New Vaccines for New Purposes

Patrick Quanten

  

The government pressure on non-vaccine users or anti-vaxxers is growing exponentially. Rather than it being a worrying trend I personally welcome it as I see the end of an era in sight. When they need this much pressure to ensure the sale of a product, I am convinced that the market, and with it the fake science that supports it, is about to collapse. I predicted this some time ago when the industry was clearly advocating many more vaccinations against different kind of diseases that even professors and leading scientists within the medical profession called far-fetched and unscientific. Authorities ensured they were all silenced quickly and campaigning to convince the population of these medical miracles continued unabated.

Besides the well-documented adverse effects to vaccines linked to ingredients like thimerosal (mercury) and aluminium - both causing neurological damage of which autism has been one expression, to name just one - we keep getting more and more reports such as a triple increase in male neonatal autism and MS caused by the Hepatitis B vaccines and the link between autoimmune diseases and HPV vaccines. It has been well documented that these seriously damaging effects are caused by so-called adjuvants in the vaccine. Adjuvants are being used to elicit a higher response from the immune system than simple antigens, foreign material, could ever produce. We now know that the most effective adjuvants are oil-based ones, whereby even a few molecules injected into the body will cause disturbances in the immune system. Since the 1930’s oil based adjuvants have been restricted to experimentation with animals.

Dr Jules Freund, the creator of the oil based adjuvant warned in 1956 that animals injected with his formula developed terrible, incurable conditions such as stoppage of sperm production, allergic encephalomyelitis (the animal version of MS), allergic neuritis (can lead to paralysis) and other severe autoimmune disorders. Adjuvants make the immune system lose the ability to distinguish between what is “self” and what is foreign and starts to attack the body it is supposed to defend.

When Michael Whitehouse and Frances Beck from the UCLA Medical School injected squalene into rats and guinea pigs in the 1970’s, few oils were more effective at causing the animal versions of arthritis and multiple sclerosis. Dr Johnny Lorentzen, an immunologist at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute proved that on injection, and on injection only, “otherwise benign molecules like squalene can stimulate a self-destructive immune response”. Other research institutes have also shown that the immune system makes antibodies to squalene but only after it has been injected. Award winning investigative journalist Gary Matsumoto writes about the secret ingredient, squalene, in experimental anthrax vaccine that caused devastating autoimmune diseases and death in countless Gulf War veterans. An ingredient that continues to be used today (MF59). There is a close match between squalene-induced diseases in animals and those observed in humans injected with this oil: rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and systemic erythematosus. These three illnesses have been proven to be caused by this oil but there is a long list of autoimmune diseases associated with squalene injections into humans. There are now data from ten different laboratories in the US, Europe, Asia and Australia documenting that squalene-based adjuvants can induce autoimmune diseases in animals. The Polish Academy of Sciences has shown that in animals squalene alone can produce catastrophic injury to the nervous system and the brain. Don’t make any mistake about it, squalene adjuvants are a key ingredient in a whole new generation of vaccines intended for mass immunization around the globe.

Besides the anthrax vaccine, where this story started, we already find squalene a key ingredient in Fluad, a flu vaccine that has been licensed in Italy since 1977, containing MF59 as the squalene adjuvant. The tests that “proved” it to be safe were limited to elderly people in nursing homes with an average age of 71.5. Any autoimmune symptoms like joint pain or fatigue would be obscured and reported as normal for their age. Diagnosing an autoimmune disease may take years because the initial symptoms are vague and in this study they only recorded those adverse events that were severe enough to warrant a doctor’s visit within seven days of immunization.

On February 9, 2005 a new adjuvant was approved for use in Fendrix, an enhanced Hepatitis B vaccine for use in people with poor immune responses and those at high risk for developing hepatitis B. The adjuvant is called ASO4, which is a derivate of the lipid A molecule. Its full name is monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL). And guess what? Lipids are oils/fatty acids and there is a whole new generation of “enhanced potency” vaccines coming down the pipeline using this new high potency lipid adjuvant, MPL, which the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defence fast-tracked into clinical trials in 1998.

VAERS indicated a 2,500% increase in reports in stillbirths and spontaneous abortions in the 2009/10 flu season compared with the 2008/09 season. This was part of the result of a study into adverse effects on pregnant women getting the 2009 H1N1 flu vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline). In that year squalene was introduced as an adjuvant to the vaccine!

Here is a quick reminder of the history of this pandemic and the subsequent vaccine countermeasures.

·        On June 11, 2009 the World Health Organization declared the swine flu to be a full scale world epidemic.

·        On September 25, 2009 the European Medicines Agency approved Pandemrix and Focetria (swine flu vaccines), ready to be used in October. (What happened to many years of testing efficiency and safety?)

·        In Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland authorities set out to vaccinate the entire population (The contracts with the manufacturing companies were signed before the flu outbreak had even began!). In contrast, the response within the European Union varied greatly within different countries. Poland, for instance, decided not to buy any because of the too strict agreement conditions asked for by the pharmaceutical companies. Denmark decided to cover only “risk groups”.

·        The expected and predicted second wave of the influenza never appeared.

·        On August 10, 2010 the World Health Organization officially declared the end of the epidemic.

·        In Sweden 60% of the population had been vaccinated, in Finland 50%, in Germany 8% and in Poland 0%.

·        In August 2010 Finland reported an increased occurrence of narcolepsy (a severe chronic neurological disease). There was a 12.7 times higher incidence compared with the non-vaccinated. Sweden followed soon with similar figures. On September 1, 2010 Finland stopped all Pandemrix vaccinations.

·        No European country had a particularly high rate of death due to the pandemic. Germany (8% vaccinated) and Sweden (60% vaccinated) had the same death rates. This indicates that vaccination does not protect you against the flu or changes the worst outcome of the flu.

All of this is in line with how vaccines introduce illnesses and making people totally reliant on more and more medical care as a result of devastating effects of the vaccinations. But there is another issue that might require our attention. In 2010 Bill Gates, the great Maecenas of the health of the population and donor of many millions to “the good cause” of ridding the world of infectious diseases through mass vaccination programmes, stated in the context of the global warming propaganda that one way to accomplish a reduction in greenhouse effect would be to reduce the global human population. He considers vaccines to be desirable to that end. A wild dream? Think again.

Just as history shows us how the Salk polio vaccine with the SV-40 planted the seed for cancerous growth we should have a serious look at the content of the newer vaccines too. The heavily promoted HPV vaccine (Gardasil, Cervarix) as well as the new influenza A vaccines contain adjudin. And what might that be?

In the US, PZP vaccines are being used to control the fertility in the wild horse population. Porcine zona pellucida (PZP) immunocontraception was investigated for possible use in free-roaming wild horses in the western USA. This is about changing the glycoprotein membrane of the zona pellucida, which surrounds all mammal eggs, whereby the entry of the sperm is prevented. So, contraceptive vaccines are a reality of our time and their use is being promoted as the future in wild life restriction, a “humane” way forward, a vast improvement on hunting and killing. Besides this method they also are developing contraceptive vaccines based on the neutralization of gonadotropin releasing hormones (GnRH) for the inhibition of fertility in various species such as horses, deer, pigs, cats, dogs, etc. Recent studies in the field have identified several potential compounds that exert their effects in the seminiferous epithelium, causing exfoliation of germ cells in the testis. One of these compounds that achieves that is called adjudin. The result is the release of immature spermatids to the Sertoli cells leading to infertility.

Adjudin is similar to its analogue lonidamine and a study in 2013 showed it had similar potential as a drug in cancer treatment because it inhibits cancer growth by targeting mitochondria and by blocking energy metabolism. Lonidamine itself suppresses glycolysis in cancer cells and equally has a capacity to inhibit energy metabolism in cancer cells. A derivative of lonidamine, gamendazole, is being tested as a male contraceptive pill. So it appears as if achieving infertility and cancer inhibition are closely linked by way of these compounds that are being used in drug treatment. Now remember that HPV is said to stop cervical and other cancers growing. Officially these cancers are being blamed on a virus but scientifically no link has ever anywhere been established. The vaccine is said to work, not because it contains the virus or a weakened version of the virus, but only because it contains “proteins” that are similar to those found in the human papillomavirus. Injecting these, it is said, creates an immune response that results in your own body destroying everything this virus has created, including the cancers.

1.      No link between any of these cancers and the HPV virus was ever found

2.      Almost no immune response is elicited when the entire virus is being injected, as vaccination history has taught us, let alone a few "similar" proteins

3.      Proteins are basic building blocks and “similar” proteins can be found in all living creatures

4.      An immune response is only seen when an adjuvant is added to the vaccine

The official medical reports do state that there is a marked downturn in cervical and other related cancers since the introduction of the HPV vaccine. If we believe them and we put together what we know, then either the improved statistics are not directly related to the effect of the vaccination (because you can't produce this effect in this way) or they are the result of something else than the injected “similar” proteins. What does produce an immune response is the right adjuvant! And best would be one that is known to fight cancer anyway.

In 2014 it was reported that in rural New South Wales, Australia, three young women were diagnosed with premature ovarian insufficiency (infertility) following HPV vaccination. The unrelated girls were aged 16, 16 and 18 at the time of the diagnosis but it had taken several years to reach that stage. Why is this “potential” adverse effect not mentioned in any literature about HPV vaccine? Vaccine research simply does not include enduring ovarian capacity and the duration of its function following vaccination is  not researched in preclinical studies, in clinical and in post-licensure studies. Furthermore, post-marketing surveillance does not accurately represent diagnoses in adverse event notifications and can neither represent unnotified cases nor can it compare incident statistics with vaccine course administration rates. All this needs further investigation and highlights the fact that the population should be informed about what isn’t researched, rather than being bombarded with the fantastic work research produces. Omission is far more important than inclusion as far as vaccination and drug research is concerned. The population is entitled to know what is not included in any research as far as the testing of drugs and vaccines is concerned. Saying there is no evidence of any serious adverse effects only means something when you know how they evaluate the seriousness of the effects and what period of time they are not accepting as being relevant. Before being handed a license, drugs and vaccines are being tested on safety but they use very strict rules on what will be included and what will not. No long-term safety of any sort is tested in this way for any drug or vaccine.

Let us for a moment assume they have been following strict testing and application procedures, although we know that over the last thirty years very few of them have completed this pathway. For those that have – and again, the population is not being told which have been fully tested and which haven’t been! – no research at all has been done on any of them about the long-term safety. This knowledge and scientific information is gathered in a very different way. The industry is given a license to distribute a product for a specific disease or condition and for a specific dosage. The public is now being treated with this product and if any serious adverse effects are showing up and the medical profession is forced to admit there is a link between the effect and the drug/vaccine it gradually becomes part of the scientific knowledge about the product. In effect, when they start treating people with the product nobody has any idea what effects it will have on those lives. It is the human guinea pig that will tell them.

Furthermore, the drugs and vaccines receive a license for a specific reason and a specific dosage. Once the product is being used by the medical profession they simply change the amount you take or what you take it for. Nobody knows what effect it will have on those people either but the human guinea pig will tell them, once again. That is how a failed heart medication became a multimillion selling sexual performance drug (Viagra). That is how a failed anti-cancer drug became the number one selling anti-AIDS treatment (AZT). That is how an anti-inflammatory to be used carefully in adults became a baby drug (Ibuprofen).

If you believe that there are stringent safety measures built into the system of product licensing and that these are being adhered to, it might serve you to know the following. On January 28, 2003 President Bush (USA) started Project Bioshield and the bill was passed by Congress and signed into law (Public Law 108-276) on 21 July 2004. Soon the Western world followed America’s lead on how to protect the population against chemical weapons.

Project BioShield is a comprehensive effort involving the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), its component agencies, and other partner federal agencies to speed the research, development, acquisition, and availability of medical countermeasures to improve the government's preparedness for and ability to counter chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threat agents. This appropriation is intended to provide an economic incentive to the pharmaceutical industry to develop medical countermeasures for which the government, and its projects, is the only significant market. Furthermore, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (Public Law 109-417) provides the Secretary of the Department of Health with new authorities to improve the implementation of Project BioShield.

So, the Department of Health has the authority to speed up the approval of drugs and vaccines, fast tracking their development (and paying for it!) without regular course of safety testing. The Permanent Secretary can make a determination that a disease, health condition or threat constitutes a public health emergency (like US President Trump currently about the situation at the southern border). He or she may then recommend the manufacturing, testing, development, administration or use of one or more vaccines or drugs. This is called “covered countermeasures”. Not only will the government pay the industry for this work but it also provides complete liability protection for all drugs, vaccines or biological products deemed a covered countermeasure and used for an outbreak of any kind. Maybe you do remember the severe government warnings about, for instance, a coming deadly flu epidemic. On the basis of such a believed threat the industry can be ordered to develop “new” vaccines. Maybe you also remember that such a deadly flu epidemic never occurred. Certainly one example was the Swine Flu.

Pharmaceutical corporations are now protected from all accountability unless “criminal intent to do harm” can be proven by the injured party. They are protected from liability even if they know the drug will be harmful. Now you may understand a bit better why it is almost impossible to get anybody, the industry or the medical profession, to admit guilt and to accept the link between the effect and the causal use of the drug or vaccine. An individual has no protection or recourse at all from a government who stands to profit from vaccinations, from a government who gains more power over their subjects and who create more dependency on help and support provided by them via the industry. They both serve a similar purpose and they hold each other up.

In this light, developing and using vaccinations that kill people and/or sterilise them becomes not a utopia but a scary reality. And the way it is being done makes use of the population as human guinea pigs and targets at the same time. The outcome does not even have to be well defined or very specific as the individual has no power to respond or to fight back, or even to expose the plan or working methods.

Either this makes you think. Makes you ask questions. Makes you cynical about anything authority tells you.

Or you simply stick with, “they wouldn’t do that to us”.

It is entirely your choice.

 

March 2019


Design & hosting by DV Webdesign.