“In vaccines, from those people who work at the most local level to those people who develop, who invent, who create vaccines, we all have the power to change the world.”

W hat appears to be happening around the world is that the three polio strains used in vaccines are making way for other polio-like viruses to take the place of polio. When we alter the population's immune response to cater for specific strains, we’re not just altering our body’s reaction, but also our environmental balance of opportunistic infections. We are therefore not surprised to see such syndromes as ME/CFS and GBS on the rise.

When less than one percent of children who contract polio become paralyzed, why does it seem that so many children have ended up paralyzed after being vaccinated for polio? Even if we include other enteroviruses, which seem to increase in number each time we look them up, we can’t help but wonder was the fearmongering based on media hype or was paralysis truly an adverse reaction (in children) to being vaccinated?

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT, is a toxin believed to have similar effects on our system as vaccine ingredients are thought to have. Some even believe it is the true cause of the polio-associated paralysis. If we consider this theory for a moment, perhaps the intense DDT spraying children were subjected to in the decade 1943-1952, may have wreaked havoc on our immune systems and allowed the viruses to affect them in ways it would never have naturally occurred. Similar to asbestos perhaps?

In 1939, the Swiss chemist, Paul Hermann Müller ^{[
497]} , when searching for a toxin that would harm insects without affecting mammals (i.e. humans), discovered the power of DDT to fight “diseases transmittable by insects, diseases such as typhus, malaria and sandfly fever”. This earned him the Nobel Prize in 1948 ^{[
498]} .

Dr. Müller was hired by the Swiss company J. R. Geigy AG where he made this discovery and together with Geigy holds the patent on DDT. Later on, J.R. Geigy AG became one of the companies to merge into the pharmaceutical company Novartis.

We know there wasn’t much DDT sprayed into the environment before 1943. It didn’t really enter the US until after WW2, but by then it had been a great success in Europe, especially Italy, keeping malaria incidences down. After observing the great success using DDT for malaria control, Merck got in the forefront introducing DDT to the US.

Author Jim West ^[499] has shown an interesting correlation between DDT production and polio. In a response to an article published in the British Medical Journal , West gives examples of why he feels DDT is bad. One such example is in the beginning of 1950s, bodies of calves displaying signs of paralysis and high levels of DDT were discovered in the US and Switzerland ^{[
500]} .

What those who lived through it may know perhaps is that it was most generously applied in 1951-1952 at the end of the so-called DDT decade. If we look at our polio chart from a couple of chapters ago, we can see that in 1952 polio statistics flared up.

In 1953, in what was surely purely coincidental, Dr. Kumm ^{[
501]} , a DDT proponent, became the new head of polio research at the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP) ^{[
502]} . As the link referenced above shows, he was heavily involved in malaria research around the world, which included the use of DDT.

One would think if anyone was qualified to recognize a connection between DDT and neurological damage, Dr. Kumm would be high on that list.

In 1954, the injectable polio vaccine was developed by Dr. Salk, licensed and then withdrawn. In the meantime, polio cases continued to drop. In 1956, organo-phosphates replaced the later prohibited DDT. From 1957, when the polio epidemic had almost ended, the injectable vaccine was revised and used for the first time for mass vaccination.

In Germany, where the vaccine was reintroduced, deaths not only increased, but nearly doubled. The injectable polio replaced Sabin’s oral polio vaccine. There was an extreme drop in polio-related deaths in 1962. Interestingly, this was at the same period when less children were being vaccinated and the vaccine did not cover all three viruses.

One possible explanation for the decline is before 1962 the most common form of polio was non-paralytic polio (aseptic meningitis). Its main symptoms (muscle cramps, but no paralysis) are virtually identical to meningitis and encephalitis, which results in inflammation of the brain membranes.

Africa has struggled with polio far more than any other part of the world. In 2015, there were 26,052 cases of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) reported in 47 African countries. Interestingly enough, the same report showed zero cases of wild polio infections and 18 vaccine strain polio infections ^{[
503]} .

In addition, the report also listed researchers’ results from stool samples from people diagnosed with AFP in the WHO region from 2015 and 2016. Out of the six WHO regions (Africa, Americas, Eastern Mediterranean, European, South-East Asia and Western Pacific), only one region found wild poliovirus in the stool samples. In 2015, in the Eastern Mediterranean 25,827 samples were collected of which 74 were wild and 951 originated from the Sabin vaccine. In 2016, they collected 31,928 samples of which 33 were wild and 1,612 were from the Sabin vaccine.

Every single WHO region found Sabin polio strain in some of the AFP patients’ stool samples. In 2015, in all WHO regions combined, researchers tested 192,250 stool samples from AFP patients. Out of these, only 74 were from wild polio strain and 8,209 samples from Sabin’s vaccine strain. In 2016, they tested 220,920 stool samples. They found 37 wild polio strains and 11,972 Sabin strains. It appears that while wild polio is decreasing, vaccine-derived polio appears to be on the rise ^{[
504]} .

Before the AFP diagnosis was set in motion, if most of those cases were considered polio then surely that in itself would have made polio appear rampant and widespread, or epidemic if you prefer.

Recently in the US, the CDC in Atlanta reported a surge of the polio-like condition, acute flaccid myelitis (AFM). In late October 2018, the CDC posted on their website that this condition:

The following are listed as possible causes of this condition: poliovirus, non-polio enterovirus, West Nile virus (WNV) and adenoviruses. Interestingly, the Washington State Health Department link refers to AFM as being the same as poliomyelitis. They go through all the criteria for both and in some places they even refer to the condition as “AFM/Polio” ^[506] .

By now you may be wondering how AFM differs from AFP. The same link as the Washington State Health Department link we referenced above explains that AFM is a subset of AFP, the main difference being that AFM includes abnormalities in the grey matter or CSF pleocytosis. On their link, they have added an informative figure that explains the differences very clearly ^{[
507]} .

When we looked up confirmed cases of AFM on the CDC’s website in October, 2018, it showed 80 cases. By December 12 that same year, when we revisited the same page, the confirmed cases were up to 158 ^[508] individuals diagnosed with AFM. The CDC is hard at work investigating other patients. It will be interesting to follow the course of development and identification of AFM.

In May 2010, there was a mass Oral polio vaccine (OPV) campaign in Mexico. Researchers wanted to see if there would be any sign of vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV) afterwards. They included the strains used in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) as well, and they took samples from the sewage and analyzed it for polio strains. VDPV strains were found in the sewer systems up to 19 weeks later ^{[
509]} .

Samples from sewers around the world have been tested and monitored by the WHO ^[510] .

In Belarus some 50 years after the oral polio vaccine was used there, polio strains are still being detected in the sewage systems.

“Accomplishments don’t erase shame, hatred, cruelty, silence, ignorance, discrimination, low self-esteem or immorality. It covers it up, with a creative version of pride and ego.”

G ates foundation personnel went to Pradesh in India in 2010 or 2011. There were nine or 10 cases of wild polio diagnosed every year out of millions of people, yet the foundation still proceeded with a polio campaign encouraging the use of OPV. Within two years there were 47,500 cases of flaccid paralysis, formerly known as polio ^{[5
12]} .

While the WHO is working on eliminating both the wild and vaccine-derived polioviruses, we want to know how it’s possible to eradicate viruses in India without doing anything about their non-existent sewage systems or polluted water. If sanitary conditions are not improved, do they really think the virus can be eradicated using a live viral vaccine?

We now have a polio vaccine that’s known to have the ability to cause vaccine-strain polio and perhaps even AFP.

A person exposed to the vaccine-strain polio has been known to shed the virus for many years or even decades. What shedding the virus in this case means is that an infected person is able to infect others by excreting the poliovirus in their stools. We wonder how many times a virus can evolve and mutate within such a timeframe.

Is the carrier shedding the exact same virus all this time, or is the person shedding mutated variants of the virus? Does it perhaps turn into a more virulent virus which causes paralysis in the individual?

The author continues to describe a patient with poor humoral (acquired) immunity, which is the part of the immunity that produces antibodies. He says this patient “has been excreting type 2 vaccine-derived poliovirus for twenty eight years.” ^[515]

After scientists analyzed the strains he had been excreting, they were able to determine that now, 28 years later, the vaccine strain had become more virulent and dangerous.

We now actually have more “children paralyzed by mutant strains of the polio vaccine” than we have “number of children paralyzed by polio itself.” ^[516]

According to package insert, it’s recommended that immunosuppressed people get vaccinated:

It is strange to us that immunodeficient individuals are encouraged to receive a vaccine which has been shown to have the ability to mutate and stay in the body for many years and potentially cause a more dangerous effect than the original disease.

We found an article in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics , where the authors speak their minds about the polio eradication in India.

So, was India really polio-free? The article provides a breakdown of the US$8 billion plus spent on vaccinating. The money came from different sources; India alone has spent US$2.5 billion since 1994. The US spent $2.5 billion “on world-wide polio eradication” and as you may know, Bill Gates has been a big advocate for eradicating polio. He donated $1.3 billion on polio eradication in India Rotary international added another $0.8 billion ^{[
519]} .

It’s worth noting these amounts spent on polio eradication are not in the millions, but rather they are in the billions. What such vast amounts have accomplished, and what they are capable of accomplishing is not lost on the authors of the paper:

We wonder how much is being given to help decontaminate and clean water sources or upgrade sewer systems. Would not the eradication of polio and its many varieties be better controlled if eradication programs included sanitary improvements?

We found a correspondence article in The Lancet about serious ethical concerns regarding the new monovalent type 1 oral polio vaccine that WHO helped promote for use in eradicating polio in India.

Another paper was written about the strain this polio program had on the health care system, highlighting real concerns about the risk of contracting vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) after receiving the oral polio vaccine.

The authors of that paper show a great concern for the way the eradication program was constructed and the “negative impact on routine healthcare services”.

We think it’s interesting how most of the cases are vaccine-derived, yet the authorities insist the best way to protect ourselves is by getting vaccinated:

The Mayo Clinic continues by clearly stating that “[t]he most effective way to prevent polio is vaccination.” ^[525]

A polio memorandum sent to WHO, UNICEF and the Government of India by a few public health professionals in India, shows how real the concern is ^[526] ^[527] .

According to the Sanofi Pasteur package insert for the IPOL vaccine, the observational studies only lasted for 48 hours after vaccination. As table 2 in the package insert shows us, they observed the infants first six hours after vaccination, then after 24 hours and then at 48 hours ^[528] .

We can’t help but wonder in the event a child dies three days after vaccination whether the death is even considered to be associated with the vaccine. After reading various papers and articles on India’s polio eradication program, we feel they are suffering the consequences. The authorities are a little too desperate perhaps?

Whatever the intention behind this idea is, we cannot help but see a sinister side where women are being tricked into doing the dirty work by gathering the children and bringing them into the vaccination fold. It’s a classic case of vaccinators using the blind to lead the blind. This is not to say their intent is evil or unethical in its origin, but their tactics appear to be shady and manipulative. There is a major lack of transparency regarding vaccinations, and no apparent holistic concern for human beings.

Spending billions of dollars to eradicate one of an infinite number of viruses rather than spending it to clean up the rivers, the sewage and the drinking water doesn’t make sense. For many, the water they drink and bathe in comes from the same source. Changing this, surely, will reduce the incidence of exposure to different illnesses and help people build up a stronger immune system.

“ Before broadcasting for 50-some years, I did TV, played 10 years in the big leagues, won a world championship - and played a big part in that, too, letting the Cardinals inject me with hepatitis. Takes a big man to do that.”

H epatitis B virus (HBV) enters your body through contact with your bodily fluids and attacks the liver. This way, a pregnant woman can pass it on to her baby during birth. According to the WHO, about 257 million people are hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) positive. WHO also states that 887,000 people died from hepatitis B in 2015 ^{[
530]} .

HBV has a bunch of antigens (proteins) covering its outer surface. A collective name for these proteins is HBsAg. Previously, before it received this name, it was known as the Australian antigen ^{[
531]} .

This antigen was discovered for the first time in an Australian Aborigine by American researcher Baruch Blumberg, MD, PhD ^[532] . He won the Nobel Prize for this discovery in 1976 ^[533] . Dr. Blumberg discovered that when a person had become infected with the hepatitis B virus, it could be found in the body both as a part of the whole virus or floating around by itself as a single particle ^{[
534]} .

Some people were known to be carriers of this ‘virus’ and were considered to be Au(1) individuals, while those who did not have it were Au(0) individuals ^{[
535]} . It should therefore not come as a surprise that scientists measure the HBsAg markers on our cells when they are doing research on this particular matter.

There is also something called hepatitis B core antigen (HBcAg). You may recall that when a specific invader, in this case the HBV, enters our body, the very first antibody to be produced is the IgM. In order to know at what stage an infection is, the amount of IgM and IgG antibodies are measured ^[536] . When our body produces IgM antibodies against the HBV, it’s in full attack against the HBcAg.

Let’s say you get your blood tested and you appear to have multiple IgM antibodies coded for HBcAg. That means you are actively fighting a hepatitis B infection ^[537] . If you have been vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine, your antibodies will not have the code for HBcAg.

The HBV vaccine is genetically engineered. When it’s made, some of the HBsAgs are removed from an infected person and attached to a circular (plasmid) DNA of a bacterial or yeast cell. Scientists can add whatever code they want into this plasmid DNA. Usually they add around 15 to 30 genes. They actually have to add whatever is needed in order to keep the new virus alive ^{[5
38]} . For instance, they will add a code for antibiotic resistance. This way, the antibiotic used in the making of the vaccine will not destroy the newly-created DNA.

We now have a new recombined hepatitis B virus, and we need to replicate it. In order to replicate the new virus, it’s inserted into a living yeast cell culture for fermentation. The concern about using yeast is that it can cause molecular mimicry. Yeast is very much like the human DNA. Approximately one third of the yeast proteins are the same as ours.

Here you have substances that are designed to aggravate the immune system towards an attack. And that’s what happens. Our immune system launches an attack on the invader, only this invader has many similar protein codes to we humans. Our immune system downloads these protein codes, identifies them as the enemy and starts attacking everything in our body with those specific codes. Unfortunately, our immune system doesn’t know how to distinguish between them and our own proteins.

One concern we see being expressed repeatedly on the Internet is that the hepatitis B vaccine is aimed at fighting a disease infants are rarely exposed to. The chance of infants becoming infected is thought to be miniscule in comparison to their dying or becoming a victim of its many adverse effects.

So, why would we vaccinate newborn babies? According to the World Health Organization (WHO):

The report continues to explain that in both Africa and Asia, most newborns become infected when their mothers are positive for both HBsAg and HBcAg as opposed to only HBsAg.

After vaccinating the population in 2015, WHO measured the HBsAg in children under five years of age in the WHO regions. In the African region, they found this antigen in 3% the children and in 1.6% of children in the Eastern Mediterranean region. All other regions were below 1% ^{[
541]} .

Before the vaccination, WHO claimed 257 million people worldwide had chronic hepatitis B infection. Compared to other regions, Africa and the Western Pacific had the highest prevalence ^[542] .

The CDC released statistics on the various types of hepatitis B in the US child population. The statistics are shown as per population of 100,000 in US in 2015 ^[543] :

As at July 2015, there were about 19,907,281 million children under the age of five in the US ^{[
544]} . Since the data shows the HBV incidences per 100,000 children, we need to multiply by 199 in order to calculated the incidence rate for the entire child population. This means that in the US in 2015, there were 199 children under age five with acute hepatitis B, 4,776 with chronic hepatitis B and 7,164 babies born with hepatitis B. Going with the numbers from the first reference, there were 20,171,659 children in the age group 5-14 ^{[
545]} . In this age group, 201 children had acute hepatitis B, 19,899 had chronic, and 0 had perinatal.

We can see the concern from the medical community’s perspective, but how do these statistics compare to the reports submitted to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)?

Keep in mind that reporting vaccine reaction to VAERS is extremely rare. Some say as rare as 1% of all cases while others say it’s 10% of all cases. Another thing that makes it difficult for us to rely on in VAERS data is that it isn’t just medical personnel who can submit data. Parents or others can also submit vaccine reactions children experience. This begs the question whether a child can accidentally be recorded twice.

Another concern is, we found VAERS’ search engine not very user-friendly. It was difficult for us who weren’t familiar with their website prior to this book, to figure out how to conduct an accurate search. We had difficulty separating adverse reactions per child rather than per symptom. Our most difficult conundrum was when a child is reported having multiple symptoms, how do we know these are all from the same child? Let’s say one week it shows 150 reported new events. Are these 150 individual children having their symptoms reported or 50 children all having three reportable events?

With this in mind, we are very reluctant to get into numbers, but we recommend you familiarize yourself with VAERS as it can be useful for those who want to know more about the prevalence of symptoms and to report symptoms. Their website is http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/index.php . If you would like to see the graph and list of symptoms we searched, you can find it here http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php .

“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.”

A new syndrome, one we couldn’t find in the VAERS report, is macrophagic myofasciitis (MF or MMF). This syndrome is attributed to the aluminum used in vaccines ^[546] , especially in the hepatitis B vaccine and the tetanus vaccine. Individuals with MF suffer severe pain in their muscles and joints. MRI scans have also shown severe brain injuries ^{[
547]} .

There have also been cases of multiple sclerosis (MS) after hepatitis B vaccination. In fact, there have been laboratory tests that confirm HBV could cause MS via molecular mimicry. This isn’t easy to determine as it can be very difficult to detect the enzymes in question due to their extremely low concentration ^{[
548]} .

In France, the courts acknowledge multiple sclerosis (MS) can be caused by the vaccine when expressed soon after vaccination, and award compensation to the victims. This has caused quite a stir in the scientific community, which feels the correlation between MS and the HBV vaccine is based “on a hypothetical causal link.” ^[549] ^[550] ^[551]

The German Focus magazine published an article called Tod in 48 stunden (Dead in 48 hours). In this study, the researchers found that after random calculation, infants vaccinated with the Hexavac vaccine were 2.5 times more likely to die compared to the average mortality rate.

The researchers also went out of their way to point out that although there is a “temporal connection”, they cannot prove there is a causal connection. Therefore, the conclusion was “statistically not significant”. This is a common scientific term for not enough proof of relationship between factors ^{[5
52]} .

The above-mentioned study, which was published in 2004, states that 400 infants in Germany die from SIDS.

Although there’s awareness of the potential of connection between these events and vaccines, neither the European Medicines Agency nor the Paul Ehrlich Institute recognize a “causal link” between vaccination and death ^{[
553]} .

We found another very interesting paper on research performed in Guangdong Province, in China, where the researchers looked into the neonatal hepatitis B vaccination.

Although most hep B vaccines are thimerosal-free now, some countries still have hep B vaccines with thimerosal. A study was done in newborn rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) to see how they reacted to thimerosal containing hepatitis B vaccine.

The monkeys were vaccinated within 24 hours of birth and it was found that compared to the monkeys that received either no vaccine or a placebo, the vaccinated monkeys showed “a significant delay” in “three survival reflexes including root, suck and snout […].” ^[555]

The researchers also found low birth weight and gestational age intensified the severity of the vaccine reaction. As in some human studies, the researchers observed that the male monkeys reacted more severely than the female monkeys ^[556] .

This study, as you perhaps can imagine, was highly criticized. Its first publication in 2009 was retracted, but this later publication from 2010 was accepted and to this day has not been retracted. We didn’t compare the two versions to see what had changed.

The results from the above macaque study were not very popular and were highly criticized by some vaccine proponents. Authors of a study, which consisted of some of the same authors as the above study, published in 2015 another attempt at similar research.

The main difference between the studies is that in the earlier study from 2010 there were two control groups. One group consisted of four monkeys receiving placebo and the other group of three monkeys receiving no injection at all. The new study from 2015 changed the control group so that 16 monkeys received saline injections.

Again, these are exactly the type of irregularities that make reviews of vaccine research difficult to compare or assess. Even though the 2015 study above didn’t have a large sample size, it did have a larger sample size than the 2010 study.

We also noticed that when the 2010 paper was first published in 2009 (before being revised the following year), Dr. Wakefield, known for the infamous MMR study ^[558] , was listed as one of its authors. When the paper was revised and resubmitted in 2010, his name was no longer listed. We don’t know if his name stigmatized the paper and was therefore taken off or if he simply chose not to be a part of the revision. Either way, perhaps a more in-depth look into the research performed in these papers would clarify the discrepancies.

A case study on “children with a first episode of acute CNS inflammatory demyelination in France” from 1994 to 2003 found that:

Data was collected on boys aged 3-17 years of age and born before 1999 who received the neonatal hepatitis B vaccine compared to those who didn’t. Those who received the vaccination, according to parental reports, were three times more likely to be diagnosed with autism than those who did not receive the vaccine ^{[
560]} .

A couple of researchers at Stony Brook University Medical School, at Stony Brook, New York, published a study in 2008 investigating a correlation between the triple series of hepatitis B vaccine and “developmental disability”. In their study they included 1,824 children at the ages one to nine years old.

We find it very concerning that the clinical safety trials for our vaccines are based on only a few days of observations.

It is widely stated in multiple research studies that it can take several months for symptoms to appear after being vaccinated. For instance, with the Recombivax HB vaccine there were three clinical studies performed on 147 healthy infants lasting only five days. We also know now that when researchers specify healthy infants, we can expect that children with a weaker immune system would have been excluded. This would not be a true assessment of those who receive the vaccine as a part of the vaccine schedule.

Another concern with their study of 147 healthy children is as mentioned earlier, if we are to assume that serious events are extremely rare, say as low as one in 10,000, then how can such events possibly be determined by studying 147 infants and children over a five-day period? ^[562]

Not only did they select healthy infants and children, but they failed to include a control group. Based on these studies, do the CDC and the FDA really know how safe these vaccines are?

According to John Hopkins website for vaccine safety, information written in 2000 states that “[t]he new Engerix-B contains only trace amounts of thimerosal (≤1 mcg)” ^[563] .

This is interesting considering what we found in a paper written five years later, in 2005, which states:

It’s not just the mercury or the genetic engineering of DNA from different species that has many people concerned about the HepB vaccine. The concern that side effects could be coming from the immense amount of aluminum being dispensed has also been expressed.

A hepatitis B vaccine dose for newborns has 250 mcg of aluminum. The limit should not exceed five mcg/kg. If a baby weighs five kilos, that’s 5kg x 5mcg = 25 mcg. This means we are injecting ten times the possibly safe dose of known toxin into children. To us this appears to be a guaranteed way for a tiny body to accumulate aluminum.

And this is just the start. It’s sobering when you stop to think these vaccines containing aluminum will continue to be administered for years to come.

A nother hepatitis virus children are vaccinated for is the hepatitis A virus. Humans are the only ones to fall sick after contracting this virus. Other primates can contract it and transfer it over to humans, but it doesn’t actually infect other primates. The virus is excreted with the feces and that’s how it transfers from one human to another. For instance, imagine if someone who’s infected and is working at a fast food restaurant doesn’t wash his or her hands. As you eat the burger and fries they made and drink the Coke they poured complete with the ice they scooped with bare hands, the virus travels into your intestines.

As you know, your gut, is permeable. The virus is able to penetrate the gut-brain barrier and enter the bloodstream. From there it reaches the liver and then attacks the liver cells, the virus replicates and sends its “offspring” into the bile. The bile is now covered in viruses, which are flushed out with the feces.

The hepatitis A virus can survive on surfaces outside the body for several days. According to a Canadian study published in 2000, hepatitis A:

Once you have become infected with the virus, there is no treatment for it. Usually a treatment wouldn’t be necessary anyway since 99% of those who become infected with the virus recover on their own.

Okay, maybe we’re just a couple of novices, but let’s look at this for a second. When children become infected with hepatitis A they are extremely unlikely to have any noticeable symptoms. In fact, according to the WHO, no children experience noticeable symptoms. It also states that these children who become infected carry a lifelong immunity. If you become infected when you’re older, you are more likely to become seriously ill to the point of liver failure or death.

Then why are we vaccinating children with a vaccine that doesn’t provide lifelong immunity, especially considering the disease itself is quite safe and clears up on its own? When they grow older and the vaccine wanes, they are in danger of becoming seriously ill from a disease they wouldn’t even know they had, if given the chance to become naturally infected at a young age.

The HepA vaccine is an inactivated whole virus vaccine. It’s grown in MRC-5 human cell culture. After the germ has grown in the culture media, the virus is attenuated using formaldehyde. It is now incapable of replicating any further. Although the virus is inactive, it’s still a whole virus. This is important in order for our immune system to recognize it as such and react to the invasion.

In short: in order to grow and inactivate the hepatitis A virus for vaccine use, human cell cultures and formaldehyde are used for the process.

The problem with finding this vaccine’s specific side effects is that it is rarely, if ever, dispensed on its own. We feel that, as with most other vaccines, it is more the fact that it adds to the accumulative effect from multiple vaccines. This factor may also make it very difficult to pinpoint a vaccine as the cause of adverse effects in court cases. Perhaps that’s why not many cases even make it to court.

Researching how the adverse events from the vaccine looked compared to the effects of the natural illness, we ended up on a page created by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVIC) where they listed the cases filed in court from 1988-2017. Although it says it covers the period from 1988, the Hepatitis A vaccines were not included in the compensation program until December 1, 2004 ^{[
569]} . Cases filed relate to 97 injuries and seven deaths attributed specifically to the Hep A vaccines. It doesn’t specify which cases were dismissed, compensated or settled ^{[
570]} .

Although the vaccine is rumored to be linked with autism, there’s no direct evidence that it, or any other vaccine, causes autism. However , it has been pointed out that autism rates are linked with the use of human fetal cells in the vaccines. Hepatitis A contains human fetal cells and so do other vaccines given at the same time. So, there would be a higher concentration of human DNA contaminants being injected during the same doctor visit.

Author Louisa May Alcott’s last words after she had fallen ill and become invalid

D uring the influenza outbreak in 1892, which occurred before the discovery of influenza virus, a group of sick individuals were diagnosed with the flu. It was later realized these patients didn’t have the flu at all, but something else entirely: a bacterial infection. But, because of the timing and association with the influenza outbreak, scientists called the germ Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib).

Hib causes numerous complications and is the most common cause of bacterial meningitis. It also causes neurological damages and pneumonia. Once a person is infected with Hib it can become a very serious illness. What makes the Hib strain so virulent is its slimy, protective polysaccharide capsule called PRP.

A surveillance study done in Salvador, Brazil, examined how effective the Hib vaccine was. The vaccine was put into use in August 1999, and a year later, Hib meningitis cases had gone from 2.62 cases per 100,000 individuals to 0.81 cases per 100,000 individuals ^{[
571]} .

There was only one problem. H. influenzae type a (Hia) meningitis had the opportunity to grow where it otherwise wouldn’t have, and it went from 0.02 cases per 100,000 individuals to 0.16 cases per 100,000 individuals. This may not seem like many cases, but if you look at the increase (in cases), they were now eight times higher.

The increase in non-hib cases sparked interest in other researchers. Authors of a 2011 paper analyzed samples that had been sent to the National Reference Laboratory (NRL) ^[572] in the period between 1990 and 2008. Before the vaccine was introduced in August 1999, Hib accounted for 98% of all H. influenzae meningitis cases. After the vaccine was introduced, it had dropped to 59%, meaning, yes, the vaccine was working, but instead other H. influenzae strains had begun to take its place.

The Brazilian Ministry of Health considered the data from its national laboratory to show “that Hib meningitis has been effectively controlled in Brazil using a 3-dose schedule in the first year of life without a booster.” ^[573]

Because the Hib vaccine uses the bacterial sugar coat (PRP) rather than the actual germ, it is unable to cause disease. So, just like the Hepatitis B vaccine, it needs to be attached to a carrier protein in order to aggravate the immune system. Each vaccine manufacturer differs in the way they have decided to go about this process.

Another surveillance study, covering the period 1983 through 2011 and this time performed in Alaska, focused on the indigenous population of this US state. The researchers focused on this group because the indigenous people appeared to have the highest Hib disease rate in the world.

The vaccine was first introduced to Alaska’s native population in 1991. Unfortunately, the same thing happened there as occurred in China. While the vaccine successfully reduced the number of Hib cases, Haemophilus influenzae type a (Hia) rose. Prior to 2002, the Alaskan indigenous population had not had a single diagnosed case of Hia, but between 2002 and 2011 there were 32 diagnoses of Hia.

A deviation from Hib strain has also been observed in Ontario, Canada. They are seeing Haemophilus influenzae type f (Hif) and non-typable strains. A non-typable strain is a strain that has not been identified as a specific type, such as type a or b or f. In adults, this seems to have become a more serious disease and often presents itself in the form of sepsis ^{[
575]} . Sepsis is when bacteria infect your blood. In order to defend itself your body starts an inflammatory process, which may lead to the shutdown of organs.

Similar results were observed in Utah. After an epidemiological study spanning a decade, from 1998-2008, it was noticed that while the Hib disease decreased in children, the adult population was experiencing an increase in and a more serious H. influenzae disease. As with the Canada study, “ H. influenzae disease was attributable to an increase in nontypable and Hif strains.” ^[576]

Allergic reactions have been seen as a result of the Hib vaccine. In the book the Peanut Allergy Epidemic the author mentions how the Hib bacterium has proteins so similar to the peanut molecular structure that it causes our body to make antibodies against peanuts. This has the potential to become peanut allergy in the vaccinated individual ^{[
577]} .

Another disease that has been tied to the Hib vaccine is Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (IDDM). A study published in 2002 was done in Finland to see if this association was valid. Researchers used the data from a clinical trial, which included 116,000 children born between October 1 ^st and August 31 ^st , who each received four doses of the Hib vaccine. The control group consisted of 128,500 children who were born two years before the vaccine was released, and therefore did not receive it. The researchers conclude that “[e]xposure to HiB immunization is associated with an increased risk of IDDM.” ^[578]

These results were supported in a Swedish study where it was found the HiB vaccine increased the risk of diabetes by affecting the “beta cell-related immune response” through stimulating the GADA and 1A-2A production ^[579] . (GADA are autoantibodies that attack a certain enzyme in the beta cells that produce insulin. 1A-2A are also autoantibodies that attack a specific enzyme in the beta cells).

According to the National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance (NCIRS), the association between HiB and diabetes is flawed.

Mind you, the Cochrane Collaboration, which we generally highly respect, did not find any correlation between aluminum and the DTP vaccine either and they shut down their entire vaccine research program. Despite this, we acknowledge that NCIRS is a highly respected organization in the scientific community, known for its research reviews and believed to be independent of financial or other pecuniary interests.

As with other vaccines, the safety studies performed for the Hib vaccine only observed their subjects for three or four days. So, upon reviewing these studies it would be difficult to come to any other conclusions when contradictory or conflicting data is simply unavailable.

When it comes to autoimmune or neurological diseases, three to four days is often not long enough to determine whether a correlation between a substance and a vaccine is occurring.

We feel there’s grounds for suspicion that many of the children with allergies today may have them as a result of receiving vaccinations.

“No infectious disease is more terrifying to parents than that caused by meningococcus.”

M eningococcal disease is caused by a germ called Neisseria meningitidis . It can cause, among other things, bacterial meningitis, which is an infection of the membrane covering the brain and the spinal cord. This is very rare, but if you become infected, there is a chance you’ll suffer complications such as mental retardation.

In 2015 there was a meningitis outbreak at the University of Oregon, in Eugene, Oregon, US. There were seven students who were confirmed infected. One died. Because the germ is spread through sneezing and coughing, it’s easy for the germ to find new hosts – especially when people are in close vicinity in dorm rooms and the like.

If you catch it early enough, the germ can be treated with antibiotics before it causes any damage. Being able to recognize abnormal behavior or symptoms in your child can be vital as early medical intervention is required before the germ reaches the nerves or the brain.

As with so many other germs, this one has multiple strains. There are 12 serogroups that we know of, and half of them (A, B, C, W, X, Y) have been known to cause epidemics ^[582] . Almost one third of all cases are caused by serogroup B. Unfortunately, the childhood vaccines do not protect against serogroup B.

In most industrialized countries, Meningococcal meningitis is very rare. In 2016 in the US, 90 cases were recorded in children age 0-15 years ^{[
583]} .

According to The World Bank data, the child population in the age group 0-14 was approximately 61,000,000 ^{[
584]} . This is not taking into account all the 15-year-olds as they are combined with a different population group. Ignoring this error, as we are unable to add them to our calculations, about one child in every 677,000 is infected with Meningococcal meningitis. Out of the 90 infected, 11 children died. So, as you can see, although this disease is not very common, it is quite serious and has a high death rate.

The most common vaccines used in the US are Menactra and Menveo. They cover the serogroups A, C, W and Y ^{[
585]} . When it comes to the age group 0-15, out of the 90 cases, 50 of them were caused by serogroup B and 6 in the non-groupable serotypes.

So, let’s look at this again…. out of the 90 cases of meningococcus illnesses in 2016, the vaccine potentially covered, at the most, 34 of those cases. Using the same calculations as in above paragraph, we are now down to about one sick child in every 1.8 million children. This is the worst-case scenario, as, unfortunately, the death rate table does not specify the serogroups contributing to the number of deaths.

Those in many Third World countries are not so lucky. Some African countries are perhaps worst affected. According to the WHO website:

In the period 1995-2014, there were 900,000 reported cases of meningococcus illnesses in Africa where 90,000 people died and 90,000-180,000 people suffered neurological damage ^{[
587]} .

It goes without saying this is quite a serious illness in Africa. However, we are unsure whether the medical authorities tested, or are performing serological testing on those infected in the African population the same way they are in the industrialized countries.

Do they know what is causing the bacterial meningitis in Africa? We ask this because there are different serotypes, which means we don’t know how effective the vaccine would be for the African population; and there are other germs that cause meningitis as well.

There are many types of meningitis caused by different organisms such as Hib and streptococcus species, including group B streptococcus. The strain we are concerned about in adolescents and young adults is caused by the bacteria Neisseria meningitidis , specifically in the serogroup B. These deadly bacteria can kill within hours.

Other epidemics throughout the world are documented on the WHO’s website ^{[
588]} . Most occur in Africa, but in 2005 epidemics were registered in India ^[589] and the Philippines ^{[
590]} . Other epidemics outside of the African continent occurred in 2000. The countries involved then were “Singapore, Indonesia, Iran and Morocco ^[591] , US ^[592] , France, United Kingdom, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Netherlands ^{[
593]} .

In searching for multiple vaccine trials, we turned to the book Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality ^{[
594]} . In the section on the meningococcal vaccine, multiple side effects were considered and accompanying trial studies analyzed. These adverse effects were, as listed in Table 11-1: encephalitis, encephalopathy, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM), transverse myelitis (TM), multiple sclerosis (MS), Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory disseminated polyneuropathy (CIDP), anaphylaxis and chronic headache ^{[
595]} .

For every single trial study analysis, the conclusion was either insufficient, limited, lacking or inadequate ^{[
596]} . There was only one study that provided sufficient data to support a hypothesis or conclusion, and this was in the analysis of trials looking into the correlation between the vaccine and anaphylaxis. The authors of the book state:

Scientists conduct vaccine trials on vaccines which are designed to be injected into every single child world over. How is it that the best studies medical authorities can come up with consists of insufficient data, which at best is biased, insomuch that their results are unreliable?

“I have a public bathroom rating system that I keep in my head, and anything that I think rates lower than two stars, I won't even enter.”

S treptococcus pneumoniae are a family of organisms that many people have been infected by at some point in their lives. This family (strep) has at least 90 different strains of the bacterium called pneumococcus.

Every year, pneumococcus is responsible for a wide range of medical problems in the US, including bacterial pneumonia, bacteremia, ear infections in infants and young children and, as discussed in previous chapter, bacterial meningitis.

Although ear infections are extremely common in young children, the FDA announced that the new vaccine prevents blood poisoning and meningitis, but not ear infections. A person becomes infected when they inhale the droplets that are shed into the air by an already infected individual. Once a person has become infected, the bacteria then enters the bloodstream. From there it can travel to the brain or lungs. Those who have weak immune system may suffer secondary complications like pneumonia.

The pneumococci bacteria live as normal biota in the throat and nose of some individuals. These individuals don’t become sick (from the bacteria) nor do they need treatment because the bacteria don’t cause disease. Those individuals who don’t have it as normal biota in their throat and nose, and instead become sick, are treated with antibiotics. Normally, it only takes about two days or less to get better.

There are two types of pneumococcal vaccines used in the US today. These are the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV or Prevnar) and the pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV or Pneumovax).

According to the CDC website, the PPSV should not be given to “children younger than 2 years old” and for those children older than two, this vaccine should only be administered if the child has “certain medical conditions” ^{[
598]} .

As for the PCV vaccine, the CDC recommends that “all children younger than 2 years old” should receive it. For children older than two, the vaccine should only be given for those “with certain medical conditions” ^{[
599]} .

We found this very interesting because when we looked at the website for Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, Canada, according to their microbiology department, the vaccine is “for those at high risk of serious infection.” ^[600] Although their website doesn’t mention a vaccine by name, the site is “made possible through an unrestricted educational grant from Pfizer Canada Inc.” ^[601] Pfizer is the manufacturer of the Prevnar vaccines.

The Mount Sinai Hospital website also points out the specific conditions or illnesses a child must have in order to receive the vaccine. This seems contradictory. It appears the page may not have been updated recently. In the hope of clarifying this, we visited Pfizer Canada’s website. On their webpage, they state that as of December 2009, 120 countries have approved the use of Prevnar 13 in infants and children ^{[
603]} .

Their American website confirms the use of the vaccine for infants as young as six weeks old. Here, they also state that since 2016, the vaccine Prevnar 13 includes some of the strains that cause ear infection in infants and children ^[604] . Their Canadian webpage states, as mentioned above, that as of December 2009 the vaccine was approved for infants and children in 120 countries. The American website, states that as of 2016 the vaccine has been used for infants and children in over 150 countries.

Pfizer prides itself in “[m]anufacturing and delivering world-class vaccines” ^[605] and explains that:

The vaccine is called Prevnar and the number accompanying the name shows how many serotypes/strains are included in the vaccine.

You can probably already guess what one of the concerns are when a vaccine only covers a fraction of the strains of a certain bacterium. One research paper that brings up such a concern is a paper written in 2007 with the purpose:

The vaccine approved for children is the Prevnar vaccine. This is, as mentioned above, a conjugate vaccine. Its bacterial sugar coat is grown in soy peptone (protein derivative) broth. A carrier protein is grown in a strain from the C. diphtheriae bacteria in a culture made with bovine protein fragments and yeast products. Because the bacterial sugar coat is too weak to awaken the immune cells, it’s attached to a carrier protein. The carrier protein is much stronger and can aggravate the immune cells. Vaccines that are conjugate vaccines are the vaccines for Hepatitis B, Hib, HPV, pneumococcus and meningococcus.

As mentioned above, the pneumococcal family has multiple strains. It was unrealistic for the scientists to make a vaccine that covers all the strains. Instead they picked seven strains and introduced Prevnar 7 to the public. It was a vaccine intended to combat seven out of more than 90 different pneumococcal strains.

Within a few years of targeting these seven strains, the vaccine successfully prevented people from getting sick. As with most things, nature finds its way around obstacles or finds a way to take advantage of them. With these seven strains out of harm’s way, people started getting sick from different strains. These new strains, which had not caused problems in the past, became more prevalent and more dangerous than those they replaced.

In order to keep up, scientists added six additional strains to the Prevnar vaccine. It became Prevnar 13 instead of Prevnar 7. Within a couple of years, these little microorganisms quickly adapted. There are now already new strains taking the place of these 13 strains.

It appears that each time a pneumococcal vaccine is marketed, other serotypes (strains) keep becoming disease-causing. This makes the vaccine less effective against these diseases. So, in order to continue the suppression of the diseases caused by this bacterium ( Streptococcus pneumoniae ), a new vaccine needs to be continuously developed to cover the new emerging serotypes (strains) ^{[
609]} . This feels a lot like a dog chasing its own tail.

M easles, mumps and rubella viruses cause acute infections that are dependent on humans for survival and replication.

The measles virus enters your body as you inhale. When inhaled through the respiratory tract it multiplies silently in the tissues for a week then goes into the lymph nodes and eventually enters the bloodstream. The body fights hard to produce antibodies and once it overcomes the illness, you are immune for life.

Some people say measles is a deadly disease. Perhaps it is if you live in poverty and have poor nutrition, poor sanitation and a contaminated water supply. In that case, any germ can be deadly. As long as you live under clean conditions, measles should not be a virus of much concern.

Measles virus has the ability to suppress the immune system and it’s common to get secondary infections like ear infection. These secondary infections are usually treated successfully with antibiotics.

As with measles, the mumps virus is one of those viruses best contracted during childhood. When adult men get mumps, it can cause orchitis, which is an inflammation of the testicles and has been associated with infertility.

Rubella is normally a rather mild disease. It has been considered a typical childhood disease throughout history, but turns into a very serious disease for a pregnant woman when she becomes infected. If the virus spreads to the fetus, it can cause a spontaneous abortion and severely disturb the fetal developmental process which is known as congenital rubella syndrome (CRS).

A large study conducted in Japan discovered that those who had measles and mumps during childhood were significantly less likely to die from heart attacks and strokes later in life ^{[
610]} . Another study showed that for each additional childhood illness, such as measles, mumps or rubella, the less likely the person was to suffer acute coronary events ^{[
611]} .

As you may remember, our innate immune system (first responders) does not work with antibodies. It works mostly with something called natural killer (NK) cells and is often vitamin D dependent. Our innate immunity is the most important immune defense we have.

We know that people with antibodies to specific diseases may still succumb to those diseases. We also know when you have a community-acquired infection, such as measles or mumps, it engages both sides of the immune system. The Th2 cells create the antibodies and the Th1 cells are defined by knowing the difference between you and foreign substances that are not a part of you. It is also known that certain viruses, such as the measles virus, powerfully suppress immunity ^{[
612]} .

A study done in Faroe Islands showed that once somebody became sick with the measles, they stayed immune to that disease for 75 years. Those who were vaccinated against measles only had immunity lasting for about 20 years. This means if vaccinated in childhood, a woman is unlikely to pass the immunity on to her baby or at least pass it on as effectively as she would have had she contracted measles naturally.

It’s essential for our immune system to develop and grow by facing natural infectious challenges.

If the body is deprived of the opportunity to fight natural infections, the immune system won’t gain the required strength or knowledge to fight on its own. As a consequence, a range of hidden conditions that adversely affect your immunity may be expressed. These conditions are sometimes called Th2 dominant disorders. This happens when our immune system is not challenged by normal infections or bacteria in the environment.

Our body’s microbiome is primarily bacteria, viruses, and fungi. We need these naturally acquired infections to help stimulate our immune system so our body as a whole becomes stronger and keeps us healthy.

When preparing the chicken embryo agar to grow the viruses, scientists first incubate chicken eggs for 16 hours. (An agar being a natural gelatinous substance used in biological culture media). The shell is then cracked and the albumin removed. An albumin-saline solution is transferred to a Falcon culture dish ^[613] .

In the MMRII ^[614] vaccine, the measles and mumps virus are propagated in chicken embryo, while Rubella virus is propagated in WI-38. After these have been propagated separately, they are then combined into one vaccine. The final product will therefore not only have all three viruses, but also chicken embryo proteins from two separate cultures and human proteins. The ProQuad vaccine has the added varicella virus, which was propagated in MRC-5 cells before being combined into one vaccine ^[615] .

In Japan medical authorities took the Urabe AM9 mumps vaccine and gave five million doses in a single vaccine. There were few, if any, reported cases of meningitis related to the vaccine. When they combined measles, mumps and rubella, there was a dramatic increase in the adverse reactions to the mumps virus in the vaccine, mostly in the form of meningitis.

Unsurprisingly, after that scandal the Japanese authorities took the MMR vaccine off the list of recommended vaccines ^{[
616]} . Their experience was that when you combine three viruses into one, you’ve got major problems.

The same thing happened in Bulgaria where they used a mumps strain called Sofia 6. The strain appeared to be triggering cases of meningitis, so it was discontinued ^{[
617]} .

According to the History of Vaccines website, Stanley Plotkin, a scientist who invented the rubella vaccine, grew the rubella virus he had isolated in WI-38 cells that were kept at 86°F (30°C). Plotkin did this to force the virus to adjust to the warm temperature so that it would grow very poorly at normal body temperature. He grew the virus “through the cells 25 times” and after that, “it was no longer able to replicate enough to cause illness in a living person.” It was, nonetheless, still able to provoke a protective immune response ^{[
618]} .

So, in the US we have the RA273 strain, and in Japan the Takahashi strain. The Americans grew their cells on the aborted fetal cell line WI-38, and the Japanese grew theirs on a rabbit cell line.

The NIH rubella vaccine was captured from the throat of a soldier in 1961 and then grown in African green monkey kidney cells that did not harbor the SV40 virus. A Missouri-based company, Phillips-Roxanne, grew the virus in pup kidney cells, and in Belgium a company captured the virus from the urine of a sick 10-year-old girl and grew it in rabbit kidney cells.

Three vaccines were approved in 1969 and none of them used human cells. They all used animal cells and they all eventually disappeared from the market after Plotkin’s vaccine was finally approved in 1979. The Philips-Roxanne vaccine only lasted six to nine months on the market because once it was used in a bigger population it was found to cause bad side-effects in kids, triggering very sore knees caused by inflammation.

A study was done to see how much aborted fetal DNA was in the vaccines. The author studied a rubella vaccine called Meruvax II, manufactured by Merck, for ssDNA and dsDNA. The average ssDNA was 142.05 ng and the average dsDNA was 35.00 ng ^{[
620]} . If you recall early in this book we mention the FDA safety guidelines specify the amount of residual DNA should be no greater than 10 ng .

Recently, information was released that the ProQuid combination vaccine by Merck resulted in twice as many seizures when the vaccines are dispensed separately.

MMR is the only vaccine that contains more than one live vaccine in one shot. This one contains three, which is why some believe the vaccine is a problem. All these viruses are swimming around together in the vial and they could interact and mutate in ways we might not have foreseen.

As mentioned above, Japan withdrew its home-produced MMR vaccine in 1993 after around 1,000 children suffered side-effects, in particular aseptic meningitis. The problem was pinned on the mumps component produced in Japan, which continued to vaccinate against measles and rubella using single vaccines.

According to WHO data, there were 16 African countries that exceeded the United States’ vaccination rate of 91% for the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine in 2013.

Besides those African countries, many other parts of the world have outperformed the US in giving infants the MMR vaccine at their one-year immunization. These include Australia, China, New Zealand and most of the European countries ^{[
621]} ^{[
622]} ^{[
623]} ^{[
624]} .

In 2017, the WHO recorded that 92% of the US population received their first dose of the measles vaccine at age one. There are countries, such as China, Cuba and Thailand that achieved as much as 99% coverage dispensing first measles vaccine dosages.

There is now no country in the world that offers single vaccines in preference to MMR. Therefore, the measles vaccine can be considered to be a three-in-one measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (and not just a measles vaccine).

The MMR vaccine has been notoriously and infamously correlated with autism, the early childhood mental condition that is increasing so drastically the Autism Society of America considers it (autism) an epidemic.

To be more specific, this correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism is linked with the measles component of the MMR vaccine. One study showed:

This is saying that over 90% of the blood samples in the study had antibodies from the MMR vaccine and also autoantibodies for myelin basic protein (MBP). This protein is found in the myelin sheath covering our nerves. When a person suffers from a disease that destroys the myelin sheath, MBP can be found in the blood ^{[
626]} .

When you take three live viruses and inject them into a child in a way human evolution has never seen before, the game changes and all bets are off. The outcome is simply unknown.

Viruses have been known to attack our nerves. An example of such a viral attack would be shingles. So, it should be of no surprise that when a variety of ingredients in a vaccine known to affect the nervous system is combined with three living viruses, they have the ability to destroy not only the nerves themselves, but also destroy their means of travel throughout the body.

“A further sign of health is that we don't become undone by fear and trembling, but we take it as a message that it's time to stop struggling and look directly at what's threatening us.”

T he FDA warns that all drugs containing human albumin could result in prion or viral disease contamination ^{[
627]} . It’s worth noting the MMR vaccines contain genetically engineered human albumin.

In 2011, Dr. Helen Ratajczak, the President of Edmond Enterprises LLC and Professional of the Year for 2018 in Healthcare Therapy , looked into some concerns over injecting human DNA into another human and how that relates to autism ^{[
628]} . In the paper, she highlights that the thimerosal-free MMR II vaccine entered the market in 1979, but it wasn’t until 1983 it became the only available vaccine.

It has been suggested the MMR II vaccine has the ability to trigger type 1 diabetes. Several studies have been published on this matter. One suggestion, which we found interesting, is not a peer-reviewed study, but a technical report on ResearchGate ^[631] . On the author’s homepage his dedication to further research into the topic is evident ^{[
632]} .

The report notes that besides the measles, mumps and rubella live viruses, the major proteins in the vaccine come from the chicken embryo cell culture. It also notes a high correlation between the chicken culture proteins in the vaccine and type 1 diabetes.

Both animal and human cells carry a protein called glutamate decarboxylase (GAD). This is a protein associated with type 1 diabetes. The chicken proteins in the MMR II vaccine have been shown to create antibodies against GAD65 and GAD67 in chickens. Chicken and human GAD65 are 95% identical. The chicken GAD65 have then been shown to cross-react with human GAD65, which causes type 1 diabetes. (The numbers (65 and 67) depict the molecular mass of the protein). Because this report wasn’t a published research paper, we studied the references used in it and found they appeared to be from reliable sources.

As many of you may know, diabetes is directly related to beta cells produced in our pancreas.

So, the vaccine may not contain aluminum or mercury, but it appears to have so many other ingredients it doesn’t need the help of either of these metals to trigger serious effects in infants or children.

Perhaps the most concerning known contaminant in the MMR II vaccine is glutamate, and MMR II seems to have a lot of it. Other ingredients include live viruses grown on culture that contains gelatin. As you may recall from a chapter in Part One of this book, gelatin is made from the bones and ligaments of farm animals.

In addition to its damaging effect on the shikimate pathway, glyphosate has other qualities that may potentially bring with it contaminants into the vaccine that are completely unforeseen and most likely their presence never tested for.

In 2017, scientists tested various vaccines for particles that were not intended ever to be in the vaccines ^{[
634]} . They tested three different MMR vaccines as detailed below.

Priorix manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), of Italy. Among the particles found were tungsten, nickel and iron.

M-M-R vaxPro , manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur MSD, of France. Some of the particles found were stainless steel, platinum, silver, bismuth, iron and chromium.

Morupar , manufactured by what is known today as Novartis, in Italy, was the last MMR vaccine they tested. No particles were found in this vaccine.

An explanation for the presence of these metals could be the fact that glyphosate is very efficient at extracting metals. So, during the manufacturing stage if any of the equipment contain these types of particles, it’s highly likely the glyphosate may drag them along into the vaccine. It’s important to note here that the MMR II vaccine was not part of their study. We don’t know which particles, or if any, it contains.

Let’s return to the elephant in the room: the infamous autism tag associated with the measles portion of the MMR vaccine.

As we now know, the measles virus has the protein hemagglutinin on its surface. This is the part of the virus that’s used in the vaccine, which means our body will create antibodies against it.

As mentioned earlier, autoimmunity can result from foreign particles being so similar to our own, that the body thinks its own proteins are the enemy. This is the case with hemagglutinin, which looks a lot like our myelin basic protein (MBP). We need this protein in order to make myelin sheath. When we’re exposed to the measles protein (hemagglutinin), our body reacts the way the vaccine was designed: we make antibodies to it. A problem occurs when our body fails to see the difference between the hemagglutinin and our myelin basic protein, so in addition to attacking the invading virus, our antibodies now also start attacking our own proteins. This occurrence has been linked to autism ^{[
635]} .

In the study referenced above, the scientists studied abnormal antibodies in autistic children. In their study, they tested the blood in 125 autistic children and 92 control children (not autistic children) for antibodies. Out of the 125 children with autism, in 75 of them, or 60%, the researcher found a specific MMR antibody. This specific antibody, the authors explain, “is unique to the measles subunit of the vaccine.” ^[636]

They then tested the blood that was MMR antibody positive for MBP autoantibodies. It turned out that 90% of the samples “were also positive for MBP autoantibodies, suggesting a strong association between MMR and CNS autoimmunity in autism.” ^[637]

One of the authors of the above paper, neuroimmunologist Dr. Vijendra K. Singh ^[638] , has studied this subject for quite some time. He suggests that autism could be triggered by a virus causing the body to attack its own myelin sheath.

The author explains that the autistic children also had elevated markers for systemic inflammation, which is the same as chronic inflammation.

When we looked closer into whether vaccines cause chronic inflammation, we uncovered numerous papers rejecting any such suggestion. Among those many papers was one from 2003 by Dr. Paul Offit regarding studies that claim:

An observational study was done in Yokohama, Japan. The authors used data from Kohoku Ward spanning all cases of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that fitted within ICD-10 guidelines for children up to seven years old, born in the period from 1988 to 1996.

What we found very interesting was the major rise in autism for those born in 1994. Even when considering the number of births each year, it doesn’t explain the skyrocketing rise in autism for those born that year.

We looked to see if the paper mentions any changes during 1994. The only change mentioned that could account for this, is a change in vaccine schedule. But then for those born in 1995 and 1996, the numbers dropped.

Considering the drop in total births in that two-year period, this could account for the fact that in November 1994, Yokohama’s city boundaries were changed and the city, on paper at least, became smaller. The authors didn’t believe this made a significant difference and continued the study using the new boundaries ^{[
642]} . They didn’t show what the result would have been had they continued using the original boundaries.

Dr. Paul Thomas, author of the book The Vaccine Friendly Plan ^[643] created his own vaccine schedule for his medical practice ^{[
644]} . In his revised vaccine schedule, he waits until the child is three years old before giving the MMR vaccine. In 2015, Dr. Thomas attended the public hearing in Oregon on Bill SB 442, which “seeks to remove all philosophical and religious exemptions to vaccines in the State of Oregon.” ^[645]

Regardless of whether this means the MMR is linked to autism or not, if his is correct then we cannot help but think there must be some type of correlation between age, number of vaccines given and autism.

Dr. Thomas is not the only doctor who believes in staggering vaccines. Many healthcare professionals in the US are vaccinating their children on a schedule in which some vaccines are omitted while others are staggered. These schedules are not publicly acknowledged, but we must wonder what has caused these healthcare professionals to opt for a less aggressive vaccine schedule for their own children.

If the current official vaccine schedule is truly the best for our children, we wonder why the schedule differs from one country to another and why healthcare professionals sometimes choose their own vaccine schedule. How are we supposed to know which guidelines are best suited? Surely the concerns for childhood illnesses are similar regardless of which country you live in.

It’s difficult to find researchers willing to put their names on papers showing any correlation between vaccines and adverse events.

There seems to be an overriding fear amongst medical professionals that suggesting vaccines trigger chronic disorders will lead to defamation or discreditation. This cautious approach, we feel, is very biased in itself, as it will discourage researchers from publishing their data or even doing the research to begin with.

(To avoid being discredited, or supposedly discredited, we have done our best to focus on authors and medical professionals with peer-reviewed or otherwise scientifically-accepted papers, studies and articles).

And here’s another bias, the so-called Healthy User Bias (HUB). This bias covers issues such as when children prone to illnesses are not given the vaccines during safety trials. Therefore, these trials don’t represent the true population receiving the vaccines.

Just because health professionals and researchers have been defamed or publicly ridiculed, doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Most of them are highly educated, but take a more holistic and natural approach to medicine.

The views of these professionals seem to be in sync with the research we have shared with you in this book. Namely, that the antibodies our bodies create to fight foreign substances can become autoantibodies and attack the body’s own tissues, and also lead to chronic diseases. Diseases that are often worse than the infectious diseases they protect us from.

One of those illnesses can in some instances be a neurologic disease called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE). This is a rare, chronic, progressive encephalitis that almost always ends in death. In fact, today, this disease is considered to be “a rare, slow viral infection caused by a defective measles virus.” ^[647]

As with many other vaccine-related concerns, it’s difficult to find published papers on this matter. The best approach seems to be to source research unrelated to vaccines and study the ingredients in the vaccines. Not an ideal approach – and don’t we know it! It requires many hours extra reading.

Y ou may recall comments on immunoglobulins and how IgA is most abundant in the mucosal tissues. There’s IgA in smaller amounts in the serum, but we can tell the difference because secretory immunoglobulin A (sIgA) always comes in pairs (dimer). Our mucosal tissues are a part of our innate immune system. You may also recall that this is our first line of defense and the part of our immune system vaccines bypass completely.

This is important for newborns because as we have now established a vaccine does not trigger the production of the antibody sIgA. Although all types of immunoglobulins are found in the human breast milk, more than 90% of them are sIgA ^{[
648]} . This is unfortunate for newborns if they are being breastfed by a mother who has received her antibodies through vaccinations rather than natural occurring infections.

Let’s put this into a perspective. Varicella-zoster aka chickenpox is a childhood illness most adults today recall going through. It consisted usually of a week in bed feeling miserable. The trade-off being lifelong immunity.

Today’s children are being vaccinated and don’t have to go through this week-long misery. As a trade-off, they don’t get lifelong immunity. Instead, they either risk contracting chickenpox later in life or they are at a higher risk of contracting shingles. The elderly aren’t being indirectly immunized anymore by being exposed to children with chickenpox. This means they have lost their natural immunity boosts against shingles in their old age.

Shingles is a varicella-zoster virus at work ^{[
649]} . When a person contracts chickenpox a second time, it’s referred to as shingles . This time the virus travels to the spinal cord and affects the nerves. It’s very painful, resulting in blisters in a specific area of your body, usually around the trunk or face.

Research has shown that cases of shingles, in children as in adults, have become more prevalent with the increased use of varicella vaccinations ^{[
650]} ^{[
651]} .

What has the vaccine industry done to solve this unfortunate rise in herpes-zoster infection? They created a shingles vaccine. This vaccine is given to adults only, so we aren’t including it in this book.

Perhaps it won’t surprise you to learn that the shingles vaccine is manufactured by the same company that manufactures the varicella vaccine. The varicella virus only grows well in human cells and tends to only infect humans. For the production of the varicella vaccine therefore, it needs human cells for growth and replication.

Merck’s Varivax vaccine used today originated from the Japanese Oka vaccine strain. It was originally collected from a child infected with a wild varicella infection. The virus was grown in human cell culture and then propagated in embryonic guinea pig cell culture and WI-38 human cell culture. When the virus reached Merck Research Laboratories (MRL), their laboratory grew the virus in MRC-5 human diploid cell cultures.

The vaccine may not contain aluminum or thimerosal, but it does include gelatin, MSG and neomycin in addition to the human and animal cells.

Several neurological disorders have been associated with the varicella vaccine. When a child who receives the chickenpox vaccine grows older and their immunity wanes, they become infected with the virus as an adult. The disease is now much more severe than if they had caught it as a child. They are now at a high risk of developing secondary problems like pneumonia and other infections.

Merck’s vaccine Varivax warns in its package insert not to give the vaccine to immunocompromised individuals:

Throughout the package insert, they stress concerns and warn against effects related to the wild-caught chickenpox illness. We wonder if doctors are aware of this and, if they are, whether they highlight some of these concerns to the parents.

Regardless of the various DNA from humans and animals, and other ingredients which are of concern, we were unable to find specific immune or neurological illnesses tied to the chickenpox vaccine. Most articles and papers highlight the correlation between the vaccine and the growing incidences of shingles.

If there’s a reason to be concerned about human and animal DNA causing problems in other vaccines then surely there would be issues with it in this one as well?

We have a couple of thoughts on how to answer this question – one of them relating to the warnings in the package insert. Because of this concern, physicians are very careful not to vaccinate the immunocompromised children or children with immunocompromised family members. Children vaccinated with this vaccine are going to be the children in good health.

The other thought is that as this vaccine is not given until 12 months of age and is simultaneously administered with HepA, MMR, (influenza), IPV, PCV13, Hib, DTaP and HepB vaccines, it’s possible the side-effects of the chickenpox vaccine are recorded as side-effects for one of the other (listed) vaccines.

“When health is absent, wisdom cannot reveal itself, art cannot manifest, strength cannot fight, wealth becomes useless, and intelligence cannot be applied.”

R otavirus causes severe diarrhea. Unless you don’t have access to hospital care, even the most severe case is normally not a huge concern. This is because the main side effect of severe diarrhea is dehydration, and in hospital it will be treated with IV fluids. In countries which lack medical care, diarrhea is a very serious illness.

Although there may be disagreement over the need of this vaccine in areas with good healthcare, it may save lives in other areas of the world.

Dr, Leonard Friedland who works for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) said during a hearing arranged by the FDA in 2010 that:

We can see how scary this disease is for people in developing countries who experience the severity of the rotavirus on a regular basis. So why the controversy towards a vaccine that is designed to save literally millions of lives?

As we have mentioned before, it seems difficult to figure out how any conclusions can be drawn from vaccine trials. We are aware of the guidelines the researchers have to follow. One of those guidelines being that it’s unethical to give a salt solution as the placebo when there’s an effective vaccine against the germ. Therefore, it’s not surprising that the placebo is never specified as being a saline solution. It most likely isn’t saline. It should never be expected that it is, unless specified.

We looked at both Rotateq ^[657] and Rotarix ^[658] study designs. Neither specifies what they used as a placebo. We are surprised this is not a requirement. The RotaTeq vaccine study design states their placebo matched that of the RotaTeq vaccine. We’re not sure what that means, although it sounds like a different brand or version of rotavirus vaccine may have been used. In addition, as with so many if not most vaccine trials, the vaccines were not given alone. They were given in combination with HepB, flu, DTaP, pneumococcal and polio vaccines ^{[
659]} .

As before, we have difficulty understanding how it’s possible to know which events are related to each vaccine. Because these trials usually include other vaccines as well, we are not certain how the scientists know which vaccine or component to attribute a side effect to.

Is it possible a vaccine is deemed safe because its side-effects are attributed to or labeled under the wrong vaccine?

With these biases and the inherent significant errors in mind, the clinical studies reported 52 deaths:

In regards to the Rotarix vaccine, combining observations made in eight clinical trials, the scientists reported a total of 68 deaths after vaccination with the Rotarix vaccine and 50 “deaths following placebo administration.” They also observed that “[t]he most common cause of death following vaccination was pneumonia, [...]" ^[661] .

Another serious adverse event common enough to receive special mention in package inserts for both RotaTeq and Rotarix is the ailment known as intussusception. This is an obstruction in the infants’ bowels. As we mentioned, this is when the bowels more or less fold in on themselves, much like a telescope. Blood is no longer able to flow properly through the intestines and the rectum starts bleeding.

Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) has been associated with the rotavirus vaccine. This is when infants start out with prolonged gastroenteritis and are later diagnosed with SCID. So, in December 2009, Rotateq added SCID as a contraindication to its label.

According to Dr. David Martin, who works for the FDA, in 2010 GSK were in the middle of conducting two controlled observational studies.

Regarding these trials and referring to the Vaccine Safety Data (VSD), Dr. Martin said at that time, that:

Vaccine manufacturers are permitted to use cell material from bodies of mammals, including humans, monkeys, cows, pigs, dogs and rodents as well as cells from birds and insects in either experimental or currently licensed vaccines. They are even experimenting with human fetal retinal cells, which have a history of causing cancerous cells in animals.

Scientists can’t actually explain why the Rotarix vaccine works. They don’t understand how the body’s antibody production against this vaccine works or how it plays a part in protection against the actual disease. All they are sure of is that the vaccine makes its way into the small intestine and triggers an immune response ^[663] .

The Rotarix and RotaTeq vaccines are made slightly different, but the rotavirus for both vaccines was derived from human cells. In addition, the RotaTeq virus was also taken from a bovine source. The rotaviruses were then propagated in Vero cells. As you may recall, Vero cells are African green monkey kidney cells which are grown in fetal bovine serum (FBS).

In 2009, a study was performed on physicians’ vaccination practices. Some 25 out of 416 general practitioners said they would not vaccinate for rotavirus and 16 out of 138 subspecialists would not vaccinate for rotavirus.

Out of 70 physicians, 63 had their own children opt out of at least one of the vaccines. The reason they gave were safety and too many vaccines given at once .

Apart from all the ingredients purposely added to vaccines in the manufacturing stage, the rotavirus vaccines are better known for other contaminants that made their way into the vaccine.

The most infamous rotavirus vaccine contaminants have been identified as porcine circoviruses 1 and 2 (PCV1 and PCV2). We look at these in the next chapter.

M any uninvited guests, or as scientists would call them, adventitious agents , find their way into the vaccine manufacturing process. These agents fall into many categories, including bacteria, mycoplasma, parasites and viruses. The PCV1 and PCV2 viruses were uninvited agents that were discovered in the rotavirus vaccines.

In the manufacturing process for Rotarix and RotaTeq, DNA from PCV1 was detected. In the RotaTeq, PCV1 and PCV2 were detected. This was even acknowledged in their package inserts.

Multiple studies can be found online that indicate that PCV1 is harmless in pigs and PCV2 is pathogenic in pigs, but there is no evidence of either causing harm to humans. Therefore, the manufacturers have not seen a reason to remove these particles from vaccines.

That said, it’s interesting to note the FDA expresses safety concerns yet allows unintended viruses, which they can’t guarantee won’t mutate, remain in the vaccines. As a matter of fact, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), together with Dr. Joseph Mercola ^[665] fought to take RotaTeq (Merck) vaccine off the market. They said the vaccine was “contaminated with parts of a lethal virus that infects pigs – porcine circovirus 2 (PCV2)” ^{[
666]} and wanted Merck to “publicly pledge to clean-up the vaccine.” ^{[
667]}

On May 7 ^th , 2010, GSK, producer of the Rotarix vaccine, admitted their vaccine was infected with the non-lethal virus PCV1. They also “publicly pledged to re-formulate the rotavirus vaccine” ^[668] . GSK ended up removing the PCV1 from their vaccines. Merck did not follow suit .

There seems to be more concern over the RotaTeq (Merck) vaccine as it’s the one that contains the PCV2 virus.

The NVIC website continues by explaining how in the end, the FDA decided to revoke their “suspension of Rotarix vaccine recommendation and” deem both Rotarix and RotaTeq vaccines safe. They did this knowing that both vaccines “remain contaminated and safety data on PCV2 contamination of RotaTeq was not evaluated by the FDA advisory committee.” ^[669]

Circoviruses such as PCV are the smallest viruses we know of. The filters used for viruses in vaccine manufacturing are not known to protect against them as the PCV particles are too small. Regular inactivation methods do not work on PCVs.

There are multiple biological products being used in the manufacturing of vaccines. Many of these are a source of viral contaminants. We have, for instance, blood and trypsin that are taken from a common source and used in multiple vaccines. This has prompted investigations to see whether PCV1 is present in the stocks of these materials.

The polio vaccine (IPV) manufactured by GSK uses the same master Vero cell bank as the Rotarix vaccine does. They tested the beginning phases of the manufacturing process of IPV and the final product. PCV1 was found in the beginning phases, but by the time they had finished the process, the vaccine tested negative for the PCV1 virus.

After much investigation, both PCV1 and PCV2 were said to be safe for humans. Not everyone agrees with these findings. It was a big enough concern that in 2010 the advisory committee held a hearing to discuss the matter.

In this 2010 hearing, Dr. Barbara Howe, Vice President and Director of North American Vaccine Development for GSK at the time stated:

The vaccine manufacturers were questioned about the circovirus contaminations in their vaccines and a couple of specific research studies were used as examples. However, there is no reference to them in the transcript. We only know them by the names of their authors, the Hattermann study and the Li study .

When looking for the presence of PCV, the Li study only tested the antibodies in the blood. In the Hattermann study , they used samples of blood, urine and lymph nodes to look for DNA. Neither study used stool samples to look for viral DNA.

Dr. Andrew Cheung ^[672] who at the time, worked for the USDA Agriculture Research Service in Ames, Iowa, referred to a study performed in Canada. In this study they observed the two viruses, PCV1 and PCV2, recombine ^{[
673]} .

As far as we know, there have not been any studies done on how immunosuppressed pigs or immunosuppressed humans would react if infected with PCV1.

The porcine circovirus expert, Dr. X.J Meng ^[674] , a professor of Molecular Virology at the College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech., has been studying this virus since 1999. Dr. Meng states that an infectious clone of PCV1 exists in pigs ^[675] .

It seems nobody is sufficiently concerned to look at human cells yet. Easier to stick to animal studies perhaps.

Dr. Emmanuel Hanon ^[676] , Vice President of Early Research and Development for GSK, states that GSK speculates the PCV1 comes from the trypsin they used when producing their master cell bank (MCB). In order to eliminate PCV1 from the vaccines, they would have to create a new cell bank and begin a long process spanning several years. This would necessitate conducting new clinical trials for the vaccines ^[677] .

A Master Cell Bank (MCB) takes the cell lines produced in a lab and tests them for authenticity, viability and contamination. Then they culture them in the ideal setting for optimal growth and then store them in most appropriate way. The MCB keeps very detailed records of all information pertaining to the cells they store, encouraging manufacturing companies to return to acquire cells for their cultures.

Dr. Hanon explains how they had found a PCV1 messenger RNA (mRNA), which is a sign that the viral particle can cause disease ^{[
678]} . The mRNA is a very important part of the coding process. It takes the DNA information out of the cell nucleus and carries it into the part of the cell that makes proteins ^{[
679]} . So finding a viral particle containing mRNA is finding a viral particle carrying genetic information.

The vaccine manufacturer GSK doesn’t seem concerned about these findings even though the infected PCV1 gene multiplies in human cells. The reason given is because that wouldn’t trigger a “productive infection”.

The concerns and study trials relating to the PCV1 in Rotarix have led to an amendment in the post-marketing part of the package insert.

One of the most intriguing statements to come from this hearing was made by a guest speaker, Dr. Gordon Allan ^[682] from Queen’s University of Belfast. He was speaking as an expert in porcine circoviruses. Dr. Allan explained that in order to trigger a good PCV2 infection in pigs, you first infect them with the virus and then you stimulate their immune system. The immune system is stimulated by either infecting them again or by giving them a vaccine.

Dr. Harry Greenberg ^[684] with Stanford University made a good point when he suggested that it would be nice to see studies done on the effect the vaccine has on severely immunosuppressed children. He pointed out although they should not receive the vaccine, they still do, as they are not always diagnosed as immunosuppressed until after vaccination.

Another worthy suggestion was made by Dr. Pablo Sanchez ^[685] with University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, in Dallas. He wanted to know if it was possible to look for PCV in various tissues in infants who died after receiving the vaccine. For instance, the infants who die from SIDS are already being autopsied, so a large-scale study could be conducted on testing the various tissues in these infants.

There’s obviously much awareness of adventitious agents, or uninvited guests, in the vaccines. Studies are being funded to look into their effects, but we can’t help wonder why every aspect is not being covered given the opportunity to do so is there? It appears researchers are still using small sample sizes, only looking at healthy infants and limiting the sources they derive their samples from.

We also wonder if they considered the fact that it could take a while for a virus to replicate. Not all viruses replicate and infect at the same rate. So, when researchers say a virus replicates and doesn’t cause infection in human cells, did they also look at the rate it was replicating at? What if it takes X amount of viruses before disease results, but the study did not last long enough to determine whether this were to occur? Or, while replicating in human cells, at what rate did the virus mutate? Did the mutations replicate faster or were they more invasive?

We feel some of these questions could be answered by following through with the excellent suggestions made by doctors Sanchez and Greenberg regarding how to gain a better understanding of the true effects the PCV1 & 2 has on infants.

“Within one linear centimeter of your lower colon there lives and works more bacteria (about 100 billion) than all humans who have ever been born. Yet many people continue to assert that it is we who are in charge of the world.”

W ithin the health sector, there has been much research done on communication between our enteric nervous system (ENS) and our central nervous system (CNS). An article in the Scientific American talks about a recent study on the relationship between the two.

The article continues on explaining the association between the two brains (the gut being the second brain) and disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome:

When we hear statements like that, it’s not surprising to learn that irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) has been known to plague children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) ^{[
688]} ^{[
689]} . When it comes to diagnosis and how our view on the syndrome in general has evolved, the aforementioned paper states that:

There have also been studies that show a correlation between ASD and pathogens in the colon and intestines ^{[
691]} ^{[
692]} . It may therefore not surprise you to know that children diagnosed with ASD experience positive changes in behavior when put on healthy food regimen ^{[
693]} ^{[
694]} .

There have been numerous studies confirming the correlation between autoimmunity and autism spectrum disorders (ASD). As many already know, children with ASD are sensitive to foods, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that this autoimmunity often includes gluten antibodies, and milk antigens. Another antigen that may sound familiar and is a common one in this case, is the measles antigen ^{[
695]} ^{[
696]} ^{[
697]} . This antigen has also been known to affect proteins in the brains of children with ASD ^{[
698]} .

Celiac disease is an autoimmune disease in which the affected person is unable to digest gluten as gluten harms the small intestine. This disease turns out to be quite similar to autism. They both show brain injury related to food allergens like gluten. There have been more than 100 studies that have found correlation between these diseases and seizures, cranial nerve damage, dementia and impaired frontal lobe function ^{[
699]} ^{[
700]} ^{[
701]} ^{[
702]} ^{[
703]} .

A Harvard University researcher confirmed after a 2012 study the link between autism and inflammatory bowel disease.

The most common neurological damage in autism is located in the cerebellum. We have cells in the cerebellum called Purkinje cells. Gluten antibodies have been seen to cross-react with these cells. In the brain of an individual with autism, most of the Purkinje cells are gone.

Children diagnosed with ASD have been found to usually have either relatives with allergies or their own personal history of allergies. Normally, people with these allergies have a negative skin or RAST test. This has led some scientist to believe ASD is related to “mast cell activation by non-allergic triggers.” ^[705] ^[706] It has been suggested one of those triggers may be mercury ^{[
707]} .

Vaccines have all types of antigens, not just from germs or toxins, but also food-related antigens. This triggers the microglia, which are cells in the brain and spinal cord, to become overstimulated.

Mast cells (MCs) can be found near neurons and microglia. They are believed to play an important role in giving molecules access to the brain. So, it comes as no surprise we have a vast number of mast cells near the blood-brain barrier (BBB).

When we are stressed, our hypothalamus secretes corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF). This factor works synergistically with neurotensin (NT), which regulates dopamine pathways. Together, they can aggravate the mast cells to the point of breaking the blood-brain barrier. Their synergistic reactions can cause the mast cells to cause brain fog and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). When the serum of children with ASD was tested, it was found to have elevated levels of both CRF and NT ^{[
708]} .

In this way, by weakening the blood-brain barrier, the mast cells (MC) have been shown to take part in the development of autism ^{[
709]} .

The role of corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) and neurotensin (NT) doesn’t stop there. CRH and NT are extremely sensitive to stress, so when the body is under a lot of stress they will activate the mast cells to promote an inflammatory process. Some scientists say this contributes to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and fibromyalgia ^{[
710]} .

This may seem farfetched, but anxiety and stress have been shown to be common in children with ME/CFS ^[711] and as mentioned above, CFS can trigger inflammation that can affect the brain. This begs the question, which we have not attempted to answer in this book, whether high anxiety and stress can trigger brain dysfunctions.

Interestingly enough, all the important mediators said to trigger ME/CFS can be traced to implicate the mast cells (MC), which are the cells near, among other places, our blood-brain barrier (BBB).

A syndrome that arose as a consequence of vaccination is the autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA) ^[712] ^[713] . ME/CFS falls under the ASIA umbrella.

Another illness that falls under this umbrella is macrophagic myofasciitis (MF or MMF). The main symptom of this disease is that the macrophages gravitate around the injection site and are filled with aluminum hydroxide from the vaccines. This is called granuloma, which is the name for a cluster of macrophages that have gathered around the injected area and caused inflammation. This is known as Macrophagic (by macrophages) Myofasciitis (inflammation of muscle tissue).

A paper published in 2013 explains how researchers injected mice with aluminum to see what would happen. They noticed that the macrophages engulfed the metal particles, forming granulomas. These granulomas then started spreading to other organs, including the brain ^{[
714]} .

The reason it’s so difficult to eliminate the aluminum adjuvant captured by macrophages is because when a macrophage sees a foreign substance, it hugs the invader and pulls it inside. Once the invader is inside the cell membrane, the macrophage tears it into multiple tiny fragments. Some individuals don’t have the ability to eliminate the toxins, so instead it just accumulates inside their macrophages.

When presented with multiple vaccines simultaneously or in a short period of time, just about anybody can be the victim of overwhelmed macrophages. In most individuals, these granulomas become smaller with time and eventually disappear. But then you have the few individuals who, for some reason or other, have difficulties facilitating this process and it ends up having dire consequences.

Another disease that falls under the ASIA umbrella is the Gulf War Syndrome (GWS). You don’t have to have been anywhere near Kuwait or the Persian Gulf to be diagnosed with the GWS, although it’s normally isolated to those in the military since it was the anthrax vaccine that caused severe problems for military personnel in the Gulf War.

This book is focused on childhood vaccines, which does not include the anthrax vaccine, so we’ll make it quick. Many believe it was the squalene in the vaccine that was causing the GWS. The squalene is used instead of gelatin as many are allergic to that animal-product. Other vaccines that use squalene are some of the influenza vaccines. It’s perhaps worth noting that the anthrax vaccine contains aluminum and GWS is said to be very much like macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) ^{[
715]} .

“Memory is all we are. Moments and feelings, captured in amber, strung on filaments of reason. Take a man’s memories and you take all of him. Chip away a memory at a time and you destroy him as surely as if you hammered nail after nail through his skull.”

W e would also like to touch on the subject of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) even though this does not affect children. We do believe it has some correlation to childhood diseases. The common denominator appears to be aluminum (Al) and other metals.

As you may recall, aluminum can be much more toxic once it’s injected into the body. But as with so much else, we have to count on research that does not involve injections. Instead, we have to keep in mind the fact that being injected may potentially have greater adverse effects than what was observed in the studies.

Authors of one such study published in 2009 explain that we are exposed to aluminum “through air, food and water.” They connect damage by free radicals and changes in neurological behavior to the impact aluminum has on the brain.

This sparked a question in our minds: Is Alzheimer’s disease (AD) the same as autism?

It appears to us that the difference between the two is with autism, everything happens a lot faster, while AD is a slower process and therefore occurs later in life. We are not so naïve as to believe this is the only difference. We are just curious whether there could be something to it.

The incidence of autism around the globe is exploding. In 2014, an estimated 1% of the world’s population had autism. That means more than 70,000,000 human beings were, and many no doubt still are, struggling to function with a damaged brain as a consequence of this disease.

The reports in from individual countries indicate the alarming scope of the problem.

According to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) an announcement posted April 2017 on its website states: “[i]t is estimated that worldwide 1 in 160 children has an ASD.” ^[719] Our concern with gathering worldwide data into one statistic is the fact that we don’t know the various methodologies used for each country. In US alone, there are three different survey methods used (mentioned below) and they all derive data differently.

That being said, we would still like to see what the ASD prevalence data is in countries other than the US. The website Focus for Health has posted autism diagnosis for 18 different countries, including US with data from 2015, which shows one in 45 children with autism.

The website derived their data from each individual country and they link references to each. The most recent data is from Germany, Ireland, Hong Kong and Singapore from 2016 and 2017. Here it shows Germany with one in 263 children with autism diagnoses, Singapore with one in 149, Ireland with one in 65 and Hong Kong with one in 27 ^{[
720]} .

In November 2015 the National Health Statistics Reports released by the US Department of Health and Human Services published a questionnaire to assess whether the autism spike was a true incidence spike. They have been conducting National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS) since 1997, which include:

This questionnaire remained unchanged until 2014 when NHIS made some adjustment by adding more detailed analysis of ASD. In their report they show two other survey systems: Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network (ADDM), and National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH). The researchers feel strongly about the NHIS’s approach being the best of the three:

It’s difficult to compare the three systems as they vary so much in the way they collect data. As described in the above quote, the NHIS surveys more than 12,000 children age three to 17 annually. The survey published in 2015 showed that “22.4 per 1,000 children” were diagnosed with ASD. That’s 2.4% of all children in US age three to 17.

This may not seem like a high percentage, but let’s say you have 5,000 children in your school district, 112 of them would have autism.

The reports show that in 2014 the autism rate nearly doubled from what it was from 2011-2013. As mentioned above, they contributed this to the more detailed description of ASD (i.e. inclusion of Asperger’s disorder). Nonetheless, it doesn’t explain the worldwide statistics.

The Survey shown for ADDM is from 2010 and covers 360,000 eight-year-old children. The data was collected by “[e]xpert clinicians review medical and education records and apply surveillance case definition” ^[723] . This survey showed an ASD prevalence of “14.7 per 1,000 children”. The difference here is the data was collected from health professionals and therefore included children not officially diagnosed with ASD (~20% of survey subjects). Both NHIS and ADDM were funded by the CDC.

The last survey mentioned is the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) conducted by phone in 2011-2012. It highlighted “[p]aren’t-reported survey responses about current autism spectrum disorder diagnosis”. NSCH reached over 95,000 children aged six to 17 throughout the US. According to their data set, the autism prevalence in this age group was “20,0 per 1,000 children.” This survey was funded by Human Resources & Services Administration (HRSA) ^{[
724]} .

More recent data from NSCH was published in the journal Pediatrics in November 2018. Using the same methods as described above, this study reached the carers of 43,283 children aged between three and 17. It showed by 2016 there was an ASD prevalence of “2.50 per 100 children” This means that an “estimated prevalence of US children with parent-reported ASD diagnosis is now 1 in 40” ^[725] .

According to the CDC’s website, ADDM data revealed one in 59 children had been diagnosed with autism by 2014 ^{[
726]} . With the steady increase in autism each year, NSCH’s new data showing one in 40 children are being diagnosed with autism today doesn’t seem so far-fetched.

Regardless, it’s safe to say that ASD is on the rise and becoming more prevalent than ever before.

Another disease that perhaps not many have heard of is Pink Acrodonia, often referred to as the Pink disease . Caused by mercury in teething powder, this disease seems to have disappeared after the 1950s. The reason we mention Pink Acrodonia is because it has all the hallmarks and behaviors of an autistic child from head banging to a disconnect with other people.

A study was done on the grandchildren of those who survived pink disease to see if there were genetic factors involved. They found that one out 22 pink disease survivors had grandchildren with ASD, while one out 160 from the general population had grandchildren with ASD ^{[
727]} .

We also found a paper that looks at the causal effect between vaccines, the immune system and brain development. The authors of that study appear to feel vaccines are important and do not seem to support the link between MMR and autism. They state directly that “this association has been convincingly disproven.” Even so, they feel there are other disorders worth a second look. These include obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD, anorexia nervosa (AN), “tic disorder, anxiety disorder, ADHD, major depressive disorder, and bipolar disorder” ^{[
728]} .

The study looks at correlation between these disorders and various vaccines. Among these vaccines were vaccines for “tetanus and diphtheria (TD), hepatitis A, hepatitis B, meningitis, and varicella”.

The authors also stress that this is not proof of causal relationship. Whether they and others of the same viewpoint are right or wrong, the results from the study done on grandchildren of pink disease victims could hold the underlying answer.

Our body has an innate ability to edit its DNA codes. This also means that when it is exposed to toxins, the editing process can be distorted and cause errors which become imbedded into the DNA. These errors are then passed on to offspring and render them more susceptible to toxic injuries or other disadvantages the errors may cause.

The connection between the pink disease and autism brings to the fore something that has been brewing in the back of our minds for a while. It’s something we haven’t addressed yet, but feel strongly it deserves at least a passing mention before we end this book. We refer to the topic covered in the next and our last chapter: DNA epigenetics.

“ Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.”

T he ongoing discussion on the association between vaccines and our natural immune responses appears to be, in some cases, all over the place. It’s nearly, if not entirely, impossible to argue a definitive case in this matter.

What science tells us is that who we are is written in our DNA, which means we have already been coded for what we are before we are even born. As we didn’t have the opportunity to choose the DNA we are made of, it seems we can blame our genes for our mishaps. After all, we were born this way and there’s nothing we can do about it.

But how do we explain the placebo effect whether it be as a biproduct of the environment (i.e. positive/negative reinforcement) or in the form of medication? Does it benefit us to blame our DNA since we have no power over it?

If genes are the main controlling factor, then why do we humans have about the same amount of genes as mice or dogs? Not only that, vegetables and wheat far exceed humans in the number of genes in their genome.

It’s a conundrum to us how much simpler lifeforms have far more genes than us, especially if our genes are so important to who we become.

This also brings up something we mentioned earlier in the book. When scientists are making vaccines, what are some of the things they have to consider? You guessed it, environmental factors. They have to take into account such things as temperature, nutrition, pH balance, etc. What happens if these factors are not taken into account? The germ doesn’t grow.

But, let’s stop for a second. What has changed in the germ?

Bacterium is a single cell organism. The virus has mechanisms that are designed to replicate when in contact with a cell. Once the bacteria or virus are in the laboratory, do they automatically change what they are made of?

Our hypothesis is that the environment, be it in form of thoughts, living conditions, nutritional intake or medication, not to mention whatever factors are introduced to our cells, may all play a part in the make up of our DNA. If the environment doesn’t accommodate the germ’s basic survival mechanisms, it will simply just stop functioning properly or die. So, this means that environmental factors play a part in dictating to our genes, right?

Then are our genes set in stone? Can we actually alter our genes by changing environmental factors?

If you look at it this way, at the very core, our DNA structure is dictated to by atoms (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus). This means that DNA is electrically charged. It would only be natural that the atoms would be affected by electrical impulses in their environment. We won’t go any further into this slightly philosophical epigenetic discussion, but while keeping in mind the environment, like us, is made up of atoms, we’ll skip right into how epigenetics can affect the physical structure of DNA.

Our understanding and hypothesis, is that the environment, whether it be in form of thoughts, living conditions, nutritional intake, medication, and whatever factors that are introduced to our cells, may play a part in what happens. If these factors don’t benefit the cell, the cell won’t adjust to function properly.

These thoughts about epigenetics didn’t come to us out of thin air. We have the remarkable zoologist, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) to thank. While some of his theories may have been discredited, many are still incredibly fascinating and thought-provoking. Even Charles Darwin acknowledged him as “justly-celebrated naturalist” ^{[
730]} .

“It is not the organs—that is, the character and form of the animal’s bodily parts—that have given rise to its habits and particular structures. It is the habits and manner of life and the conditions in which its ancestors lived that have in the course of time fashioned its bodily form, its organs and qualities.” ^[731]

Delving into DNA epigenetics means we are no longer just dealing with gene mutations, but also switching the genes on or off (referred to briefly in previous chapter). On our DNA we have something called Methylation variable positions (MVP), which are epigenetics markers. In order to alter the function of the DNA, a methyl (CH ₃ ) group is added to the DNA. This is called methylation.

When methylation takes place, it happens at the CpG sequence site. The CpG sequence is simply when the nucleotides cytosine (C) and guanine (G) are next to each other in the DNA sequence. In between each nucleotide is phosphate (p) that holds them together. Hence CpG. It is at this sequence we see methylation. The CpG sequences make sure the genes are being expressed correctly.

When the MVP (which is located at the CpG site) is altered, an epigenetic pattern is created. This can affect the cell at any time during cell maturation. This goes for cancer cells as well. Among the substances able to affect this pattern are toxins and germs. When DNA methylation has taken place, the alteration tends to stay around even after cell division. This way the new epigenetic pattern may potentially become a part of a new cell population.

An example of how this can affect generations can be seen in a 2006 paper not related to vaccines.

We don’t want to get into a lengthy discussion on epigenetics so we will leave this subject by quoting from another paper published in 2007:

So, what exactly does our DNA do? It codes for all our physical and emotional traits? A grand study was published in 2016 to find correlation between our genes and personality traits ^{[
734]} . Not only did the study find genes that correlated with personality traits, but were also able to correlate a location on our genes to illnesses such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and depression/anxiety. They made sure to mention that environmental factors also play a role.

Viruses are a most fascinating phenomenon. Some say that viruses are not living, but we say that some vaccines are live viral vaccines. You may ask how can a non-living thing be alive in a vaccine? Viruses are not alive in the sense that they don’t have the internal machinery of a normal cell. They are not an active, intelligent entity, but rather exist in a passive manner. It seems to be more about whether the virus is harmful or not.

Viruses don’t just float around and infect. Instead, they enter the human body, and use the human cellular ingredients for their own benefit. One can therefore say that a virus is just as much a part of humans as they are of themselves. They cannot infect us without using human cells to participate in the process.

A virus needs a living cell to multiply and will spend its lifetime finding a place where it can grow. If we vaccinate against a virus, another virus will step into the void in its stead. It may seem like the virus finds us and infects us, even kills us, but the case for them is merely happenstance. Viruses happen to be in an environment that allows them to replicate, and so they do. There’s no intelligence or order behind this, it simply comes down to the fact that the right mechanisms are in place for it to happen.

At first, it may seem that it’s all about the virus and what we need to do to protect ourselves against it or other specific viruses. In the meantime, we forget it is first and foremost all about us. Without us, the virus cannot replicate.

The same goes for other germs. It’s all about the environment we prepare for them. Will we offer them a welcoming environment where they can thrive and take over? Or do we focus first and foremost on how to keep our cells healthy and thereby provide an uninviting place for any parasitic relationship to develop?

There’s a theory that the virus needs the host insomuch as, when allowed to stay, it will actually cause the host less harm. When we constantly create vaccines against certain strains or diseases, these germs, in return, will find a mutated and often more virulent way to survive in order to remain in the host.

With this in mind, let’s not forget that many of these germs have co-evolved side by side with us throughout history. These have often turned out to be beneficial to our health and also necessary for our survival.

Viruses find their way into our bodies. Once inside, they rewrite parts of our DNA. This has been happening for a very long time. We as humans have been able to take advantage of this mutualistic relationship with viruses. A relationship that is also commensalistic in that one organism receives a benefit, or benefits, from the other while the other one’s not affected. For example, our placenta has retroviral DNA. Without it, we would not be able to have a functioning placenta.

Are we messing with a necessary evolutionary process by changing the wild strains into mutated strains and/or vaccine strains? Have we created enemies out of what used to be, for the most part, our friends?

Germs have been strengthening our immune system throughout human history. It wasn’t until relatively recently we started injecting ourselves with substances to prevent them from doing their job .

This is a brand-new way of dealing with incoming unknowns that don’t fit the way our immune system evolved. And this new method is bypassing a system as old as Mankind, so we have to expect there will be some kind of adverse reaction.

We can’t help but wonder if we keep introducing antigens to our bodies in this manner, where will this new evolutionary path take us? And will vaccinations, and the modern immunization process in general, ultimately be classified as a transhumanist methodology? Transhumanist in that this experimental approach is attempting to use science and technology to evolve the human race beyond its current physical limitations or weaknesses, which is after all the definition of transhumanism.

They say keep your friends close, but your enemies closer. What if the germs are the enemy? How close should we keep them?

Well, germs have been strengthening our immune system throughout human history. (Hopefully, we’ve successfully gotten that message across by now). It wasn’t until relatively recently we started injecting ourselves with substances to prevent germs from doing their job.

Vaccinations are, in evolutionary terms at least, a brand new way of dealing with incoming unknowns that don’t fit the way our immune system evolved. And this new methodology is bypassing a system as old as Mankind itself, so we have to expect there will be adverse reactions of some kind from time to time.

If we keep introducing antigens to our bodies in this manner, where will this new evolutionary path take us?

Table includes ingredients discussed in this book. For a more comprehensive list, please refer to package inserts or other reliable internet sources.

Age/Type	Population	Acute	Chronic	Perinatal
<1 yr-olds (per 100K)		1	7	21
1-4 yr-olds (per 100K)		0	17	15
Total in population	19,907,281	199	4,776	7,164
5-14 yr-olds (per 100K)		1	99	0
Total in population	20,171,659	201	19,899	0
(0-14 yr-olds) Total in population	40,078,940	400	24,675	7,164

Vaccine	Type	Name	Manuf.	Additional DNA	Other
HepA	Inactivated virus	Havrix ^[735]	GSK	MRC-5	Al., F., P20, neomycin
HepA	Inactivated virus	Vaqta ^[736]	Merck	MRC-5, bovine	Al., F., neomycin
Polio	Inactivated virus	IPOL ^[737]	Sanofi Pasteur	Vero cells, bovine	F, neomycin, polymyxin b, streptomycin, P80
MMR	Live virus	MMR II ^[738]	Merck	Chick embryo, WI-38, bovine	MSG, gelatin, neomycin
MMR	Live virus	ProQuad ^[739]	Merck	Chick embryo, WI-38, MRC-5, bovine	MSG, gelatin, neomycin
Rotavirus	Live virus oral	Rotarix ^[740]	GSK	Vero cells, PCV1, bovine
Rotavirus	Live virus oral	RotaTeq ^[741]	Merck	Vero cells, PCV1&2, bovine	P80
Varicella	Live virus	Varivax ^[742]	Merck	MRC-5, WI-38, guinea pig, bovine	MSG, gelatin, neomycin
HepB	Gen. Engineered	Engerix-B ^[743]	GSK	Yeast	Al
HepB	Gen. Engineered	Recombivax ^[744]	Merck	Yeast	Al., F.
DTaP	Toxoid Subunit	Daptacel ^[745]	Sanofi Pasteur	Bovine	Al., F
DTaP	Toxoid Subunit	Infanrix ^[746]	GSK	Bovine	Al., F., P80
Pneumococcal	Polysac. Subunit	Prevnar 13 ^[747]	Pfizer	Soy, Yeast, bovine, diptheria CRM	Al., P80
Meningococcal	Polysac. Subunit	Menactra ^[748]	Sanofi P	Bovine, diptheria	F
Meningococcal	Oligosac. Subunit	Menveo ^[749]	Novartis	Diptheria CRM, yeast	F
Hib	Polysac. subunit	ActHIB ^[750]	Sanofi Pasteur	Tetanus toxoid, bovine,	F
	Polysac. subunit	Hiberix ^[751]	GSK	Tetanus toxoid,	F
	Polysac. subunit	PedvaxHIB ^[752]	Merck	N.meningitidis,	Al.