Arizona Cardiologist Responds to Critics Regarding Measles and Vaccines#Family#iBelieve#Pregnancy

 Why All the Anger?

by Dr. Jack Wolfson
Special to Health Impact News

I recently did an interview which was aired on NBC Phoenix. I was asked my opinion on vaccinations in response to the current measles outbreaks that have occurred at Disneyland in California. My reply has generated quite a bit of anger in thousands of people.

There has also been a tremendous amount of support to my comments and opinions. In short, The Society Against Injecting Our Kids With Chemicals (TSAIOKWC for short) has a lot of followers.

I want to address all this misguided anger and see if we can re-direct it where it belongs.

  1. Be angry at food companies. Sugar cereals, donuts, cookies, and cupcakes lead to millions of deaths per year. At its worst, chicken pox killed 100 people per year. If those chicken pox people didn’t eat cereal and donuts, they may still be alive. Call up Nabisco and Kellogg’s and complain. Protest their products. Send THEM hate-mail.
  2. Be angry at fast food restaurants. Tortured meat burgers, pesticide fries, and hormone milkshakes are the problem. The problem is not Hepatitis B which is a virus contracted by drug users and those who sleep with prostitutes. And you want to inject that vaccine into your newborn?
  3. Be angry at the companies who make your toxic laundry detergent, fabric softener, and dryer sheets. You and your children are wearing and breathing known carcinogens (they cause cancer). Call Bounce and Downy and let them know. These products kill more people than mumps, a virus which actually doesn’t cause anyone to die. Same with hepatitis A, a watery diarrhea.
  4. Be angry at all the companies spewing pollution into our environment. These chemicals and heavy metals are known to cause autism, heart disease, cancer, autoimmune disease and every other health problem. Worldwide, these lead to 10’s of millions of deaths every year. Measles deaths are a tiny fraction compared to pollution.
  5. Be angry at your parents for not breastfeeding you, co-sleeping with you, and stuffing your face with Domino’s so they can buy more Tide and finish the laundry. Breastfeeding protects your children from many infectious diseases.
  6. Be angry with your doctor for being close-minded and not disclosing the ingredients in vaccines (not that they read the package insert anyway)…

Continue to the Article Here

www.vaccineimpact.com

CDC: “Possibility” that vaccines rarely trigger autism (AUDIO)#ASD#Family#HearThisWell

 by

...that's right, an infant can safely receive 10,000. vaccines all at once.  Well, this is my floor.  Got to get to my Rotateq (vaccine) board meeting. Looks like 2014 year-end bonuses will hit a new record!
…that’s right, an infant can safely receive 10,000. vaccines all at once. Well, this is my floor. Got to get to my Rotateq (vaccine) board meeting.  Need to prep for my upcoming MSNBC  interview as one of the nation’s top vaccine experts.

 CDC’s immunization safety director says it’s a “possibility” that vaccines rarely trigger autism but “it’s hard to predict who those children might be.” (They’re not even trying.)

A CDC senior epidemiologist stepped forward last week to say that he and his CDC colleagues omitted data that linked MMR vaccine to autism in a 2004 study. The scientist, William Thompson, said “I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information.”

Dr. Frank DeStefano, CDC Director of Immunization Safety

A coauthor of the questioned study is Dr. Frank DeStefano, Director of the CDC Immunization Safety Office. In a telephone interview last week, DeStefano defended the study and reiterated the commonly accepted position that there’s no “causal” link between vaccines and autism.

But he acknowledged the prospect that vaccines might rarely trigger autism…

Continue to the Article Here

www.sharylattkisson.com/

Congressman Blasts CDC for Incestuous Relationship with Vaccine Makers#Family#iBelieve#HearThisWell

Christof Lehmann (nsnbc) : US Congressman Bill Posey demanded, during a half-hour radio interview, transparency about the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and its handling of vaccine safety studies, stressing that the incestuous relationship between the CDC and vaccine makers affects the nations most precious resource, which are children.

…he criticized current and past officials, including Dr. Poul Thorsen, about the former CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding who moved on to become pharma giant Merck’s Vaccine President, as well as the CDC’s current spokesperson on autism and vaccines, Dr. Coleen Boyle. Congressman Posey didn’t stop short of branding former CDC Director Thorsen “a crook”, saying…

 Posey also addressed the issue of orchestrated campaigns on behalf of the CDC and the vaccine industry, noting that people “do a lot of blogging and (are) shredding anyone who dares question the unaccountable bureaucrats”.

nsnbc noted a clear attempt to derail genuine dialog in comments to articles pertaining vaccine safety issues. Within a 12 months period from February 2013 to March 2014, nsnbc registered more than 30 different “commentators with different names, who together attempted to post more than 500 comments, posted from only two different IP addresses…leading directly to a pharma sponsored pro-vaccine website…

Continue to the www.nsnbc.me Article Here

 

Unvaccinated Children Will Be Healthiest Among Future Generations Studies and Surveys Predict#cdcwhistleblower#iBelieve#Asthma

The emerging generation of unvaccinated children will be among the healthiest in the world, and they’ll have their parents to thank. The refusal of significant numbers of parents to vaccinate their children has created a sizable population numbering in the millions around the world and has raised a number of important public health issues, namely why do we continue to vaccinate at all. Unvaccinated children will never have dangerous, immune suppressing, carcinogenic, neurotoxic and infertility promoting chemicals pumped into their bodies. These include those chemicals that are found in almost every FDA approved vaccine.

According to Dr. Buchwald, “the reason vaccinations are promoted with such intensity is to prevent people from realizing that vaccines do not protect and also in the event of an outbreak or an epidemic the vaccinated are as much at risk of becoming infected as the unvaccinated. The truth can be kept hidden if people’s vaccination status remains unknown and if everyone is vaccinated, making a comparison with unvaccinated people impossible. This is also the real reason for the relentless push to vaccinate as many children as possible.”…

Continue to the Article Here

www.linkis.com

What to Expect From Your Doctor When You Say No to Vaccines#CDCWhistleblower#iBelieve#Family

by Missy Fluegge

As more parents have become aware of the risks and side effects of vaccines, many vaccination rates have been declining. Pharmaceutical companies and doctors alike are concerned about this awakening, so they have created training materials to help vaccine providers handle what one manual refers to as “vaccine-hesitant parents.”

When you take your child to their health care provider for a visit, you may have a list of questions to ask them about vaccines. You might be wondering about the risk of autism, the side effects of a vaccine, or the damaging effect dozens of vaccines will have on your child’s immune system.

And, your child’s doctor will have answers: the ones they are trained to give you. Organizations such as the World Health Organization and the National Academy of Pediatrics, two names you might trust but should not, have created brief manuals for doctors, nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants, and even pharmacists, teaching them how to successfully deal with parents who question or refuse vaccines. [1] [2]…

Continue to the Article Here

www.vactruth.com

When I was a young mother and sitting on the well side of the pediatrician’s waiting room, the thought occurred to me that there is nothing but an aisle and air between the well and sick sides of the waiting room.

I began to think this over and later asked my personal D.O. if he could see my young ones as well.  This was perfectly fine and I received a lot of comfort not putting my children at risk of who knows what at the pediatrician’s office.  Keep in mind that a number of vaccines will shed a live virus for up to a month and vaccines occur very frequently at pediatrician offices.  The idea of taking your child to the pediatrician for a “well baby visit” seems ironic with all the germs flying around that place.

 Prior to my first baby, I had thoughts and questions that came to mind, which led me to engage in my own personal research. Among different health choices, I determined not to vaccinate, so I was pleased that there would be no more awkward conversations, moods or side glances to waste my time with, once I chose a different physician.  There are numerous types of doctors, with pleasant office environments, that treat families with respect and do not vaccinate on their premises. 

 

What if HPV does NOT cause cervical cancer?#HPV#HearThisWell#cdcwhistleblower

The title of a paper recently published by McCormack et al in Molecular Cytogenetics says it all, ”Individual karyotypes at the origins of cervical carcinomas.” If the findings in this paper are true, a vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV) is extremely unlikely to protect against cervical cancer.

According to this paper neither genetic predisposition nor HPV infections are necessary for the development of cervical cancer. All cervical cancer cells investigated during the course of this study contained  new abnormal karyotypes. The clonality (genetic makeup) of these new abnormal karyotypes indicates the cervical cancers originated with these karyotypes – NOT from a virus.

In order to grasp the potential significance of these statements, one must have a basic understanding of karyotypes. Most living things have chromosomes, or units of genetic information, in their cells.  The human-karyogramnumber and appearance of chromosomes varies from one species to another. A karyotype is the number, size, and shape of chromosomes in any given organism.

See the graphic representation of the human karyotype to the right. Every human has 23 pairs of chromosomes (46 total) as illustrated, with the last pair on the bottom right determining the sex of any particular human. Any different number would indicate a different species. For example, apes have 48 chromosomes and kangaroos 20. The number, size and shape of the chromosomes in any given cell reveals the species of origin for that cell.

Cancer-specific karyotypes explained

All cancers have individual clonal (cells descended from and genetically identical to the parent cell) karyotypes (number, size and shape of chromosomes) and thus phenotypes (expressed physical traits).  No two cancers are the same.  See the karyotype arrays in the paper named above and referenced at the end of this article.

The karyotype determines the phenotype via thousands of messenger RNAs (about a thousand per chromosome), which in turn make thousands of proteins – at concentrations (copy numbers) that are cancer karyotype-specific – all cancer cells are individually very different from normal cells. In this respect, cancer cells resemble a new cellular species existing within the human body, much like a parasite.

The genes and proteins within cancer cells are expressed at very abnormal concentrations when compared to the normal cells surrounding them. However, since all genes and proteins expressed within cancer cells originated from human cells, cancers are not immunogenic (able to produce an immune response) – despite their huge biological differences from surrounding normal cells.  This is the reason the immune system cannot “see” cancers.

Since the new carcinoma karyotypes express thousands of normal genes abnormally they generate numerous new cancer-specific phenotypes that correlate one-to-one with the new karyotypes of cancer cells.  Cervical cancer cells are one example.

Think about Down syndrome as a model; one extra small 21 chromosome changes a lot.  Cancers typically have 60-70 chromosome variations compared the 46 +1 of Down syndrome.

The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Causes Cervical Cancer Hypothesis

This hypothesis states that HPV encodes proteins which cause cancers as the virus replicates.  Having common transforming proteins, all cervical carcinomas would be more or less the same if this were accurate.  Since viral proteins are foreign to humans, viruses, virus-infected cells and possibly virus-transformed tumor cells would inevitably be immunogenic and as such eliminated by the host’s immune system within weeks to months after infection.

This is the reason why HPV-induced warts are eliminated by the immune system within weeks to months after infection.

This hypothesis raises four questions:

  1. Why would only 1 in 10,000 HPV-infected women develop cervical cancer?
  2. Why would cervical cancers only develop 20 to 50 years after infection? – In other words, why would the virus not cause cancers when it is biochemically active and causing warts, namely before it is neutralized by natural anti-viral immunity?
  3. Why are cervical carcinomas individually very distinct from each other in terms of malignancy, drug-resistance, cell histology, as originally described by Papanicolaou et al. in Science in 1952, although they are presumably caused by the same viral proteins?
  4. Why are cervical carcinomas that are presumably generated by Human Papillomavirus proteins not immunogenic and thus not eliminated by natural antibodies?

Despite over 25 years of research on the HPV causes cancer hypothesis, there are no direct answers to these questions.

Instead poorly defined “co-factors” are mentioned as “collaborators” of HPV in the causation of carcinomas.  Poorly defined cellular mutations are mentioned as the causes of the cervical carcinomas of HPV-negative women.

Moreover, about 30% of cervical cancers are virus-free.   In these cases the virus couldn’t even theoretically be responsible for the cancer.

The Karyotypic Speciation Theory of Cervical Cancer Development

The McCormack et al. study, ”Individual karyotypes at the origins of cervical carcinomas” advances the theory that carcinogenesis is a form of speciation (See Duesberg et al., “Is carcinogenesis a form of speciation?” Cell Cycle 2011).

According to this theory karyotypic evolutions generate new cancer species from normal cells after exposure to carcinogens (e.g. cigarette smoke or X-rays) or after spontaneous mitotic accidents. The common function of carcinogens is the induction of aneuploidy (chromosomal disruption, either gains or losses).  By unbalancing thousands of genes aneuploidy automatically destabilizes the normal human cell karyotype and thus catalyzes random karyotypic variations.  Selections of variants with proliferative phenotypes form nonclonal pre-neoplastic hyperplasias (enhanced growth of non-neoplastic cells in a tissue or an organ) with persistently varying karyotypes. Very rare karyotypic variations form autonomous (capable of replicating without influence from surrounding host cells) new cancer species with individual clonal karyotypes.  Cancer karyotypes are stabilized within narrow margins of variation by clonal selections for cancer-specific autonomy.  Since this mechanism is very inefficient, it predicts long latent periods from carcinogen exposures to cancers with individual clonal cancer karyotypes.

In agreement with this theory, the authors discovered new, cancer-specific karyotypes and phenotypes in all cervical carcinomas tested so far – both in HPV-DNA-positive and negative carcinomas.

Furthermore, they discovered the individual karyotypes of each carcinoma correspond 1 to 1 to their individual phenotypes (e.g. invasiveness and resistance to chemotherapeutic drugs).  This is proof-of-principle that these karyotypes determine the phenotypes of cancers – rather than the defective and latent Papilloma-virus DNAs.

According to the karyotypic speciation theory, the defective viral DNAs of “HPV DNA-positive” carcinomas are functionally irrelevant, because they are not expressing any viral proteins.  Instead they are non-immunogenic fossils of long past Papilloma-virus infections.  As such they are no matches for the thousands of cellular genes that are abnormally expressed in cervical carcinomas.

Karyotypic speciation theory explains paradoxes presented by the HPV causes cancer hypothesis

Why would only 1 in 10,000 HPV-infected women develop cervical cancer? 

According to the karyotypic carcinoma theory this discrepancy is the result of the facts that HPV infection and carcinogenesis are two entirely independent events:

  • No specific correlation exists between HPV and cervical carcinoma. HPV is very common, about 70 to 80% endemic in the American population.  The rest of the population is HPV-free.  The virus is typically sexually transmitted at young age.  Since cervical carcinomas occur in both HPV-positive and HPV-negative females, there is no specific correlative evidence that HPV plays any role in causing cervical cancer.
  • There is also no specific functional correlation between HPV-infection and carcinogenesis. As shown from the clonal karyotypes of cervical cancers, cancers originate from a major rearrangement of the karyotypes of normal cells.  Since this is true for cervical carcinomas of HPV-positive and of HPV-negative females – and is indeed true for all cancers – there is no functional evidence that HPV plays a role in the development of carcinomas.  This conclusion is consistent with the fact that carcinomas with new clonal karyotypes arise only 20 to 50 years (!) after infection by HPV, which we discuss next.

Thus there is neither a specific correlation between the presence and/or the functions; or lack of functions of HPV and carcinogenesis.

Why would cervical cancers only develop 20 to 50 years after HPV infection?

The karyotypic cancer theory sheds light on the presumed long latent periods from HPV infection to cancer. This huge latent period suggests evidence of two entirely unrelated events:

  • Infection with a sexually transmitted, benign Human Papillomavirus at young age, and
  • A cervical cancer diagnosis – 90% of which occur over the age of 50

The presumed long latent period could be a result of the low probability of forming a new autonomous cancer species from a normal somatic cell by random karyotypic rearrangements.  The evolution of a new individual species of cells (cervical cancer cells) with the ability to reproduce independent of influence from surrounding human cells by random karyotypic variations of precursor cells takes time.

The very low probability of evolving a new autonomous cancer species by random karyotypic evolution explains not only the long and unpredictable time intervals between HPV infection (if it occurs) and cervical carcinomas, but aso the classical age bias of all cancers.  The age bias of cancer says that over 90% of all cancers only occur at ages over 50 years.

The authors concluded the chronological discrepancies between HPV infection and carcinogenesis exclude a direct mechanism of action connecting viral infection and the development of cancer.   Instead the time-dependent evolution of a new cancer-specific karyotype supports the karyotypic theory of the origin of cervical carcinomas.

Why do cervical carcinomas have individual karyotypes and phenotypes – rather than common phenotypes as predicted by the virus hyothesis?

The probability of forming the karyotype of a new autonomous cancer-species by random karyotype variations is very low and thus unlikely to ever generate the same new species twice – much again as in conventional speciation.  Thus all cancers caused by karyotypic speciation will have individual, if sometimes similar phenotypes.

Why are presumably viral cervical carcinomas not immunogenic and thus not eliminated by natural antibodies?

The karyotypic speciation theory explains why presumably viral cervical carcinomas are not immunogenic and are thus able to grow in HPV-DNA-positive people, which contain anti-HPV antibodies produced as a result of prior infection(s) by the virus.

According to the karyotypic cancer theory, carcinomas are generated de novo from cellular chromosomes, genes and proteins, which are not immunogenic in the host of origin (just like all other cancers).  By contrast, hypothetical cancer cells generated by viral proteins would be immediately eliminated by antiviral immunity.

Since cervical carcinomas have clonal carcinoma-specific karyotypes, we know they were generated via chromosomal rearrangements of thousands of normal cellular genes, which are not immunogenic.

According to the authors, fragments of inert HPV DNA found in 70 to 80% of cervical cancers (and in 70 to 80% of all women in the US!) are left-overs of by-gone infections or warts that occurred 20-50 years prior to carcinogenesis.  Infections and resultant symptoms were eliminated by natural anti-HPV antibodies.

Should the Karyotypic Speciation Theory be proven correct, HPV vaccines could not possibly reduce the incidence of cervical cancer – or any other type of cancer for that matter.

What do we do now?

Until such time as scientists can verify or disprove the Karyotypic Speciation Theory of cervical cancer development, medical comsumers must proceed with caution.

This is a scientific debate which cannot be ignored. Public health authorities and medical professionals must apply the precautionary principal by suspending the use of HPV vaccines and supporting the already proven, safe and effective method of controlling cervical cancer – Pap screening.

It is this method which, after its introduction by George Papanicolaou et al. in Science in 1952, reduced the incidence of cervical cancer in the US from the most common of the 10 most common cancers of women to one that no longer belongs to this list.

Moreover, this proven test for cervical carcinomas, termed Pap screen after Papanicolaou, costs only a small fraction of the $300-500 for the Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines and has NO serious adverse effects.

Immediate independent studies must be conducted to discover which of the theories discussed above is accurate. If HPV does not cause cancer – HPV vaccines are useless.

If HPV vaccines are useless, it is certainly not worth submitting yourself (or your loved ones) to the 2.3 to 2.5% risk of serious adverse reactions AND the 2.4 to 3.3% risk of developing a new medical condition potentially indicative of autoimmune disorders experienced by Merck’s Gardasil 9 clinical trial participants.

ALL RISK AND NO BENEFIT IS NOT A WISE MEDICAL CHOICE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

References:

This article in it’s entirety, is compliments of www.SaneVax.org

Evolving Bacteria Outsmarts Vaccines#Family#cdcwhistleblower#Vaccines

By Dr. Mercola

Over the past few years, parents of unvaccinated children have been publicly blamed for increasing cases of B. pertussis whooping cough and deaths.

This despite the fact that even the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) admits that the rise in reported whooping cough cases cannot be blamed on unvaccinated children because “they are not the driving force behind the large scale outbreaks and epidemics.”1

Going back decades, rates of whooping cough have been nearly identical in countries with high and low vaccination rates. And according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), pertussis vaccination rates in the U.S. have remained stable or have increased since 1992.

It’s important to realize that the pertussis vaccine has never conferred lifelong immunity to whooping cough—even after multiple doses.2

Other viruses and bacteria, such as parapertussis and RSV (which are notcovered by the vaccine) can also be clinically misdiagnosed as pertussis if proper lab tests are not performed, while many cases of pertussis are never diagnosed by doctors or reported to the CDC.

Most importantly, researchers are now realizing that B. pertussis bacteria have evolved and become vaccine resistant. It is reminiscent of the way that bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics, thanks to the massive overuse ofantibiotics in food production

Continue to the Article Here

http://articles.mercola.com/

Judges demand answers after children die in controversial cancer vaccine trial in India#cdcwhistleblower#HearThisWell#Vaccines

There have been over 37,000. adverse events and 214 deaths from the Gardasil/Cervarix vaccines with no evidence of any benefit from the vaccine.  These figures are off of the November 2014 VAERS report and estimated to be only 1-10% of actual cases.  

By GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN IN INDORE, INDIA,

  •  Tribal girls were given shots of cervical cancer vaccines during trial
  • Children given Merck’s Gardasil and Cervarix vaccines
  • Petitioners also asked judges to investigate trials of new drug Gardasil 9
  • Drug has allegedly caused side-effects in children as young as nine
  • Investigation claims children were used as unwitting human guinea pigs
  • Supreme Court has given the government one month to provide answers

Judges in India’s Supreme Court have demanded answers after children died during a controversial cervical cancer vaccine trial.

Young tribal girls received shots of pharmaceutical company Merck’s Gardasil vaccine and Cervarix, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline.

The vaccines are given to girls as young as nine in many countries – including the UK and the US – to protect against the human papilloma virus, one of the major causes of cervical cancer.

But the Indian court yesterday heard a challenge by campaigners who claim the study – funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation – failed to obtain the informed consent of the children or their parents.

They say that a ‘study’ carried out for the foundation by a US organisation was in fact an illegal drugs trial.

Continue to the Article Here

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/