EU Documentary: HPV Crisis, Real or Manufactured?
Watch this documentary about girls like Julia, Rebecca, Herlth, and Emily, who received and were severely injured by the Gardasil HPV Vaccine. Medical professionals speak out about the deception behind these recommended vaccinations and the pain caused by them.
Video Link: https://vimeo.com/277078546/7812e25bb1
By Barbara Loe Fisher
“After my son was injured in 1980 by the crude, toxic whole cell pertussis vaccine in DPT shots, I joined with other parents of DPT vaccine injured children in 1982 to establish the charity known today as the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) with the mission of preventing vaccine injuries and deaths through public education. We have defended the legal right to make voluntary decisions about vaccination for 41 years.
Since then, I have watched the Public Health Empire grow and use “no exceptions” vaccination laws as the tip of the spear in the great culture war gripping this and other nations around the world. It is an ideological and political war that has been going on since the 19th century, pitting those who believe in the right to autonomy and liberty against those who believe in centralized, authoritarian government control. How it ends will define what freedom means for human populations around the world during this and many centuries to come.”
Most turbo cancers are Stage 3 or 4 by the time they’re diagnosed, yet symptoms only arose days or weeks ago. They grow and spread so rapidly, that many patients die before treatment can even begin. Most turbo cancers are also resistant to conventional treatment.
By
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.
Story at a glance:
In a Sept. 22, Highwire interview (video below), Canadian oncologist and cancer researcher Dr. William Makis discussed the alarming rise in post-jab “turbo cancers,” a term coined to describe incredibly rapid-growing cancers in people who have received one or more COVID-19 jabs.
One example of this is detailed in a September case report co-written by Dr. Peter McCullough. It describes the rapid deterioration of a 56-year-old man who within days of his COVID-19 shot developed Bell’s palsy, which progressed into an aggressive tumor on his ear and face.
“The malignancy was of cutaneous origin and the case showed symptoms consistent with Bell’s palsy and trigeminal neuralgia beginning four days post-vaccination … In this study we describe all aspects of this case and discuss possible causal links between the rapid emergence of this metastatic cancer and mRNA vaccination.
“We place this within the context of multiple immune impairments potentially related to the mRNA injections that would be expected to potentiate more aggressive presentation and progression of cancer.
“The type of malignancy we describe suggests a population risk for occurrence of a large variety of relatively common basaloid phenotype cancer cells, which may have the potential for metastatic disease. This can be avoidable with early diagnosis and adequate treatment.
“Since facial paralysis/pain is one of the more common adverse neurological events following mRNA injection, careful inspection of cutaneous/soft tissue should be conducted to rule out malignancy.
“An extensive literature review is carried out, in order to elucidate the toxicity of mRNA vaccination that may have led to the death of this patient. Preventive and precise routine clinical investigations can potentially avoid future mortalities.”
Another case report, published in November 2021, described the remarkably rapid progression of angioimmunoblastic T cell lymphoma in a 66-year-old man, mere days after he got his third Pfizer shot.
Ironically, he got the shot to protect him during chemotherapy, and in eight days, the cancer just exploded and spread like wildfire. According to Makis, that kind of progression would normally take a couple of years, or at most a few months.
Turbo cancers — a new COVID era phenomenon
As noted by Makis, we’re now seeing the emergence of rapid-growing cancers of the breast, colon, esophagus, kidney, liver, pancreas, bile duct, brain, lung and blood — including exceedingly rare types of cancer.
But that’s not all. These cancers are showing up in young people, many under the age of 30, with no family history of cancer. They’re showing up in pregnant women and young children. Equally odd is the fact that most are Stage 3 or 4 by the time they’re diagnosed, yet symptoms only arose days or weeks ago.
The cancers grow and spread so rapidly, that many of these patients die before treatment can even begin. Most of them are also resistant to conventional treatment and don’t respond. “I’ve never seen cancer behave like this,” Makis says, and he should know, having diagnosed 20,000 cancer patients in his career so far.
Makis first caught wind of this phenomenon when he started tracking the sudden deaths of Canadian doctors, who had to take the full battery of COVID-19 shots to keep their jobs.
Within months, there was a rash of sudden deaths among them, many due to heart attacks and dying in their sleep. But there was also a large group of doctors who developed aggressive cancers.
Makis points out that when you look at GoFundMe pages asking for donations for cancer treatment, a large portion of these people are in professions that were mandated to take the shots, such as medical professionals and school teachers, police officers, firefighters, military personnel and airline crews.
Potential mechanisms of action
When asked how the COVID-19 shots might be causing these turbo cancers, Makis describes several possible mechanisms that can lead to cancer in susceptible individuals. The primary one is the modification of the mRNA used.
The COVID-19 shots do not contain the identical mRNA found in the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The mRNA has been genetically manipulated in a process called “codon optimization,” where pseudouridine is inserted to stabilize the RNA and prevent rapid breakdown.
The reason codon optimization was used is because it’s difficult to get your body to produce a given protein by injecting mRNA.
Not only is it rapidly destroyed, but for the injection to work, it also needs higher levels of protein expression than is naturally possible.
They bypassed this problem by making substitutions in the genetic instructions. You can swap out certain nucleotides (three nucleotides make up a codon) and still end up with the same protein in the end, but the increased efficiency comes at a terrible cost.
When substituting parts of the code in this way, the resulting protein can easily get misfolded, and this has been linked to a variety of chronic diseases, including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease and heart failure.
As explained by Makis, the pseudouridine insertion can also suppress your innate immune surveillance by dampening the activity of toll-like receptors, and one downstream effect of that is reduced cancer surveillance. “The more mRNA shots you take, the greater the immune system damage, the greater your risk of impaired cancer surveillance and hence, the greater your risk of turbo cancer.”
Other possible mechanisms include:
As a result, you become more prone to infection because your immune system no longer puts up a fight against the antigen. However, the same antibodies that target infections also target cancer cells, so your cancer risk goes up as well.
Rise in cancer will likely be a long-term trend
Within the first year of the rollout of the COVID-19 shots, all-cause mortality started rising in countries around the world, and again, it’s younger, working-age people who are dying at unprecedented rates.
The good news is that booster uptake has cratered in the last six months. In Canada, only 5% to 6% have gotten boosted. The bad news is that the avalanche of cancers is likely to continue long-term.
Cancer deaths are also likely to continue going up because if we don’t know the exact mechanism behind them, we cannot treat them, Makis notes and both chemo and radiation are proving useless. They don’t work against these rapid-onset cancers.
A key take-home here is that the more mRNA shots you take, the greater the immune system damage, the greater your risk of impaired cancer surveillance and hence, the greater your risk of turbo cancer.
Lethal post-jab brain and heart injuries
Cancer isn’t the only hazard the jabbed face. In the video below, John Campbell, a retired nurse educator, reviews the case report of a 76-year-old man with Parkinson’s disease who died three weeks after receiving his third COVID-19 shot. The autopsy revealed massive heart and brain damage.
The first jab he got was AstraZeneca’s adenoviral vector shot. The subsequent two were by Pfizer.
As noted by Campbell, while some argue that heart and brain damage is a risk of COVID-19 infection but not the shots, this case report conclusively demonstrated that this damage was caused by the shots and not natural infection.
As reported in the abstract:
“Histopathological analyses of the brain uncovered previously unsuspected findings, including acute vasculitis … as well as multifocal necrotizing encephalitis of unknown etiology with pronounced inflammation including glial and lymphocytic reaction.
“In the heart, signs of chronic cardiomyopathy as well as mild acute lympho-histiocytic myocarditis and vasculitis were present. Although there was no history of COVID-19 for this patient, immunohistochemistry for SARS-CoV-2 antigens (spike and nucleocapsid proteins) was performed.
“Surprisingly, only spike protein but no nucleocapsid protein could be detected within the foci of inflammation in both the brain and the heart, particularly in the endothelial cells of small blood vessels.
“Since no nucleocapsid protein could be detected, the presence of spike protein must be ascribed to vaccination rather than to viral infection. The findings corroborate previous reports of encephalitis and myocarditis caused by gene-based COVID-19 vaccines.”
Is fertility being affected as well?
Recent research also confirms earlier reports of menstrual breakthrough bleeding among pre-, peri- and postmenopausal women, the implications of which are still unknown.
As reported by Medical Xpress, Oct. 2:
“Research by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Norway, suggests that COVID-19 vaccines or the body’s response to them can lead to unexpected vaginal bleeding in women. This phenomenon was observed in women across different reproductive stages.
“In a paper, ‘Unexpected vaginal bleeding and COVID-19 vaccination in nonmenstruating women,’ published in Science Advances, the team of public health researchers detail their findings that raise the possibility that the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which is targeted by the vaccines, might be involved in this phenomenon …
“The study included approximately 22,000 participants, aged 32 to 64, from the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study (MoBa) and the Senior cohort, ages 65 to 80.
“Unexpected vaginal bleeding was reported in 3.3% of postmenopausal women, 14.1% of perimenopausal women, and 13.1% of premenopausal women, more than three times the expected rates. Around half of the women who reported unexpected vaginal bleeding experienced it within 28 days after a COVID-19 vaccination.”
Importantly, the study found that only 31% of women who reported abnormal bleeding patterns sought medical care for it, and even fewer sought medical help when the bleeding occurred after their COVID-19 shot.
As a result, this side effect is not being captured by healthcare-related databases.
Got the jab? Take action to safeguard your health
If you already got one or more jabs and now have concerns about your health, what can you do? Well, first and foremost, never take another COVID-19 booster, another mRNA gene therapy shot or a regular vaccine. You need to end the assault on your system.
If you develop symptoms you didn’t have before your shot, I would encourage you to seek out expert help.
Originally published by Mercola.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Barbara Loe Fisher’s commentary highlights the alarming erosion of freedom of thought, speech, and conscience, particularly in the context of informed consent and advocacy. Please take a moment to watch her message… (Scroll down past the donation request.)
By
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.
Our governments should be protecting our children, and independent studies into the vaccination program are long overdue. The reason they will not tackle this hot potato is purely financial: It could cost billions in compensation and could potentially bankrupt countries.
We are constantly told by our health authorities that childhood vaccinations help train young immune systems and that vaccinated children are healthier than unvaccinated.
How do governments know this? They don’t. It is pure supposition. They have no definitive proof because of a lack of double-blind placebo-controlled trials and no official vax versus unvaxxed studies.
But more than 100 official papers do exist and they do not support government assertions. Vaccinated children suffer higher levels of chronic illness and autoimmune disease than unvaccinated children.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., is co-author of a book that looks at all those papers. He is professor emeritus of biology at Simpson University in Redding, California, and like most parents, he believed in childhood vaccination until his 15-month-old son was injured by three vaccines: diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP), oral polio and haemophilus influenzae type b (HIB).
“He had an ear infection at the time and should not have received the vaccines, but the doctor said it was fine,” said Hooker. “He lost eye contact, was unable to walk unaided and he never recovered.”
And yes, he did go on to get the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine because the doctors did not make the association between his son’s regression and the vaccines, and neither had Hooker. His son is now 25, non-verbal, has gastrointestinal problems, mitochondrial dysfunction and is diagnosed with autism. There is no cure.
For 25 years, Hooker, who also has a degree in chemical engineering, has campaigned for recognition of vaccine injury and thought he would get somewhere in 2014 after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) epidemiologist and senior researcher Dr. William Thompson sent him a study that showed a correlation between autism, the MMR and African American boys.
It was a study Thompson sat on for 10 years before it was released. It showed that African American children who received the MMR before they reached 36 months had 2.4 times greater odds of an autism diagnosis compared with children receiving the MMR after 36 months.
It should have been a huge red flag but had no major impact and was not widely reported in mainstream media, although President Donald Trump wanted to create a Vaccine Safety Commission to conduct these studies. However, he accepted $1 million from Pfizer for his inauguration and unsurprisingly, the Vaccine Safety Commission was shot down before it was even formed.
For 38 years, Dr. Anthony Fauci was head of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He has been a barrier to vax vs unvaxxed studies and claimed that double-blind placebo-controlled vaccine trials that had been conducted contained all the evidence needed.
When challenged by lawyers Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (now running for president) and Aaron Siri in 2017, on behalf of Del Bigtree, the presenter and vaccine injury campaigner who created the Informed Consent Action Network, Fauci said he would send the evidence. It never materialized so they sent a legal demand.
On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services admitted in writing that no such studies existed.
Many vaccines have long-term health impacts that do not become evident for years. In a 1999 interview, Fauci acknowledged that many severe injuries would remain hidden, and if the agency rushed vaccines to approval “then you find out that it takes 12 years for all hell to break loose, and then what have you done?”
American children receive 71 vaccination doses, and the heads of the vaccine program were unable to produce any double-blind placebo-controlled trial to support their safety.
The CDC says that 1 in 36 children has a diagnosis of autism and the numbers are similar in the U.K., but no one has identified a cause.
A shocking fact is that when vaccine manufacturers create a childhood vaccine, they do not use saline for the control group. They will either use a different vaccine, a different version of the vaccine they are testing or an adjuvant.
For example, neurotoxic, amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulphate, or AAHS, an adjuvant, was used as a control in the human papillomavirus (HPV) Gardasil trial with devastating results.
Governments justify this by saying that adverse events are only “one in a million.” This figure is quoted by all Western countries with vaccine programs but how have they come to it?
The U.S. government compares the number of vaccine injuries compensated by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program with the total number of vaccines given in the U.S. Most vaccine-injured people have no idea about the scheme and doctors rarely correlate vaccination injury to the onset of debilitating symptoms.
Most doctors deny it exists. In the U.K., people can apply to the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, but most do not know about this either. The scheme is restrictive, a claimant must prove 60% disability caused by vaccines with a small one-off payment of 120,000 euros if successful.
The truth will always be out and Hooker and his friend RFK Jr. have found elusive, but official, vax vs unvaxxed publications hidden in the National Institutes of Health archive in the global research database PubMed.
Hooker said: “We have so far identified over 100 peer-reviewed articles from open, peer-reviewed, scientific, and medical literature.”
Here are the results from just two, but without fail the book’s studies show that vaccinated children fare worse when it comes to robust health. The numbers differ slightly, which is to be expected, but unvaccinated children are in the bottom percentile.
A particularly shocking finding in the following study is that no unvaccinated children suffer from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared with 5.3% of the vaccinated group.
The “Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination” is by James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D., president and CEO of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Dr. Paul Thomas, a pediatrician from Portland, Oregon, who was struck off because of the study, reinstated, then resigned due to restrictions on his terms of practice.
In this powerful paper, they took a unique approach to investigating the vax versus unvaxxed health differences of the children in Thomas’ medical practice. Rather than examining whether children had been diagnosed with the disorders studied, they compared the number of office visits associated with specific diagnoses in vax versus unvaxxed children.
Lyons-Weiler wrote: “Our measure, the Relative Incidence of Office Visits (RIOV), is sensitive to the severity of disease and disorder — specifically, the disease burden.”
RIOV also reflects the frequency of recurring diseases such as fever, ear infections and respiratory infections.
They compared 2,763 fully and partially vaccinated children with 561 unvaccinated children.
The vaccinated children had significantly more office visits associated with ear infections, conjunctivitis, breathing issues, anemia, eczema, behavioral issues, gastroenteritis, weight and eating disorders and respiratory infections than the unvaccinated children, although unvaccinated children experienced more chickenpox and pertussis (whooping cough).
Due to the meager rates of certain conditions in Thomas’ practice, such as developmental disorders, the researchers could not determine statistically significant differences between the two groups. However, the ADHD figures were significant, 5.3% vaccinated compared with zero unvaccinated.
The study was published in November 2020 in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health which then came under pressure to retract it, which it did.
The retraction statement included a brief, vague explanation: “Following publication, concerns were brought to the attention of the editorial office regarding the validity conclusions of the published research.”
Below are the graphs from the study.
The other example study considered in this article is Analysis of Health Outcomes in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children: Developmental Delays, Asthma, Ear Infections and Gastrointestinal Disorders conducted by Hooker and medical research journalist Neil Miller and published in the journal SAGE Open Medicine in 2020.
They examined the medical records from three different pediatric practices in the U.S. They followed 2,047 patients from birth to a minimum age of three years, and a maximum age of 12.5 years.
They divided the children into two groups: those who received any vaccines before their first birthday (69.1%) and those who did not (30.9%). The authors accounted for diagnoses only after a child’s first birthday to establish that vaccination preceded the first diagnosis of illness or disorder.
As shown in Figure 2.4, vaccinated children were diagnosed with developmental delays at 2.18 times greater odds, asthma at 4.49 times greater odds and ear infections at 2.13 times greater odds than unvaccinated children. These odds ratios were statistically significant.
Breastfeeding provided protection against a child developing asthma but not as much as for breastfed and unvaccinated babies. For example, unvaccinated babies who were bottle-fed were 5.4 times more likely to develop asthma than unvaccinated breastfed babies. Vaccinated and breastfed babies were 10.7 times more likely to develop asthma while vaccinated and bottle-fed babies were 23.8 times more likely to develop asthma.
Our governments should be protecting our children, and independent studies into the vaccination program are long overdue.
The reason they will not tackle this hot potato is purely financial: It could cost billions in compensation and could potentially bankrupt countries. So it is up to parents to ask questions, research and protect their children.
Read more in the new book “Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak” by RFK Jr. and Hooker.
Originally published by The Conservative Woman.
Sally Beck is a freelance journalist with 30 years of experience in writing for national newspapers and magazines. She has reported on vaccines since the controversy began with the MMR vaccine in 1998.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
By
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.
While the first three parts of “COVID Unmasked” depict the brutality and cruelty we lived through during COVID-19, Part 4 is the antidote. It offers a vision for how we can break out of this downward spiral to tyranny.
Last week, I binge-watched CHD.TV’s premiere of “COVID Unmasked.” This four-part series is a must-see!
I am not a huge TV fan, but now that CHD.TV is on Roku (wow!), I settled down on my living room couch to watch all the episodes — and it was worth it!
The series picks out key highlights, clips and quotes from the COVID-19 nightmare with narration that sparkles with irony and sarcasm — such as when the film points out that not only was the coronavirus predicted decades ago, but even its origin from a “wet market” in China was “foretold.”
But the series isn’t just a chronicle. It delves deeply into some of the personalities behind COVID-19 — including Bill Gates — comparing Gates’ empire-building to that of John D. Rockefeller, who was perhaps the first modern-day globalist.
Part 2 of “COVID Unmasked” compares Nazi medical experiments with COVID-19 protocols. It explores the Nuremberg Code, which prohibits precisely what became commonplace during COVID-19 — compulsory medical experiments without informed consent.
The series shows us exactly what a confidence game like COVID-19 entails — providing scenes from movies where characters reveal how it’s done. A typical con starts with something reasonable, yet quickly moves the victim, almost unnoticeably, to a place that the person would never have tolerated at the beginning.
The COVID-19 con started with “just two weeks” and “just masks” and “just distancing” and then moved rapidly to truly extraordinary deprivations of freedom — ankle bracelets, anal swabbing, implanted microchips, infrared temperature scanning, robotic mask patrols in Japan, vaccine passports and quarantine camps.
Several clips depict Yuval Noah Harari, a key guru of “The Great Reset,” explaining that we humans are merely “hackable animals” whose free will does not exist. This episode ends with an extraordinary quotation from Aldous Huxley, author of “Brave New World.”
Although Huxley wrote the novel in 1932, he refined his thinking in 1961, including this prescient prediction, made during a speech to the Tavistock Group, at the California Medical School in Berkeley, California:
“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship with tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods.
“And this seems to be the final revolution.”
While the first three parts of “COVID Unmasked” depict the brutality and cruelty we lived through during COVID-19, Part 4 is the antidote. It offers a vision for how we can break out of this downward spiral to tyranny.
If you have time for only one episode, then start with Part 4 and work your way back.
Part 4 starts with a quotation from Jonathan Swift, author of “Gulliver’s Travels,” dated 1726:
“The disease to which the whole race of mankind is subject: the nobility contending for power, the people for liberty, and the King for absolute dominion.”
Although we no longer call our elites “nobility” nor our highest authority “King,” the premise applies as much today as it did 300 years ago: Our presidents and governors seek unbridled dominion, corporate and bureaucratic elites seek power, and “We the People” seek freedom.
This episode explores the power of U.S. county sheriffs, the officials with governmental power under the U.S. Constitution in more than 3,000 counties. I was delighted to see footage of sheriffs from Ohio, California, Arizona, Illinois, New York, Oregon, Texas and Michigan who calmly explained why they did not and would not enforce unconstitutional emergency orders, including mask mandates and lockdowns.
Part 4 also highlights footage from demonstrations in Europe where police joined with protestors, taking off helmets in solidarity. There are vignettes of parents standing up for their children at school board meetings, reviling mindless orders to mask young children.
Catherine Austin Fitts, publisher of “The Solari Report,” encapsulates the two competing visions at the end — the vision of human freedom endowed by our Creator as expressed in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence versus a technocratic vision of humans as natural resources or “hackable animals.”
The stark choice still lies ahead — to uphold our rights and bring law enforcement to our side or to succumb to despotism. The film depicts this choice in beautiful scenes from contact sports — basketball, soccer, hockey — athletes manifesting freedom contrasted with a COVID-19 vision made permanent: fear, isolation, separation and transhumanist degradation.
The four-part series is a wonderful achievement. I am grateful and proud that Steve Miller, its creator, invited CHD.TV to host the premiere.
If you’re like me, you’ll laugh, you’ll cry and you’ll cringe, but ultimately you will be inspired that if we stand together, we shall overcome.
Watch Part 1:
Watch Part 2:
Watch Part 3:
Watch Part 4:
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
By
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.
A peer-reviewed study published Sept. 19 in The Lancet provides “pretty conclusive proof” that mRNA from the COVID-19 vaccines migrates into breast milk, according to internet lecturer John Campbell, Ph.D. — despite claims by regulators, public officials and doctors that the mRNA in the vaccine would stay localized at the injection site.
A new peer-reviewed study provides “pretty conclusive proof” that mRNA from the COVID-19 vaccines migrates into breast milk — “probably for the first 48 hours after vaccination,” according to internet lecturer John Campbell, Ph.D.
Campbell, a retired emergency room nurse, teacher and author of two nursing textbooks, reviewed the study, published Sept. 19 in The Lancet, in a video presentation.
According to the study, the breast milk of 10 of 13 women who took the vaccine tested positive for mRNA up to 45 hours after the vaccine was administered.
The study confirmed the transportation of the synthetic mRNA lipid nanoparticles to the mammary glands via the bloodstream or lymphatic system, leading to its presence in breast milk, Campbell said.
“This is consistent with other studies, so there’s no real debate about this anymore,” he added.
The study did not investigate the effects of the contaminated breast milk on infants, Campbell said.
A study last year in JAMA Pediatrics produced similar results.
Regulatory bodies failed to disclose risk
According to Campbell, regulators, public officials and doctors worldwide initially claimed the mRNA in the vaccine would stay localized at the injection site.
For example, mothers were reassured by the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine (ABM) in a statement released on Dec. 14, 2020, that the vaccine lipid was unlikely to enter the bloodstream and reach breast tissue.
“If it does, it is even less likely that either the intact nanoparticle or mRNA transfer into milk,” the ABM said.
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology had — and continues to promote — a similar message.
Referring to the lipid nanoparticles carrying the mRNA, Campbell said, “If these people had gone to the bother of talking to anyone who specializes in pharmacokinetics … they would have said, ‘Well, with this size particle, it’s … almost certain to be distributed everywhere.’”
“It goes to your liver. It goes to your heart,” he said. “In this case, through the breasts. … It probably goes everywhere. It’s a pity we weren’t told.”
Campbell said he was “pretty cross” because such a disclosure would have reversed his decision to get vaccinated.
He pointed out that in the initial trials, breastfeeding mothers, pregnant women and infants were excluded, “yet the regulatory body still decided to go ahead and give these vaccines [to these groups] which weren’t tested.”
“That’s a question they really need to answer,” he said.
mRNA ‘hijack[s] natural process of genetic communication’
Referring to an illustration provided in the study, Campbell said synthetic mRNA can “hijack the natural process of genetic communication.”
He described the mechanism of action this way:
Campbell emphasized that the only way the mRNA could get to the breast tissue would be if it were “systemically absorbed.”
mRNA vaccine manufacturing built on ‘completely flawed’ science
Speaking of other biodistribution studies, Campbell said the lipid nanoparticles could find their way to the myocardium, perhaps the vascular endothelium in the coronary vessels, creating an autoimmune response.
RNA from vaccines can produce antigens that stimulate inflammatory responses from cytotoxic T-cells. Even lipid nanoparticles can potentially cause inflammatory reactions, Campbell said.
The huge mRNA manufacturing efforts “are based on a completely flawed … fundamental scientific problem … until the liquid nanoparticle systemic distribution problem is solved,” Campbell said. “And yet, this massive investment is going ahead, looking to replace the traditional vaccines.”
According to Campbell, pharmaceutical companies are overlooking these problems because they will be able to develop new patentable products that ensure vast new income streams.
He emphasized the need for large-scale epidemiological surveys, conducted by organizations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.K.’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, to gather more information about potential risks associated with the systemic distribution of the vaccines.
Campbell discussed the HT-29 cell line, derived from colon cancer tumors, that has been used in vitro since 1964 to study absorption, transport and secretion by intestinal cells.
The study exposed these cells to the mother’s milk, which failed to produce the spike protein. Campbell said this was inconclusive as they mimic only intestinal cells, not all other cells exposed to the mRNA.
Campbell also called for further research on the effect on newborns and for healthcare workers to have candid discussions with lactating mothers before vaccination.
Manufacturers should “give us really good reasons why lipid nanoparticles will not be systemically distributed in their new products,” Campbell said.
“Let us as a human race proceed with humility — although I don’t think there’s much chance of that,” he said.
Watch here:
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
by Maryanne Demasi
“Buckhaults, who has a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology, said “there is a very real hazard” that these fragments of foreign DNA can insert themselves into a person’s own genome and become a “permanent fixture of the cell.”