By the Children’s Health Defense Team
- Cancer is the leading disease-related cause of death in American children, and the rise in childhood cancers has occurred alongside dramatic expansion of the childhood vaccine schedule.
- Vaccine history illustrates that the presence of adventitious agents and contaminants in viral vaccines has been a recurrent problem, including monkey virus in polio vaccines and pig viruses in rotavirus vaccines—these unwanted and unanticipated contaminants may be linked to cancer risks.
- Vaccine manufacturers are interested in using continuous cell lines (which can reproduce indefinitely) for viral vaccines, including cell lines from human tumors and cell lines that cause tumors in lab animals.
- Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not previously allow tumor-derived or tumor-causing cell lines to be used in vaccines—due to concerns about their potential for transmitting diseases, including cancer—the FDA now says that these cell lines are “optimal” for growing some viruses.
- If tumor-derived and tumor-causing cell lines come into widespread use in viral vaccines, could potential “worst-case scenarios” unfold that include further increases in childhood cancer.
Many people might be shocked to learn that cancer is the leading disease-related cause of death in American children. Over the past several decades, there have been significant increases in various types of childhood cancers, including leukemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The rise in childhood cancers has played out in tandem with other worrisome child health trends, including escalating rates of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and other neurodevelopmental disorders. If there are any personal injuries, then injury lawyers for hire ought to be checked out!
The childhood vaccine schedule has expanded dramatically over the same time period. There is good reason to suspect that the ever-more-burdensome vaccination program, along with other toxic childhood exposures, is linked to pediatric cancer trends. Although multiple aspects of vaccination may set the wheels in motion for cancer—including vaccines’ interference with normal immune system development and synergistically neurotoxic vaccine ingredients—a likely but infrequently discussed contributor may also be the presence in vaccines of viruses and other contaminants that are not supposed to be there.
Learning from history
Many childhood vaccines are viral vaccines: poliovirus, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR), varicella and rotavirus, to name a few. To produce the vaccines, scientists have to grow the virus under controlled conditions while modifying it in some way so that it does not cause the harm it is supposed to prevent. However, as vaccine history illustrates, the presence of adventitious agents and contaminants in viral vaccines has been a recurrent problem. For example:
- From the mid-1950s to early 1960s, up to a third of polio vaccines in the U.S. were contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40), which came from the monkey kidney cell cultures used to make the vaccines. An Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee reported in 2002 that SV40 can “produce pathological effects in immunocompromised hosts or in non-host species.” The committee concluded that “moderate to strong lines of biological evidence support the theory that SV40 contamination of polio vaccine could contribute to human cancers” and that SV40 “is likely present in some human tumors.” The committee also rated concerns about “inadvertent” vaccine contaminants as “significant because of the seriousness of cancers as the possible adverse health outcomes” [emphasis in original].
- Researchers have warned for some time that incorporation of genetic material from an unrelated species is a risk of genetically engineered vaccines, and the story of the two genetically engineered rotavirus vaccines rolled out in the mid-2000s shows that this concern is justified. In 2010, an academic research team “unexpectedly” discovered that both were contaminated with DNA from two porcine circoviruses. The pig viruses were discovered by chance when the researchers conducted “a novel, highly sensitive analysis not routinely used for adventitious agent screening.” One of the pig viruses in question is associated with severe wasting and immunodeficiency in pigs. The long-term effects in humans are, as yet, unknown.
- Judy Mikovits’s 2014 book Plague discusses how “growing human viruses in animal tissue and cells…, then re-injecting that material back into humans, could introduce new animal viruses into the human population”—with catastrophic consequences. Reflecting on her work with mouse viruses, Dr. Mikovits recently stated: “Every scientist who works with these viruses and worked at the National Cancer Institute recognized the possibility that if you put human tissue and mouse tissue together, the possibility is that you’re going to pick up a virus that is silent in the mouse—that is, it doesn’t hurt the mouse—but it kills the human or causes serious disease in the human. …[But] you might not see the cancer for two decades.”
Worse things to come?
Ordinarily, cell strains can only divide a finite number of times, but cell culture techniques changed when scientists discovered in the 1950s that they could create “immortal” or “continuous” cell lines (CCLs)— cell lines that reproduce indefinitely—from cancer cells. In addition to tumor-derived CCLs, subsequent advances in virology and biotechnology have enabled genetically engineered “tumorigenic” CCLs (meaning that they can cause tumors in animals). Some laboratory-manipulated cell lines are coaxed into immortalization through the introduction of genes from tumor-causing viruses.
Historically, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has refrained from allowing use of these types of cell lines in vaccines, due to “anxiety” about their “potential for transmitting infectious diseases and/or cancer.” In 1999, a top-ranking FDA regulator openly worried about green-lighting tumorigenic cell lines for vaccines in light of their known capacity to provoke malignant tumors in laboratory animals. The official cautioned, “It’s very important to assure that these things are safe before they are given to people.” Among the “major safety concerns” cited in connection with using tumor-derived and tumorigenic cell lines in vaccines, the FDA acknowledged the potential for vaccines to contain residual live cells capable of producing tumors in humans; residual DNA; adventitious (coming from another source) viruses; and “unknown” tumor-causing factors. Summarizing on its website, the agency recently stated:
“Some of these tumor-forming cell lines may contain cancer-causing viruses that are not actively reproducing. Such viruses are hard to detect using standard methods. These latent, or ‘quiet,’ viruses pose a potential threat, since they might become active under vaccine manufacturing conditions.” [emphasis added]
Catering to industry
Over time, the FDA has licensed (for use in viral vaccines) two CCLs derived from apparently healthy animals, including one from African green monkey kidney cells (inactivated polio vaccine and rotavirus vaccines) and a canine kidney cell line approved for some inactivated influenza vaccines. Meanwhile, vaccine manufacturers have continued to prod the FDA to approve tumor-derived and tumorigenic cell lines for viral vaccine production, attracted by the cell lines’ ability to “yield high quantities of…vaccine.” These petitions appear to be bearing fruit. In 2012, laying the groundwork for more manufacturer-favorable decisions, a FDA document put forth the view that the “current repertoire” of animal-derived cell lines is “inadequate” for the job and that “cell lines derived from tumors may be the optimal and in some cases the only cell substrate that can be used to propagate certain vaccine viruses” [emphasis added].
In the 2012 document, the FDA’s vaccine regulators alluded to the disquieting possibility that they might issue a blanket approval rather than reviewing novel cell lines on a case-by-case basis: “Recommendations of the advisory committee will be applicable to other tumor-derived cell lines (human and non-human)proposed for vaccine manufacture in the future” [emphasis added].
How does the FDA plan to ensure the safety of viral vaccines produced using tumor-derived and tumorigenic cell lines? “New technologies” apparently are the answer. The FDA states:
“Our laboratory is investigating ways to activate latent viruses in cell lines and to detect the activated viruses, as well as other unknown viruses, using new technologies. …These methods will enable FDA scientists to help manufacturers to determine whether their specific cell substrate is safe to use for vaccine production.” [Emphasis added]
Discussing safety concerns, a Merck scientist also recently put his faith in “new technologies,” stating that “some new technologies may…need to be developed” to address the “complexity” of clearing and inactivating viruses and forestalling “a wide range of potential ‘worst case’ viral clearance scenarios.”
Throwing caution to the wind
There are many complexities that the FDA’s vague assurances fail to take into account. For example, those who study viruses—the planet’s “most abundant and diverse biological entities”—recognize that, in most individuals, virus and host reach a “highly complex equilibrium” that not only allows the person “to tolerate the continuous presence of the virus without appreciable…damage” but can even confer health benefits, such as the protection against cancer offered by acute childhood infections such as measles. These long-term benefits are negated when childhood infections are suppressed through vaccination. When the delicate host-virus balance is “broken” by genetic and/or environmental “insults” (insults that likely include toxin-laden vaccines), the balance may turn “to the pathological side”—a situation often characterized by “immunosuppression, inflammation, autoimmunity and cancer.” These pathologies are characteristic of ASD and other neurodegenerative diseases as well as cancer.
In the mad rush to develop ever more vaccines, few are asking whether viral vaccines might be altering host-virus equilibrium and opening the door for immunosuppression and adverse outcomes in vulnerable children. If tumor-derived and tumorigenic cell lines come into widespread use in viral vaccines, could potential “worst-case scenarios” unfold that include further increases in childhood cancer? Given that the mechanisms used to create immortalized cell lines are the same mechanisms that cancer cells use to grow out of control, vaccine regulators should be exercising the utmost caution—rather than throwing caution to the wind to please the vaccine industry.
2. Dr Judy Wileyman Report: Newsletter 212 Vaccination Choice: The Reason why Governments are Suppressing the Science
20 October 2018
The Australian government and mainstream journalists are going to extreme lengths to prevent the public from receiving the science that supports the public’s right to choice in vaccination, with credibility. This includes providing false and misleading information about my qualifications in public health and the framing of the scientific arguments as ‘anti-vaccination‘ or ‘a conspiracy theory’.
It is important to remember that vaccines are injected into the human body and, like all drugs, it is necessary to know ‘what is injected’ and ‘what the long-term health effects are’. It is also important to know if governments are using objective science or biased science in the development of these policies.
This bias can be a result of the industry funding of vaccine science combined with the financial conflicts of interest of government representatives and the donations/lobbying of politicians by pharmaceutical companies.
My PhD research found that governments are promoting vaccines on 3 main myths:
- The myth that vaccines reduced the risk from infectious diseases by creating herd immunity
- The myth that vaccine adverse health outcomes are rare
- The myth that vaccines are not causing the exponential rise in autism or the 5-fold increase in chronic illness, neurological and autoimmune diseases that we are observing in all developed countries. This significant increase is in a direct linear dose-response relationship – an important criteria for demonstrating cause and effect of associations. This has occurred since liability was removed from the pharmaceutical companies in the US in 1986 for any harm caused from vaccines.
Here is a 30 minute video presentation of the scientific evidence in my PhD that demonstrates that there is no valid reason to mandate any vaccine in any population. The mandating of vaccines is a serious risk to public health and it is most likely destroying the genetic fabric of the population. This video has been made for a scientific conference on vaccination and it is titled ‘Vaccination against Multiple Diseases: Is this in the best interests of public health?’
Please note that the control of infectious diseases is a discipline of public health (social medicine). It was not included in the field of medicine for general practitioners until the 1990’s. Prior to this it was not a medical issue. This is because Infectious diseases were controlled by political and economic decisions that changed our lifestyle and environment with improved public health infrastructure. This reduced the virulence of these pathogens and childhood diseases in developed countries. This occurred by 1950/60 in all developed nations.
In other words, deaths and illnesses to infectious diseases were reduced without vaccines and it was known that exposure to the infectious agent after 1950/60 resulted in a mild or asymptomatic expression of the disease in the majority of cases that provided long-term immunity to the disease, hence good community protection.
This natural exposure and immunity that was gained was termed ‘herd immunity’ and this is why it was known that exposure to childhood diseases such as chicken pox, whooping cough and measles from 1950 – 1970 in Australia was beneficial, in the majority of cases, and it primed the whole immune system, not just an antibody response (seroconversion) as in the case of artificial immunity gained from vaccines.
Vaccines only provide short-term immunity (hence many boosters are required) and in many cases it does not provide any immunity at all. This is why it is necessary to know the vaccination status of cases of these diseases that are hospitalised – these are the serious cases of these diseases.
There was no measles vaccine until 1969 in Australia and no chicken pox vaccine until 2013 in Australia. The whole cell whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine was linked to causing encephalopahty (brain damage) in the 1980’s and this lead to a change to the acellular pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine in the late 1990’s. (In Australia it was phased in from 1999-2004).
The whole-cell whooping cough vaccine was only ever used with a 50% up-take rate in Australia up to the 1990’s because it was always voluntary and it was not responsible for reducing the risk of deaths and illness to whooping cough disease in Australia . This happened by 1950 and a vaccine was not introduced until 1952 and this was usd on a voluntary basis.
Financial inducements were introduced into Australian government policies in the 1990’s to increase the up-take rate of all vaccines to 95% – even though there is no disease that has ever been controlled by a 95% up-take of a vaccine. Further, there is no evidence that vaccines can create herd immunity in the population. The evidence for this statement is provided in this 30 min video.
On the 23 September 2018, Peter McIntyre, the deputy/co-director of the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance (NCIRS) for 20 years from 1997-2017 provided false information about my research and qualifications in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald.
The journalist, Kylar Loussikian, breached section 121 of the Family Law Act by quoting from my affidavit that is due to be heard in the Federal Circuit Court in December 2018. This journalist used false and misleading information in his article and he has previously written derogatory articles about my university research with false information in The Australian (News Corp) paper in 2016 – immediately after my PhD thesis was published on 10 January 2016.
On 8 October 2018 Jane McCredie also published an article with false information about my qualifications in the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) Insight Online.
In 2014 a medical practitioner from Melbourne, Dr. John Cunningham fabricated allegations of academic misconduct regarding my UOW whooping cough research completed in 2006. He was permitted to make an anonymous complaint to the University of Wollongong in 2014 about my research from 2006 and this compaint of ‘allegations of academic misconduct’ was leaked to the media by ‘anonymous medical experts’ before the confidential investigation was complete.
UOW provided me with an apology for this ‘unwarranted investigation’ but they would not put out a press release to rectify the academic record about this whooping cough research for the public.
There are many more incidences of vexatious complaints that were made about my university research from 2011-2018 and in 2015 when Prime Minister, Scott Morrison was the Minister for Social Services the false and misleading information from industry pro-vaccine lobby group activists, that have been permitted to use the official channels to promote their misinformation, was used to tarnish my research and reputation with politicians.
My research was excluded from debates in the mandating of ~16 vaccines with financial benefits in Australia’s social welfare policies in 2016 and this has also resulted in discriminatory enrolment into early childhood education in Australia. This is a blatant breach of human rights. This policy is called the No Jab No Pay/Play policy and the campaign to promote this policy and influence public behaviour was run through the News Corp (Murdoch) media. In Australia, Rupert Murdoch now owns approximately 80% of the mainstream media.
Vaccines are a medical intervention that are a serious risk to many people in genetically diverse populations. It is every individual’s right to use a vaccine if they believe it is beneficial to their own health but vaccines are not a ‘social responsibility’. This is because there is no vaccine that has ever been used with a 95% up-take to control any inectious disease in the population.
This suggestion is a risk to public health because governments do not know the health outcomes of this policy and this amounts to undone science or experimentation on the population – a breach of human rights under the Nuremberg Code and many other International Covenants.
Bachelor of Science, University of NSW
Diploma of Education (Science), University of Wollongong
Master of Science (Population Health), Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Wollongong.
PhD in The Science and Politics of the Australian Government’s Vaccination Program, UOW School of Humanities and Social Inquiry.
3. AVN: October is Vaccine Injury Awareness Month
Vaccine injury is pervasive in our society today.
Though many doctors and the government may not acknowledge reactions when they occur, vaccines are known to cause death, permanent disabilities, seizures, autoimmune issues, arthritis, anaphylaxis, encephalitis, paralysis, serious skin conditions, diabetes, asthma, eczema, food and environmental allergies, Autism, behavioural issues and more.
- 7 DEATHS (nearly one death a year)
- 3842 ADVERSE EVENTS
Since the government has admitted that only between 1 and 10% of reactions are ever reported, those figures might be as high as 70 deaths and 38,420 adverse reactions!