There has been a deliberate obfuscation of the meaning of the word “vaccine.” Until sometime in the 80’s (I think) vaccines only contained the biological component (the antigen) and preservatives like thimerosal. Then they started adding adjuvants like aluminum, which allowed them to reduce the content of the expensive antigen ingredients while still activating the immune system. But aluminum is a generalized immune activator. In the context of the intricacies and complexities of the immune system, it would be like trying to construct a watch with a hammer.
It’s bad enough to be forcibly injected with ANYTHING, but there’s no reason in the world that anyone should be forcibly injected with cheap industrial effluents in order to save money for the ultra-profitable and liability-immunized pharmaceutical companies who have saturated both the medical and lay media with corporate advertising, inducing a conflict of interest at the editorial board level of those media companies.
From a profit-optimization viewpoint, this pits the safety of the child against the profits of the corporation without any incentive for rational and sensible constraints, in the context of the hyper-salesmanship of advertising spin-doctors and the (still widespread) public trust in the media. The pharmacorps are practically being forced to poison the population in order to maintain their profit-flows and stock prices.
This is a form of social engineering. Specifically, eugenics.
Getting back to basics: the human body is designed to screen for foreign antigens at the usual ports of entry: the nose, mouth, throat, digestive system and epidermis. That’s where the immune sentinels like langerhans cells are located. Why in the world are we bypassing the first line of immune defense by injecting directly into the body? It’s totally irrational. We need a complete overhaul of the whole paradigm.
This article is from germany, but there’s no reason to believe the same thing isn’t happening elsewhere, in secret.
Translated from german by google translate:
Berlin – Until a few days ago, hardly anyone outside of specialist circles had heard the word adjuvant. But now there is a public discussion about the composition of the vaccine for the upcoming swine flu vaccine flared. Again and again, the term emerges, which is called an additive for enhancing the effect.
Critics argue that adjuvants could lead to increased vaccine responses such as headache or fever. Supporters argue that the vaccine is also safe with the additives – and that in this way more doses of active substance could be produced. A few days ago, the Bundeswehr announced .
However, according to SPIEGEL information, additional groups of people are to receive a vaccine without adjuvants: “We have bought 200,000 doses of the non-adjuvanted vaccine Celvapan from Baxter,” admits Christoph Hübner, spokesman for the Federal Ministry of the Interior. Unlike the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) drug, which will be released to the public in 50 million doses starting next week, the Baxter vaccine does not contain an enhancer.
However, Celvapan only works without the controversial excipients because it contains whole killed viruses and not viral fragments. The substance is injected into the public servants responsible for maintaining public order: members of the cabinet as well as officials of the ministries and the subordinate authorities. This includes the staff of the responsible for vaccine approval Paul Ehrlich Institute, which last week has repeatedly defended its decision to provide the population with the GSK vaccine.
“Health authorities have fallen for drug companies”
For the Chairman of the Drug Commission of the German medical profession, Wolf-Dieter Ludwig, this is a scandal that is difficult to convey to the people. “We are unhappy about this vaccination campaign,” Ludwig continues. She raises numerous problems, her benefits are uncertain: “The health authorities have fallen for a campaign by pharmaceutical companies, who simply wanted to make money with a supposed threat.”
Because the GSK vaccine has not been tested on pregnant women, it is also necessary to provide them with non-adjuvanted vaccine at short notice. . The Secretary of State in the Federal Ministry of Health, Klaus Theo Schröder, confirmed this to the SPIEGEL: “Talks are currently underway with manufacturers and the ministries of health in France and the US, with the aim of providing pregnant women with non-adjuvanted vaccine.”
Open rebellion prevails among general practitioners and paediatricians. The President of the German Society for General Medicine and Family Medicine, Michael Koch, advises the German family doctors from the vaccine. “The risk of damage outweighs the benefits,” says the Göttingen professor. Wolfram Hartmann, president of the professional association of paediatricians, accuses the federal government of making “scientific false statements”. As with pregnant women, so also for children under three years: “The vaccine is not tested on them at all, so the risk is just too big to use it now without hesitation.”
Children have an immune system that tends to overreact, but that could be triggered by the addition of potentiators. In addition, the vaccine is also accompanied by a mercury-containing preservative. “The stuff has been deliberately kept out in today’s infant vaccines,” said Hartmann.
Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations.
Immune challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced, can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune function. Experimental evidence also shows that simultaneous administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants can overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity.
In some developed countries, by the time children are 4 to 6 years old, they will have received a total of 126 antigenic compounds along with high amounts of aluminum (Al) adjuvants through routine vaccinations. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, safety assessments for vaccines have often not included appropriate toxicity studies because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic. Taken together, these observations raise plausible concerns about the overall safety of current childhood vaccination programs.
When assessing adjuvant toxicity in children, several key points ought to be considered: (i) infants and children should not be viewed as “small adults” with regard to toxicological risk as their unique physiology makes them much more vulnerable to toxic insults; (ii) in adult humans Al vaccine adjuvants have been linked to a variety of serious autoimmune and inflammatory conditions (i.e., “ASIA”), yet children are regularly exposed to much higher amounts of Al from vaccines than adults; (iii) it is often assumed that peripheral immune responses do not affect brain function. However, it is now clearly established that there is a bidirectional neuro-immune cross-talk that plays crucial roles in immunoregulation as well as brain function. In turn, perturbations of the neuro-immune axis have been demonstrated in many autoimmune diseases encompassed in “ASIA” and are thought to be driven by a hyperactive immune response; and (iv) the same components of the neuro-immune axis that play key roles in brain development and immune function are heavily targeted by Al adjuvants.
In summary, research evidence shows that increasing concerns about current vaccination practices may indeed be warranted. Because children may be most at risk of vaccine-induced complications, a rigorous evaluation of the vaccine-related adverse health impacts in the pediatric population is urgently needed.