Africa, mutations from the vaccines may already be out of scientists’ control.
The fear Nigerians have of the vaccines had much to do with the above-mentioned rumor of the vaccines being “deliberately contaminated with anti-fertility agents and the HIV virus.” [ 479] Some reports add “cancerous agents” to the list of concerns [4 80] . As a result many Nigerians were too afraid to get vaccinated against polio. Consequently, it’s believed that 789 individuals became infected with polio in 2004 [4 81] . As far as we know, there has never been any official evidence the vaccines were deliberately contaminated with any of these agents. Western nations have seldom been honest and upfront with the African people, so we can see how such rumors can cause vaccine paranoia.
30
SV40 scare
“Stuff that's hidden and murky and ambiguous is scary because you don't know what it does.”
Jerry Garcia (American musician)
T he National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) posted a statement given at FDA Vaccines & Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting May 7, 2010 advising:
“A 1973 prospective study of more than 50,000 pregnancies concluded that inactivated polio vaccines given to pregnant women in that study between 1959 and 1965 were associated with excess malignancies and brain tumors in children born to those mothers.” [482]
We couldn’t find a source for this study, so we were unable to read it ourselves. Instead, we searched for studies that researched that exact topic. The two most recent scientific discussions we found on this exact topic was a paper published in 2004 and a book on mesothelioma (tumors). Both of these would have been available at the time of the committee meeting.
The authors of the 2004 paper:
“[…] studied, 54,796 children enrolled in the US-based Collaborative Perinatal Project (CPP) in 1959-1966, 52 of whom developed cancer by their eighth birthday.” [483]
They conclude their study by explaining they:
“[…] found no consistent relation between maternal SV40 seroconversion during pregnancy and cancer in children.” [484]
Then two years later, in 2006 in a book on mesothelioma tumors, we found a section written about this very subject. The book, which is not about vaccines, states how multiple studies came to the conclusion there’s no association between SV-40 and cancer. The authors point out there are other studies that have shown an association.
Their conclusion was that:
“[…] it is currently not possible to establish SV40-positive and SV40-negative cohorts that are large enough for a statistically significant study.” [485]
Instead, the authors suggest that:
“Because the development of most cancers is multifactorial, it is likely that SV40 acts with other agents or factors to cause mesothelioma.” [486]
Due to the complexities of finding subjects that can give researchers a reliable outcome, we steered away from these types of studies and looked into animal studies. We are fully aware of the biological differences in species, but nonetheless, this is what scientists have to work with.
In the above-mentioned book, the editors do exactly that: they give more confidence to the results of animal studies. They state that when newborn animals are injected with SV40, it triggers the development of various tumors. In order to receive the same result in adult animals, a much higher dose of SV40 was needed. The authors argue this could have something to do with the developing immune system:
“The increased sensitivity of newborn animals to SV40-induced tumorigenesis may be a result of their more immature immune systems. Immunosuppression may also make humans more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of SV40.” [487]
This is how the authors explain how asbestos and SV40, together, trigger the formation of tumor cells. They state:
“The possibility that SV40 and asbestos may also act as co-carcinogens in vivo is important, since SV40 is frequently found in mesothelioma patients with a history of asbestos exposure.” [488]
Not that we know much about the history of asbestos, but we are guessing there is some legitimate dot-connecting between asbestos and cancer. Anything that weakens the cell will allow germs easier access to, or perhaps even facilitate an ambush on, our immune system.
Not quite dead yet
All polio vaccines produced in the US in the period 1954 through 1960 were infected with the Simian Virus 40 (SV40). This DNA virus has the ability to cause cancer in hamsters by splicing its DNA with DNA in the tumor cells. Its DNA did not appear to splice with human DNA, so the question was whether it would cause cancer in humans [ 489] .
The authors of that study explain that viral DNA which does not become a part of the human DNA will replicate a thousand-fold and kill the human cells.
There are incidences where formaldehyde has been a problem. It turns out that the amount of formaldehyde it takes to inactivate the polioviruses is not necessarily enough to kill the SV40 virus. But this was not the case in this this instance.
The authors explain:
“We determined that the procedure used by this manufacturer to inactivate SV40 in oral poliovirus vaccine seed stocks based on heat inactivation in the presence of MgCl2 did not completely inactivate SV40.” [490]
MgCl 2 is Magnesium Chloride and we didn’t find it on the CDC’s list of vaccine ingredients [491] .
The authors continue:
“These SV40-contaminated vaccines were produced from early 1960s to about 1978 and were used throughout the world. […] and emphasize the importance of using well-characterized cell substrates that are free from adventitious agents. Moreover, our results indicate possible geographic differences in SV40 exposure and offer a possible explanation for the different percentage of SV40-positive tumors detected in some laboratories.” [492]
It’s now widely known and accepted as fact that some polio vaccines were contaminated by a rhesus monkey virus called simian virus 40 (SV40), which is a DNA tumor virus [ 493] . By 1961, all vaccines were assumed to be free of the SV40 virus. In order to make sure this was the case, the WHO tested laboratories in 13 different countries for SV40 contamination. They all came out free from SV40 contamination except for the eastern European vaccine manufacturer (EEVM). It so happens that this laboratory distributed these vaccines all around the world. The last contaminated batch was produced in 1978 [ 494] .
As mentioned above, some argue this virus is the cause of cancers. Although likely, research on this hypothesis has not, as far as we could determine, been overly convincing. We came across one paper where the authors looked at 13 separate studies on the matter.
They conclude:
“SV40 is associated significantly with brain tumors, bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.” [495]
It seems we are so intent on eradicating the poliovirus we are too blind to see the effects it has already had on sufferers. Instead of focusing on polio, we should probably focus on the various viruses and toxins that cause paralysis. There are other viruses that can cause paralysis that we don’t even talk about. And do we really know if kids in these Third World countries are experiencing paralysis because of polio or something else?
Time, effort, money and publicity can stand in the way of recognizing the most logical solutions. As mentioned earlier in this book: sometimes the foundation of stronger health is as simple as the washing of hands [ 496] .