by Heather Callaghan
Since the “Disneyland Outbreak” of measles in California, there’s been a mass hysteria and calls for quarantine and forced injection scarcely seen since…that brief break we got from Ebola.
So when a medical doctor boldly stands up and flies against the face of the narrative, the mainstream press cannot help but capture his “shocking statement.”
What they won’t heavily highlight about Dr. Jack Wolfson is that he is a respected integrative cardiologist…
by Barbara Loe Fisher
There have been hundreds of media stories published in the U.S. and around the world since Jan. 14, 2015, the day after it was first reported that visitors to Disneyland got measles and presumably infected other people in California, Washington, Utah and Colorado.1 Like wildfire, the story spread globally even though there was – and still is – limited information about the 51 lab-confirmed cases of measles public health officials say are linked to the happiest place on earth. According a Jan. 23 Health Advisory issued by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), “no source case for the outbreak has been identified.” 2
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.
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…
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
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.”…
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]…
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.
By Norma Erickson and Peter H. Duesberg, PhD
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 
number 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.
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.
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:
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 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.
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:
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:
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.
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
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…