Zika Vaccine: Wach-Out – It Will Alter Your DNA

DNA3
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 24, 2017

First, I’ll lay out a little background—

In many previous articles, I’ve established there is no convincing evidence the Zika virus causes the birth defect called microcephaly. (Zika archive here)

Basically, Brazilian researchers, in the heart of the purported “microcephaly epidemic,” decided to stop their own investigation and simply assert Zika was the culprit. At that point, they claimed that, out of 854 cases of microcephaly, only 97 showed “some relationship” to Zika.

You need to understand that these figures actually show evidence AGAINST Zika. When researchers are trying to find the cause of a condition, they should be able to establish, as a first step, that the cause is present in all cases (or certainly an overwhelming percentage).

This never happened. The correlation between the presence of Zika and microcephaly was very, very weak.

As a second vital step, researchers should be able to show that the causative virus is, in every case, present in large amounts in the body. Otherwise, there is not enough of it to create harm. MERE PRESENCE OF THE VIRUS IS NOT ENOUGH. With Zika, proof it was present in microcephaly-babies in large amounts has never been shown.

But researchers pressed on. A touted study in the New England Journal of Medicine claimed Zika infected brain cells in the lab. IRRELEVANT. Cells in labs are not human beings. The study also stated that Zika infected baby mice. IRRELEVANT. Mice are not humans. And these mice in the lab had been specially altered or bred to be “vulnerable to Zika.” USELESS AND IRRELEVANT.

All this fraud set the stage for the Zika DNA vaccine. Yes, it is under development. It is, in fact, an example of the next generation of vaccines. And this is why you should watch out.

Here is an excerpt from a US National Institutes of Health press release (8/3/16) (here, here, and, the booster to the DNA vaccine here):

“The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health [NIH], has launched a clinical trial of a vaccine candidate intended to prevent Zika virus infection.”

“Scientists at NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center (VRC) developed the investigational vaccine — called the NIAID Zika virus investigational DNA vaccine — earlier this year.”

“The investigational Zika vaccine includes a small, circular piece of DNA — called a plasmid — that scientists engineered to contain genes that code for proteins of the Zika virus. When the vaccine is injected into the arm muscle, cells [in the person’s body] read the genes and make Zika virus proteins, which self-assemble into virus-like particles. The body mounts an immune response to these particles, including neutralizing antibodies and T cells. DNA vaccines do not contain infectious material — so they cannot cause a vaccinated individual to become infected with Zika — and have been shown to be safe in previous clinical trials for other diseases.”

SYNTHESIZED GENES ARE INJECTED INTO THE BODY.

That’s why it’s called a DNA vaccine.

Beginning to wonder what this is all about?

It’s about PERMANENTLY ALTERING YOUR DNA.

It’s about altering the DNA of every person on the planet who is vaccinated.

New York Times, 3/9/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” The article describes the frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was nearly two years ago.]

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.”

Alteration of the human genetic makeup.

Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence. And once a person’s DNA is changed, doesn’t it follow that he/she will pass on that change to the next generation of children, and so on, down the line?

The Times article taps Nobel laureate Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

By now you should be seeing the larger picture. A virus (Zika)…

Never proved to cause anything…

Becomes the occasion for developing and injecting a vaccine…

That is actually a group of synthetic genes…

Which will alter your DNA.

And that program implies the possibility of a far wider operation:

Covertly, any genes can be injected in the body and called vaccination. Untold numbers of experiments to alter human DNA can be run. Experiments to create more obedient and passive people, more intelligent and talented people, soldiers who have much higher pain thresholds and who will accept orders without thought or question…

And if you think that is science fiction, read these words from biophysicist Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine, to get a glimpse of what “the best and the brightest” are considering:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

Brave New World? Yes, if Brave means Insane.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do To Regain Our Health

The Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do To Regain Our HealthSource: GreenMedInfo.com
Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD
March 23, 2017

Available for Immediate Free Download

This is the introduction to the new vaccine book by Tetyana Obukhanych (Ph.D. in immunology from Rockefeller University, New York, NY) Vaccine Illusion. Dr. Obukhaynch and GreenMedInfo.com are giving the book away for free for a limited time only. Get your copy here.  

Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D.

I know of many alternative health practitioners and even of a few pediatricians who have embraced the non-vaccination approach to health. However, I have yet to encounter one among my own kind: a scientist in the trenches of mainstream biomedical research who does not regard vaccines as the greatest invention of medicine.

I never imagined myself in this position, least so in the very beginning of my Ph.D. research training in immunology. In fact, at that time, I was very enthusiastic about the concept of vaccination, just like any typical immunologist. However, after years of doing research in immunology, observing scientific activities of my superiors, and analyzing vaccine issues, I realized that vaccination is one of the most deceptive inventions the science could ever convince the world to accept.

As we hear more and more about vaccine injuries, many individuals are starting to view vaccination as a necessary evil that has helped us initially to overcome raging epidemics but now causes more damage than benefit to our children.

As an immunologist, I have a different and perhaps a very unique perspective. I have realized that the invention of vaccination in the 18th century has precluded us from seeking to understand what naturally acquired immunity to diseases really is. Had we pursued a different route in the absence of that shortcut, we could have gained a thorough understanding of naturally acquired immunity and developed a truly effective and safe method of disease prevention compared to what vaccines can possibly offer.

The biological term immunity refers to a universally observed phenomenon of becoming unsusceptible to a number of infectious diseases through prior experience. Because of the phonetic similarity between the words immunology and immunity, it is tempting to assume that immunology is a science that studies the state of immunity, but this is not the case. Immunology is a science that studies an artificial process of immunization – i.e., the immune system’s response to injected foreign matter. Immunology does not attempt to study and therefore cannot provide understanding of natural diseases and immunity that follows them. Yet, the “knowledge” about the function of the immune system during the natural process of disease is recklessly inferred from contrived immunologic experiments, which typically consist of injecting laboratory-grown microorganisms (live or dead) or their isolated parts into research animals to represent the state of infection. Because immunologic experiments are unrealistic simulations of the natural process, immunologists’ understanding of nature is limited to understanding their own experimental models. Immunologists have confined the scope of their knowledge to the box of experimental modeling, and they do not wish to see beyond that box. Thinking within the box only reinforces the notion of vaccination and cannot provide any other solution to the problem of diseases.

Despite the fact that the biological basis of naturally acquired immunity is not understood, present day medical practices insist upon artificial manipulation of the immune response (a.k.a. immunization or vaccination) to secure “immunity” without going through the actual disease process. The vaccine-induced process, although not resembling a natural disease, is nevertheless still a disease process with its own risks. And it is not immunity that we gain via vaccination but a puny surrogate of immunity. For this reason, vaccination at its core is neither a safe nor an effective method of disease prevention. Yet, immunologists have nothing better to offer because they can only go as far as their deeply rooted immunologic dogma allows them.

Three important factors have contributed to my gradual disillusionment with immunologic paradigms and their applications – vaccines. First, several significant inconsistencies within immunologic theory made me quite unsatisfied with its attempted explanation of immunity. Second, I observed how some seasoned immunologists would omit mentioning the outcome of crucial experiments to make their publication on new vaccine development strategies look very promising. This made me suspicious about the vaccine development process in general and eager to take a look at the other side of the vaccination debate.

The third factor was the birth of my child. This event compelled me to take a break from laboratory research for a few years. I completely shed my identity of an immunologist and became a parent determined to raise a healthy child. I was amazed at how clueless I was about what really matters for health despite my proficiency in all those fancy immunologic theories amassed in the Ivory Tower. For the sake of my child, I had to reconsider everything I knew in immunology. I searched deeper and deeper for the root of vaccine problems we face today and it all came back to me in clear light.

This book is intended to give parents essential immunologic background for making vaccination decisions for their children. Making vaccination decisions is an important personal responsibility that should not be left to any medical or scientific authority. Parents should educate themselves about vaccines and diseases to the extent that they feel absolutely confident and well prepared for taking full responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.

It is important to estimate risks of vaccine injuries versus risks of exposure to vaccine-targeted microorganisms. But the analysis should not stop there. I urge every parent to consider how vaccines achieve their effects, and if the desired vaccine effects truly benefit our children and our society. The implications of vaccination were not acceptable to me, neither as a parent nor as a scientist, and this book is my effort to tell other parents why.

Another goal of this book is to raise awareness in our society about the urgent necessity to change basic immunologic research in a way that will finally bring us understanding of naturally acquired immunity. It is up to future generations of immunologists to rescue this science and put it on the right track. The benefits for humankind will be enormous, as this would make both vaccine injuries and fear of diseases a matter of the past. But to make this happen, the field of immunology must first be cleared from the weeds of immunologic dogma.

And finally, this book is my attempt to heal the schism in our society between those who oppose vaccines due to vaccine safety concerns and those who oppose the anti-vaccine movement due to the fear of diseases. This schism has brought us enormous suffering by dividing families, friends, and health provider communities. But we all have the same goal: we all want the best for our children. Only by uniting our efforts will we be able to find a solution to the problem of diseases without compromising our health by means of vaccines.

Download the book for FREE now and learn the following: 

  • Why do vaccines fail to give us lasting immunity from viral diseases?
  • Why do vaccines provide no guarantee of protection from bacterial diseases?
  • Why is vaccine-based herd immunity not achievable?

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
_______________________________________________________

 

Think Your Doctor Reports Reactions to Drugs and Vaccines? Watch This

Source: iHealthTube.com
March 23, 2017

Many of us assume that our doctors will report any reactions we may have to certain prescriptions or vaccines in the hopes of ensuring safety down the road. But Dr. Suzanne Humphries shares the reality of what it happening when most doctors see problems with patients on certain drugs or after getting vaccinated. You’ll think twice about the safety of these things.

Study: DTP Vaccine Associated With 212% Increased Infant Mortality Risk

Study: DTP Vaccine Associated With Increased Infant Mortality
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Jefferey Jaxen
March 15, 2017

A study from West Africa’s Guinea-Bissau discovered that all-cause infant mortality more than doubled after the introduction of the DTP vaccination.

An observational study from the West African country Guinea-Bissau titled, “The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment,” [i] examined the introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) in an urban community in Guinea-Bissau in the early 1980s. The World Health Organization introduced the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) in low-income countries in the 1970s with the goal of universal immunization for all children. In the introduction, the study’s authors state, “Except for the measles vaccines, surprisingly few studies examined the introduction of vaccines and their impact on child survival.”

The purpose of the study was to examine what happens to child survival when DTP and OPV were introduced in low-income countries. A community study [ii] of the state of nutrition and family structure found that severe malnutrition was not evident in urban Guinea-Bissau although it was initially assumed to be the main cause of the under-five mortality rate.

The study findings emerged from a child population that had been followed with 3-monthly nutritional weighing sessions since 1978. From June 1981 DTP and OPV were offered from 3 months of age at these sessions. Due to the 3-monthly intervals between sessions, the children were allocated by birthday in a ‘natural experiment’ to receive vaccinations early or late between 3 and 5 months of age. The study included children who were greater than 6 months of age when vaccinations started and children born until the end of December 1983. The researchers compared mortality between 3 and 5 months of age of DTP-vaccinated and not-yet-DTP- vaccinated children in Cox proportional hazard models.

When mortality was compared, the mortality hazard ratio (HR) among 3-5-month-old children having received the DTP (±OPV) was 5.00 compared with not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children [i.e. a 400% increase]. According to the authors, differences in background factors did not explain the effect. All-cause infant mortality after 3 months of age increased after the introduction of these vaccines (2.12 (1.07–4.19)) [i.e. a 212% increase]. However, the study findings revealed the negative effect was particularly strong for children who had received DTP-only and no OPV (10.0 (2.61–38.6)).

The researchers concluded:

“DTP was associated with increased mortality; OPV may modify the effect of DTP.”

It appears this early Guinea-Bissau study foreshadowed a line of documented injury and mortality caused by the DPT. A 2000 BMJ article found that a population of vaccinated infants, also from Guinea-Bissau, receiving one dose of DTP or polio vaccines had higher mortality than children who had received none of these vaccines. A 2004 observational study showed a doubling of the mortality rate of infants vaccinated with the single dose of DPT vaccine and increasing mortality rates after the second and third doses.[iii] A 2011 study of Guinea-Bissau females found DTP vaccine administered simultaneously with measles vaccine is also associated with increased morbidity and poor growth in girls.[iv]

In the United States, the DTP vaccine received major public spotlight and pushback after the 1985 book DPT: A Shot in the Dark was published tracing its development and describing its risks. Recently complied reports show settlements of injury and deaths from the TDap, DTP, and DPT vaccines within the United States Vaccine Court jumped 75% from $5.5 million in 2014 to $9.8 million in 2015.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com

Censorship: School to silence teacher who dared to question vaccines in the classroom

Image: School to silence teacher who dared to question vaccines in the classroom
Source: NaturalNewscom
Ethan Huff
March 22, 2017

Institutions of education are supposed to be safe places where individuals are free to learn, and where instructors are free to teach – even on subjects that some might consider to be “controversial.” But at Grand Erie High School in Waterford, Canada, teachers are apparently only allowed to teach what the government says they can teach, even when doing so puts students’ lives at risk.

Timothy Sullivan, a teacher at Grand Erie, learned this the hard way recently after he was found guilty of “misconduct” for trying to educate his students about the dangers of vaccines. Pointing out what’s publicly available in manufacturer-issued vaccine package inserts, Sullivan warned his students not to believe everything they hear on television or from public health officials about vaccine safety, and for this he is now paying the price.

Reports indicate that Sullivan was forced to face a disciplinary hearing for telling his students the truth, and could ultimately face the suspension of his teaching role – all for merely doing his job as a professional educator. Since the nurses at his school who were administering vaccines during a recent vaccine clinic were failing to explain to students that there are, indeed, risks involved with vaccination, Sullivan stepped in and warned them himself.

Doing this led to major backlash at the government facility, where he was falsely accused of “threatening” students and “shouting” at them. What Sullivan apparently did was simply go near the line of students waiting to be jabbed in the school’s cafeteria and remind them about the side effects listed in the package inserts for the vaccines that they were about to receive.

“I work in a school where I’m responsible for young people,” Sullivan explained during testimony at his hearing, for which he represented himself. “What was taking place 10 steps from my door was assault and battery,” he added about the vaccine clinic, noting that he didn’t actually tell his students not to get vaccinated, but rather to consider the facts that they weren’t receiving from the nurses who were administering them. “I had an obligation to go do something about it.”

School administrators who lie to students about vaccine safety are promoters of chemical violence against children

The nurses who were putting on the vaccine clinic – none of whom were properly doing their jobs by explaining to students the risks of vaccines – claim that Sullivan’s comments about vaccines made them “uncomfortable.” This is rather ironic, considering the nurses weren’t at all concerned that possible side effects of the vaccines they were administering could make students physically uncomfortable – or possibly even kill them.

Sullivan, in his own defense, argued before the panel that his students have a right to know that the substances being injected into their bodies could injure or kill them. This information should have been made available to students as part of the vaccine clinic, and yet it wasn’t, suggesting that the school itself was, indeed, engaged in chemical child abuse.

And yet the panel ultimately took the school’s side in condemning Sullivan for his actions, declaring them to be inappropriate. He was eventually declared guilty of professional misconduct by the Ontario College of Teachers, and must now enroll in and complete a series of courses on professional boundaries, professional ethics – and get this – “anger management.”

“I felt it was my role to make students aware of possible side effects,” Sullivan stated before the panel. “I’m negligent if I don’t point out different side effects of products. I’m responsible for every student in the school. It was actually one of the most professional things I did, making students aware of the side effects.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources for this article include:

TheVaccineReaction.org

TheStar.com

 

Pro-vaccine study finds that flu shots barely work at all in people over age 50

Image: Pro-vaccine study finds that flu shots barely work at all in people over age 50
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 22, 2017

A recent study published in the journal Vaccine has shown that vaccine effectiveness can vary widely based upon the age of the patient. The research intended on demonstrating the efficacy of pandemic flu vaccines, but instead revealed something far more telling: vaccines are not useful for those that are generally considered to be some of the most vulnerable people in our population.

Even the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is well aware of this dichotomy: The agency notes that vaccines work best in healthy adults and children, and writes, “Older people with weaker immune systems often have a lower protective immune response after flu vaccination compared to younger, healthier people. This can result in lower vaccine effectiveness in these people.”

This recent study, which was a multinational collaborative effort that was led by researchers from the University of Nottingham, has shown that adults over the age of 50 were substantially less likely to obtain any benefit from vaccination. Vaccines containing an adjuvant — an additive intended to provoke the immune system — actually displayed the least degree of benefit. The researchers posit that this reduced efficacy may be due the fact that adults are more likely to already have developed antibodies to a similar strain of the flu virus, which they note also corresponds to a lower rate of flu virus infection within the age group.

The finding goes along with previous research that has demonstrated vaccines have very little to offer older populations — despite the widespread belief that vaccines are always effective for everyone.

Sharyl Attkisson reported on a similar phenomenon in 2015. Attkisson writes that as it was described to her, “Public health experts long assumed flu shots were effective in the elderly. But, paradoxically, all the studies done failed to demonstrate a benefit. Instead of considering that they, the experts, could be wrong – instead of believing the scientific data – the public health experts assumed the studies were wrong.”

Attkisson reports that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) set out to conduct a study that would definitely prove the effectiveness of vaccines in the elderly, but again what they found was much to their own dismay. No matter how they tried to frame it, vaccines simply did not appear to confer benefits to older populations. In fact, their research illustrated quite the opposite: widespread flu vaccination seemed to coincide with a marked increase in mortality among older Americans. The researchers stated in their discussion of their findings, “Our findings indicate that the mortality benefits of influenza vaccination may be substantially less than previously thought…”

A meta-analysis of several studies that was published more than a decade ago claimed that flu vaccines prevented up to half of all winter deaths in senior citizens. Unsurprisingly, this finding has been heavily scrutinized. For example, research has shown that only an average of 1,000 seniors succumb to the flu each season to begin with — which is approximately 5 percent of all excess winter deaths in the elderly. So how can the flu shot prevent 50 percent of all winter deaths, when the flu only causes 5 percent of those deaths to begin with? (RELATED: Keep up with the latest vaccine research at Vaccines.news)

As Scientific American explains, much of this so-called “data” on the flu vaccine’s efficacy is now being attributed to what is known as the “healthy user effect.” To put it simply, very sick and frail elderly people usually do not get vaccinated, because the risk is too great. When it comes to the elderly, unvaccinated individuals are often quite sick to begin with. People who chose to get flu shots are usually healthy and are more likely to survive anyway — even before they get vaccinated.

Studies have also shown that vaccines may not be very effective in young children either. A 2012 Cochrane Collaboration review concluded that in children under the age of 2, vaccines were not significantly more effective at preventing the flu than a placebo. Cochrane group analyses also suggested that in children over the age of 2, vaccination relayed a mere 3.6 percent reduction in absolute risk of getting the flu. With all the risks surrounding the flu shot, does it still seem worth it?

Read More At:NaturalNews.com

Sources:

ScienceDaily.com

CDC.gov

SharylAttkisson.com

ScientificAmerican.com