Vaccines, Cure or Cause?

Variolae Vaccinae – the birth of the fraudIn May 1796, Edward Jenner, acting upon ‘a superstition among the dairymaids of Gloucestershire that a person who had suffered from cowpox would never have smallpox,’ 1 inoculated one James Phillips with lymph from a cowpox vesicle on the hand of a dairymaid: in June he inoculated the boy with smallpox. ‘…it was on the strength of this solitary experiment that Jenner had launched his discovery upon the world, claiming that cowpox was a prophylactic against smallpox, while to give some sort of scientific colour to the claim he labelled cowpox with the name “Variolae Vaccinae” (smallpox of the cow)…the picture of the whole of the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons swallowing the theory of an unqualified country apothecary, based on one totally unreliable experiment, seems scarcely credible.’ 2 However, there was a very good reason for the medics’ rush to embrace the groundless myth and to lavish praise, credit and cash – £30,000 at late 18th century value, i.e. a large fortune – on the enterprising Jenner. Earlier, the Royal College of Physicians had declared, in an attempt to protect their inoculation from foreign criticism: ‘it is now held by the English in greater esteem and practised among them more extensively than ever it was before…the college thinks it to be highly salutary to the human race.’ whale.to/vaccine/rattigan2.html

The working hypothesis touted by the vaccine industry as justified is:

The more people are vaccinated, the less people come down with the infectious illness targeted by that vaccine and that therefore less people die from that illness. Or, stated more formally, there should be a negative correlation between the variables of, on the one hand. vaccination percentage, i.e. number of vaccinated people per some population number, versus, on the other hand, disease rate or disease death rate, i.e. the number of people coming down (and dying) with the illness per that same population number.

It is a logical requirement that causation implies correlation: If A causes B then A and B must correlate. Therefore, if a negative correlation is absent between vaccination percentage and illness death rate, then it can be rightfully inferred that in turn, vaccines do not cause reduction of the targeted illness and therefore it would be unwarranted and, given the risks of taking them, indeed unethical to use them as a means of preventing illness. Moreover, if there would be a positive correlation then this would be a compelling reason for not taking vaccines.

Stated in simple terms: there’s no point in taking a vaccine that doesn’t work (zero correlation). Moreover, if they make you sick instead (positive correlation) then this would precisely be a reason for not taking them.

This is only basic “common sense” logic, right?

Calculation of Correlation on the basis of Historical Data

Let’s analyze some historical data on the use of vaccines and see if vaccine percentage really correlates negatively with illness death rates, as the vaccine proponents would like to have us believe. Because of its readily availability I used data from a book called LEICESTER: SANITATION versus VACCINATION by J.T. BIGGS J.P. (1912)

The method I used was adopted from elementary statistics. A data point consists of two dimensions or variables: Vaccination Percentage and Death Rate. For any set of data points, I have computed the regression number, r, and a simple linear fit, RC (slope). The stronger the vaccination percentage and the death rate are positively correlated, the closer r will approach 1 from below. If the correlation is negative, r will approach -1 from above.  By definition of r, its absolute value never exceeds 1, a situation in which both variables have a perfect linear relationship.

If vaccines are really meritorious one would expect negative regression numbers where the linear fits would have negative slopes.

Here are my findings:

TABLE 1. See Graph A. “[...] showing for the BOROUGH OF LEICESTER, for each of the periods 1874-77, 1878-81, 1882-85, 1886-89, 1890-93, 1894-97, 1898-1901, 1902-05, and 1906-09, the average annual death-rate from erysipelas, of children under one year of age per 10,000 births, of children under five years of age per 100,000 living at that age, and at all ages per 100,000 of the population; with the average annual percentage of Vaccinations to births* during each period.” Source: whale.to/a/biggs_graph_a.html

TABLE 35. (See Graph D.) INOCULABLE DISEASES. “[...] showing, for ENGLAND AND WALES, the death-rate per million births from Syphilis; from the total of nine inoculable diseases (including Syphilis) ; from all other causes; the percentage of vaccinations to births; and the conditions as to vaccination prevailing during the several groups of years.” Source: whale.to/a/biggs_graph_d.html

Table 42 & Graph (Diagram) G “[...] showing, for the BOROUGH OF LEICESTER, for each of the years 1838-1910, the number of deaths from each of the seven principal zymotic diseases per million living, with, for each of the years 1849-1910, the percentage of registered vaccinations to births. (See Diagram G for smallpox).” Source: whale.to/a/biggs_graph_g.html

As is plainly evident from these graphs, with respect to the evidence reviewed at least, vaccines do not give the protection they should. In fact, with the exception of one (Diphteria), vaccination percentage is positively correlated with death rate. In other words, more people die when more people receive vaccines. As such this finding lends validity to the idea that vaccines cause rather than cure disease.

Further credence to the notion that vaccines cause disease is given by the following statistics (the online sources for the first two graphs can be found here, the third graph can be accessed here):

Extracts from “LEICESTER: Sanitation versus Vaccination” By J.T. Biggs J.P.

Extracts from “LEICESTER: Sanitation versus Vaccination” By J.T. Biggs J.P.

"It will be seen from the foregoing table that 75,310 cases of diphtheria were treated with anti­toxin, with an average fatality-rate of 13.28 per cent. ; and that 13,135 cases not so treated yielded an average fatality-rate of only 5.65 per cent.—a relative difference of nearly 58 per cent, in favour of the latter, and hence damaging to the claims made by the advocates of anti-toxin. But this is not all. From foot-notes to the tables in the reports, we find that of the 742 deaths in cases not treated, no fewer than 137 were moribund, and recovery hopeless on their admission to the hospitals, while there were at least 92 deaths from diseases other than diphtheria. This proves that low as was the average fatality-rate of the cases not treated with anti-toxin, it is also unfairly saddled with all the worst and absolutely hopeless cases. In addition, a number of deaths from other causes which ought in common fair­ness to have been excluded are actually included in the non-treated class, the elimination of which would have led to a further reduction of the non-treated fatality-rate." “LEICESTER: Sanitation versus Vaccination” By J.T. Biggs J.P.

While from 1960-1980 flu deaths were well on their way to oblivion, the introduction of the flu vaccine visibly reversed this trend.

The Redundancy of Vaccines

Indeed, for the sake of arguing for the redundancy of vaccines, here are some graphs that show the vanishing of some diseases without the intervention of vaccines:

USA Compared to UK Typhoid Mortality 1901 to 1965 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

USA Compared to UK Scarlet Fever Mortality 1901 to 1965 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

Australia Typhoid Mortality Rates 1880 to 1970	Australia Scarlet Fever Mortality Rates 1880 to 1970

To further demonstrate the redundancy of vaccines, here are some graphs that clearly show that some diseases were well on their vanishing way before the intervention of vaccines:

USA Disease Mortality 1900 to 1965 Measles, Typhoid, Pertussis (Whooping Cough), Diphtheria, Scarlet Fever – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

UK Whooping Couch (Pertussis) Mortality 1838 to 1978 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

Australia Diphtheria Mortality Rates 1880 to 1970	Australian Whooping Cough (Pertussis) Mortality 1880-1970 - [SOURCE: Data - Official Year Books of the Commonwealth of Australia, as reproduced in Greg Beattie's book "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma"

To answer the title question: Vaccines, Cure or Cause?

At least based on the reviewed historical and recent evidence, it is clear that not only do vaccines not cure the disease, they precisely cause the disease.

Indeed, as Dr. Arlan Cage points out, the merit of vaccines is rather weak compared to its risks:

First, Vaccinations do not impart permanent immunity from the diseases they vaccinate against. Most modern studies show that a high percentage of people who were vaccinated as children have no stored immunity by the time they reach adulthood in their late teens or early twenties. When exposed to the diseases at this later age, they usually have a much more serious case of these illnesses, which can be fatal more often than when the diseases are acquired naturally as children. Second, Most epidemic-level outbreaks of the various diseases our society is vaccinating against are taking place among fully-vaccinated children. Even in the short-term, where vaccinations have been effective at reducing disease incidence, the immune effects are not universal and more and more children are getting sick anyway. In other words, children are being exposed to the risks of vaccination without the benefits of either short-term or long-term immunity. In roughly the last 30 years, for example, every case polio in the U.S. has been among previously vaccinated individuals. Third, the risks of side effects from vaccinations now appear to be higher than the risks of serious side effects from the naturally acquired childhood diseases. There still needs to be additional epidemiological research done in this area, but the preliminary findings are pointing in this direction. This will be especially true when the actual long-term side effects of an altered, hypo-functioning or dysfunctioning immune system are included. This will include conditions such as auto-immune diseases and cancer, all of which are now at epidemic levels in the U.S. and elsewhere where vaccinations are widespread. Fourth, the entire philosophy of vaccinations overlooks the crucial importance of actually catching the various childhood diseases as part of the normal development and training of our immune systems. Without ever being properly trained and allowed to exercise itself, we can never be fully certain that our immune system will be able to do its job throughout our lifetimes.southbaytotalhealth.com

What Does Cause Reduction in Disease Incidence?

Since infectious diseases have vanished independent from the intervention of vaccines, it should then be asked what the real causes are for their disappearance?

Dr Andrew Weil sums it up:

From his book ‘Health and Healing’ Dr Andrew Weil best answers it with this statement;   “Scientific medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunisations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, etc, were in decline before vaccines for them became available – the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water.”vaclib.org

Over the years, infectious diseases came with poor hygiene and sanitation and went with proper hygiene and sanitation:

Today, we know that sanitation makes a tremendous contribution to preventing disease and keeping people healthy.But is wasn’t always that way. Throughout most of our history, sanitation practices were practically nonexistent. Yet the history of sanitation dates back at least 7.000 years, to the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans.   7,000 YEARS AGO The Babylonians discovered that contaminated water could cause disease. They brought in fresh water every day. 2,000 YEARS AGO The physician Hippocrates discovered that cleansing could prevent infection. THE ROMAN EMPIRE Made great progress in the area of sanitation. Built aqueducts to bring in fresh water, and built sewer systems and public baths. However, with the fall of the Roman Empire, much of the knowledge the Romans developed was lost, and was not passed on. MEDIEVAL TIMES Were truly the Dark Ages as far as sanitation was concerned. Towns were dirty and crowded, and disease and epidemics spread unchecked because of the lack of sanitation. Water was contaminated, and personal hygiene was virtually unknown. Tuberculosis, cholera, diphtheria, smallpox, yellow fever, all were rampant. As many children died as lived, and the average life span was under 30 years. The worst epidemic during this period was the Black Death, from 1438-1441, which spread to such proportions that 60 million people died, which at the time was one-fourth the population of the world. 19TH. CENTURY In New York City, living conditions were as nearly as filthy as in the middle ages, and yearly epidemics swept through populations, killing many. The average life span was less than age 40. But during the mid 1800’s, it was discovered between germs and disease was proven. Soaps, disinfectants, and pharmaceuticals began to be developed, and it was first recognized that disease could be controlled. This began the Sanitation Revolution, and public health practices such as garbage collection, water treatment, public health departments and regulations, as well as personal bathing, became part of the culture. The death rate in children dropped, and the average life span increased over the years, to age 74. vaclib.org

Here are a couple of graphs together with the comments by the author, a vaccine advocate, who admits there are quite a few infectious diseases that have significantly disappeared due to improvements in hygiene, nutrition, sanitation etc., prior to vaccination.

Polio in the US and the UK

In the 1950s, there were 20,000 cases of polio annually causing more than 1,000 deaths(4); many more thousand victims were left in iron lungs. This was caused because of the predilection of the polio virus for the anterior horn cells of the spinal cord and consequent paralysis of the respiratory muscles. But, what is less known, and this is quite disconcerting to me, is that between 1923-1953, before the Salk (dead virus) vaccine was discovered in 1955, the polio death rate in the U.S. and England declined on its own by 47 percent and 55 percent, respectively.(5) This is not reported or discussed by the public health establishment but, it seems, only by independent researchers (see figure 1); neither is the fact that European countries, which didn’t systematically immunize their citizens, also experienced a precipitous decline in their polio morbidity and mortality statistics.And yet, between 1951-1954, before immunization, there were still more than 16,000 cases of polio and nearly 1,900 deaths. It was not until 1991 that polio was virtually eradicated from the U.S. and other nations of the Western Hemisphere. There is no question that in this case better hygiene and sanitation and better living conditions were bringing down the number of cases of polio, but the vaccine itself, finally, was probably responsible for dispatching the final blows to the disease. medicalvoices.org

Diphteria and Pertussis in the US and the UK

Between 1900-1930 before the diphtheria vaccine, greater than a 90 percent decline was noted in this disease by practicing physicians due to better diet, living conditions, and sanitation,(5) and yet there is no question the diphtheria toxoid played a significant role in conquering the last 10 percent of fatal cases of this disease. In 1998, there was only one case in the U.S.Similar cases can be made for tetanus and pertussis, the two other diseases targeted by the DPT (Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus) immunizing agent mixture of precipitated toxoids.The average annual number of pertussis (whooping cough) cases between 1922-1925 (the 4 years before vaccine development) was 147,271. By 1998, this figure had fallen so that there were 6,279 cases in the U.S.And yet, the incidence and severity of pertussis had been declining before the pertussis vaccine was introduced. From 1900-1935, in the United States and England, before the vaccine program for whooping cough had been implemented (in the 1940s), the death rate from this disease had already declined by 79 percent and 82 percent, respectively (see figure 2).(5)Unfortunately, despite the great advances in Western nations, as many as 9,000 people, particularly children, still die annually from whopping cough mostly in Third World countries.The same may be said for lock jaw (tetanus). The estimated average annual number of cases between 1922-1926 was 1,314. By 1998, U.S. tetanus cases had dropped dramatically to 34. Yet, this disease is still with us in undeveloped nations because of poor living conditions.(Figure 2. Pertussis death rate from 1900 to 1935. The graph shows the pertussis death rate had decreased by more than 75 percent before the vaccine was introduced. This graph is adopted from Neil Z. Miller’s monograph, Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?[5]) medicalvoices.org

Measles in the US and the UK

[...] a significant decline in measles took place before vaccination was introduced in the United States and England. And, in fact, before the inception of the measles vaccine (1963), from 1915-1958, a 95 percent decline took place in measles death rate (see figure 3). That is, the measles death rate dropped from approximately 13.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 1900 to 0.03 deaths per 100,000 in 1955. Moreover, post-vaccination death rates for measles in the mid-1970s are similar to those of the pre-vaccination years in the early 1960s.(5)Public health and the press have nothing but praise for vaccination programs, even mandatory immunization. For example, a recent (but typical) newspaper article reports: “Many Americans have either forgotten or never lived through the periods when children used to die from outbreaks of diseases such as measles or polio.”(7) In this instance, the reporter quotes Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the CDC’s National Immunization Program, who noted that in a regional epidemic of measles in Los Angeles peaking as late as 1990, 4,549 cases of measles were reported with 12 deaths. The point being that the disease is still there and dangerous. Yet, Barbara Fisher, president of the Vienna, Virginia-based National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), countered that during this measles outbreak (1989-1990), “a whole group of young mothers who had been vaccinated against measles, and therefore only had temporary, artificial immunity were not able to give their babies the protection unvaccinated mothers had given them. We saw a lot of measles in very young babies where they did not naturally occur before.”(8) In other words, active immunization did not provide mothers with the long lasting immunity that is provided by acquiring the disease naturally.In some of these infants, she speculated, the mother wasn’t able to pass her immunity to them as babies because they had not contracted and overcome the natural measles virus during their childhood and therefore couldn’t pass this immunity on to their babies which would otherwise have protected them for 12-15 months after birth. medicalvoices.org

So what does one do to mitigate the severity of infectious diseases? Dr Cage proposes:

The serious epidemics and infectious illnesses which prompted the move to develop vaccinations were caused by poor sanitation and nutrition, in other words, by living in un-natural manners. It was a return to clean natural living and hygiene which were the most significant factors for the eradication of these illnesses and not the introduction of un-natural vaccines. [...] If you choose to not vaccinate your children it is important to be sure they eat a healthy diet with all the Essential Nutrients and avoid immune suppressing food items like white sugar, candy, sweetened breakfast cereals, sodas and french fries or other junk food cooked in bad fats. Most parents will want to do this anyway when they learn just how un-healthy these over-processed foods really are. southbaytotalhealth.com

He further recommends:

If you choose not to vaccinate your children, you may be wondering what options you have to protect your child. The best protection is of course a healthy immune system. You may, however, want to do more or to reduce the severity of childhood illnesses when they do occur. Basically, the major options for a more natural approach to immunity and prevention can be summarized as follows:   Strong Nutrition and Immune System, Allow Child to Catch Diseases Naturally. If you or other children in your family have shown strong vitality and most of your child’s illnesses are short and relatively benign, he or she is probably an excellent candidate for this option. In this case, treat the illnesses when they arise with homeopathy, herbal medicines or other natural means which support the natural immune process. Treat Prophylactically with Homeopathy During Known Outbreaks of Infectious Diseases. Even as far back as the time of Hahnemann, homeopathy has been used as a preventive measure during known epidemics and has been shown to reduce both the incidence of diseases and the severity in people who do catch the illness. Treat Prophylactically with Homeopathy According to a Schedule. This in essence is similar to the vaccination process, but without the side effects of the vaccinations. It is important to note that homeopathic forms of the vaccines will not impart immunity as measured by blood anti-bodies. Nevertheless, in statistics compiled by an Australian Homeopath, Isaac Golden, this process still results in a reduction in disease incidence and severity. Golden’s work needs to be replicated and expanded, but this may be a better option if your child tends to be more sickly, or more strongly afflicted by illnesses. southbaytotalhealth.com

Closing Comment

In all fairness, does that mean that all vaccines are necessarily bad? No, it doesn’t. For all I know, it may very well be possible that there are vaccines out there that really do work, i.e. prevent or cure rather than cause disease. I haven’t come across evidence of them yet but that doesn’t mean they are not there, now or in the future. The CDC, for one, claims there are some. I preserve an open mind so I’m open to new claims. However, I can tell you that I regard any and all substances that need to be injected into my body, and thereby bypassing any natural immunological responses, with extreme prejudice.

History and common sense cannot help but disapprove of the use of vaccines.

It’s a sad fact of life that a great number of people have lost faith in the ability of their own immune systems to stave off infectious diseases. The underlying rationale is based on insecurity and fear. And that’s a shame really because the human immune system, if working properly, is incredibly strong and effective in dealing with pathogens. It is much more natural to work on strengthening your immune system, through quality nutrition proper hygiene etc., than to seek refuge to unnatural artificial means that precisely burden and undermine your immune system and only give temporary relief and protection at best.

References:

1. VACCINATION A DELUSION – ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE
2. LEICESTER: SANITATION versus VACCINATION – J.T. BIGGS J.P.
3. http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html
4. http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/
5. http://vactruth.com/health-sentinel-graphs/
6. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm
7. http://www.southbaytotalhealth.com/Vaccinations.htm

Video Reference:

1. Vaccines -The Hidden Truth

Appendix – Computing Regression and Correlation with Mathematica

As example I take TABLE 35 from Biggs:

Period	Death rate 1	Death rate 2	Death rate 3	Vacc. %
1847-53	564	58,997	97,469	62.5
1854-67	1,207	67,912	84,734	73.4
1868-98	1,705	79,336	68,783	78.3
1899-1908	1,269	73,563	64,082	71.5
1909-10	1,185	54,124	52,961	59.6

I assume that the table has been imported in simple but proper format (each period covers one line, spaces between numbers, no letters, just numbers) into a file called biggs.dat, stored in the directory c:\\temp.

First import  biggs.dat into Mathematica:

T = Import["c:\\temp\\biggs.dat", "Table"]
and calculate its transpose:
TT = Transpose[T]
and the vaccination percentages in vector form:
Perc = TT[[5]]

Then execute the following sequence of commands:

1. A = Table[{T[[n, 5]], T[[n, 2]]}, {n, 1, 5}]
   extracts numbers from the 5th column and the 2nd column from the table and turns them into a set of coordinates or points where x = vaccination percentage, y = death rate 1
2. line = Fit[A, {1, x}, x]
   make a linear fit (least squares) to the set of coordinates
3. Dis1 = TT[[2]]
4. regression = Correlation[Perc, Dis1]
   this is the r talked about in this blog
5. ListPlot[A, PlotStyle -> Red, PlotRange -> {{50, 80}, {500, 1800}}]
   plot the points, you will have to tweak the plot range for each plot
6. Plot[line, {x, 50, 80}, PlotLabel -> "Syphilis ( r = regression RC = line_slope)", AxesLabel -> {"% Vacc.", Death Rate}, PlotRange -> {{50, 80}, {500, 1800}}]
   plot the line, you will have to tweak the plot range for each plot
7. Show[%, ListPlot[A, PlotStyle -> Red, PlotRange -> {{50, 80}, {500, 1800}}]]
   show the points and the line together

Repeat the above procedure with

A2 = Table[{T[[n, 5]], T[[n, 3]]}, {n, 1, 5}]

etc...

Is the Disease Really Worse than the Cure?

As I was looking for vaccine related information, I stumbled on this most remarkable quote by one Prof. Annika Linde:

Thousands of Swedes have been vaccinated so far and the reports of side effects are “flooding in” to The Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control (SMI). Annika Linde: “It is obviously so that the vaccine against the swine flu results in more side effects than the normal flu vaccines. That is because the swine flu vaccine contains adjuvants, shark liver oil, which triggers the immune defense to respond. That also results in that the protection against the virus becomes better.”blogs.healthfreedomalliance.org

Questioning the Rationale for Deploying Vaccines

Let’s analyze that statement for a while. It is asserted that when more people come down with side-effects then this means somehow that the protection against the actual disease is getting better. That’s an interesting thought. So the assumption is made that the stronger the immune response is, the more effective the vaccine then also must work in the sense that the disease then also should be combated more effectively.

But is this blanket assumption really justified?

What if a stronger immune response does not automatically imply that the disease is also combated more effectively? What if a stronger immune response actually not only attacks the disease but also starts attacking parts of the body? After all, this is the essence of autoimmune disease, where your own immune system becomes your enemy.

What if it just so happens that a vaccine-induced hyped up immune system stands to do more bad than good?

It should be understood that there are real dangers to using adjuvants in vaccines. In a previous blog I proved the presence and of the notorious adjuvants, thimerosal, squalene and TWEEN 80 in the current H1N1 flu shots. As I also indicated in my blog, these substances are dangerously far removed from the spectrum of safe substances. In a nutshell, thimerosal has been linked with the development of autism-like symptoms, squalene has been linked with the dreaded auto-immune disease known as Gulf War Syndrome, and TWEEN 80 may induce (deadly) anaphylaxis and has been shown to cause infertility in rats. So, these are no mild side-effects by any stretch and so the price ticket of taking this witches brew vaccine is not exactly negligible.

And therefore the statement made by Prof. Linde only makes sense if somehow the benefits of taking the vaccines outweigh its associated risks. That is, it’s worthwhile considering taking the vaccine only if the cure is not worse than the disease, proverbially speaking. Her statement only makes sense if the swine flu pandemic is also a serious enough pandemic that severely enough affects a great enough number of people across the globe. Then and only then can justification for taking a vaccine that obviously brings its own set of health-hazards be given consideration.

And so we need to ask ourselves: Just how big is this Swine flu alleged pandemic? And, how severely does it affect people around the globe?

How Severe is the H1N1 Flu Pandemic?

The CDC claims that: “So far, most flu is 2009 H1N1 flu.” I had some difficulty believing this to be true, but as you can see they do indeed claim as such:

Spotted 29 October 2009

More specifically the CDC claims:

The first 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus infections were identified in the United States in April 2009 (1). By August, the cumulative number of infections in the United States was estimated to be at least 1 million.* This report provides an overview of influenza activity during April–August 2009 and recommendations for the upcoming 2009–10 influenza season. Pandemic H1N1 influenza activity peaked in the United States during May and June and declined during July and early August. However, levels of influenza activity remained above normal for summer months, and focal outbreaks were reported throughout the summer. During the last 2 weeks of August, pandemic H1N1 influenza activity increased in certain areas of the United States. Clinicians and public health officials should be aware that these recent increases might signal an early start to the 2009–10 influenza season, with pandemic H1N1 influenza viruses predominating at least initially.   In the United States, CDC’s National Influenza Surveillance System consists of nine different systems that monitor influenza viruses and the geographic spread and level of influenza activity. In addition to these ongoing systems, in April 2009, in response to the emergence and spread of the pandemic H1N1 virus, the states and CDC implemented line-listed reporting for cases of pandemic H1N1. In May, this system transitioned to include aggregate counts of pandemic H1N1 influenza cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. On July 24, CDC recommended that states discontinue reporting of individual confirmed and probable cases of pandemic H1N1 virus infection but to continue to provide aggregate reports of influenza-associated hospitalizations and deaths. From mid-April to August 30, a total of 9,079 hospitalizations and 593 deaths associated with laboratory-confirmed 2009 pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus infections were reported to CDC. cdc.gov

As if by timely divine providence, the CBS offers a nice rebuttal to these amazing CDC claims:

A three-month-long investigation by CBS News, released earlier this week that  included state-by-state test results, revealed some very different facts. The CBS study found that H1N1 flu cases are NOT as prevalent as feared. A CBS article even states:   “If you’ve been diagnosed “probable” or “presumed” 2009 H1N1 or “swine flu” in recent months, you may be surprised to know this: odds are you didn’t have H1N1 flu. In fact, you probably didn’t have flu at all.“ Obviously CBS News and the CDC are completely contradicting each other. So who is right? [...] Before beginning their investigation, CBS News asked the CDC for state-by-state test results prior to their halting of testing and tracking. The CDC did not initially respond so CBS went to all 50 states directly, asking for their statistics on state lab-confirmed H1N1 prior to the halt of individual testing and counting in July. What did they find? CBS reported: “The results reveal a pattern that surprised a number of health care professionals we consulted. The vast majority of cases were negative for H1N1 as well as seasonal flu, despite the fact that many states were specifically testing patients deemed to be most likely to have H1N1 flu, based on symptoms and risk factors, such as travel to Mexico.”mercola.com

The CBS article can be found here. As also mentioned in the Mercola article based on this CBS report, Finland apparently has had enough of the Swine flu hype and decided to downgrade its threat level.

Swine Flu Compared to Seasonal Flu

To give you an impression of the real magnitude of the Swine flu casualty record. Here is an overview by  flucount.org of the actual number of people fallen victim to the H1N1 flu:

As of 29 October 2009

I assume that the Swine flu cases that have been recorded by flucount.org were also severe enough to warrant medical treatment. It seems reasonable to assume that milder cases had escaped detection and therefore also escaped registration. After all, if only mild, a good portion of people may prefer to just sweat it all out at home without the intervention of medical doctors.

Assuming the pandemic is about half a year old, this means that globally this amounts to about a million cases all year around, claiming about a projected 15 thousand deaths. The current global case fatality ratio, is thus roughly 1,3 percent.

In the US about a projected 90 thousand people will come down with Swine flu, annually, of which about 24 hundred people will succumb. The current US case-to-fatality ratio is roughly 2,6 percent.

How do these numbers compare to conventional, seasonal flu? Wikipedia comes up with the following estimates:

Typically, in a year’s normal two flu seasons (one per hemisphere), there are between three and five million cases of severe illness and up to 500,000 deaths worldwide, which by some definitions is a yearly influenza epidemic.[127] Although the incidence of influenza can vary widely between years, approximately 36,000 deaths and more than 200,000 hospitalizations are directly associated with influenza every year in the United States.[128][129] Roughly three times per century, a pandemic occurs, which infects a large proportion of the world’s population and can kill tens of millions of people (see history section). Indeed, one study estimated that if a strain with similar virulence to the 1918 influenza emerged today, it could kill between 50 and 80 million people.[130]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza

So we see that seasonal flu is good for about 4 million cases a year, claiming about 500 thousand lives annually and globally. This yields a global case fatality ratio of about 12,5 percent. In the US about 200,000 people get severely ill, of which 36 thousand people annually die because of the contraction of seasonal flu. This yields a current US case fatality ratio of roughly 18 percent.

Any casual comparison of those figures shows without doubt that seasonal flu poses a much graver threat to public health than does Swine flu. But isn’t it odd that it is precisely Swine flu, rather than seasonal flu, that is regarded to deserve a pandemic status?

And therefore the whole H1N1 circus smells like hype, and a particularly unhealthy type of hype at that. Indeed here is a statement by the CDC director no less, that perfectly illustrates that we are in fact dealing with hype:

Meanwhile, swine flu is more widespread now than it’s ever been, and has resulted in more than 1,000 U.S. deaths so far. Flu illnesses are as widespread now as they are at the winter peak of normal flu seasons, said CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden. “Many millions” of Americans have had swine flu so far, according to an estimate he gave at a Friday press conference. The government doesn’t test everyone to confirm swine flu so it doesn’t have an exact count.news.yahoo.com

Hype it up some more why don’t you? At first the CDC claimed that “at least a million” folks came down with Swine flu. And now we have a brazen CDC director saying that “many millions” have gotten sick. I suppose that once you’ve passed the million barrier, then somehow it is okidoki at the CDC to just jump from a single million to “many millions.”

Most Americans do not live on “Planet CDC” though, so how about many thousands instead, chief? 45 thousand to be more accurate.

So what is the reason then for decorating Swine flu with a pandemic status? Wikipedia gives one reason:

The 2009 swine flu has been compared to other similar types of influenza virus in terms of mortality: “in the US it appears that for every 1000 people who get infected, about 40 people need admission to hospital and about one person dies.”[56] There are fears that swine flu will become a major global pandemic at the end of the year (coinciding with the Northern Hemisphere winter months), with many countries planning major vaccination campaigns.[57] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swine_influenza

Indeed, it seems that the authorities are hell-bent on classifying Swine flu as being a pandemic, whipping up fear to fever pitch levels, and pushing all sense and reason aside in the process, as is customary and pretty much unavoidable in these kind of rash and irrational bouts of decision-making. You see, in today’s “age of terror” it is of course most fashionable to play this nice and shiny fear card. In the present world everyone is always somewhere somehow under some sort of threat.

Why? Because the industries of fear are big business, that’s why. By exaggerating this threat of Swine flu to unseen irrational heights, the answer to the question cui bono (“who benefits”) is easily guessed through basic deduction. For one, the producers of the Swine flu vaccines make a killing of course. But since their witch’s brews are loaded with poisons it is can be anticipated with mathematical certainty that in the not too distant future numerous vaccinated people will come down with all kinds of ailments and diseases, most of them permanent and progressive (e.g. Gulf War Syndrome). Most of them will require permanent medication and/or hospitalization. So who benefits from this systemic retardation of public health? Why, Big Pharma and Big Medica of course.

Hence we have identified the likely culprits behind this farcical hype called Swine flu.

Here’s a piece of a Reuters article that even admits that Swine flu is less devastating than estimated but happily goes ahead and defends its pandemic classification just the same:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The death rate from the pandemic H1N1 swine flu is likely lower than earlier estimates, an expert in infectious diseases said on Wednesday. New estimates suggest that the death rate compares to a moderate year of seasonal influenza, said Dr Marc Lipsitch of Harvard University. “It’s mildest in kids. That’s one of the really good pieces of news in this pandemic,” Lipsitch told a meeting of flu experts being held by the U.S. Institute of Medicine.” Barring any changes in the virus, I think we can say we are in a category 1 pandemic. This has not become clear until fairly recently.” The Pandemic Severity Index set by the U.S. government has five categories of pandemic, with a category 1 being comparable to a seasonal flu epidemic. Seasonal flu has a death rate of less than 0.1 percent — but still manages to kill 250,000 to 500,000 people globally every year. A category 5 pandemic would compare to the 1918 flu pandemic, which had an estimated death rate of 2 percent or more, and would kill tens of million of people. Lipsitch took information from around the world on how many people had reported they had influenza-like illness, which may or may not actually be influenza; government reports of actual hospitalizations and confirmed deaths. He came up with a range of mortality from swine flu, from 0.007 percent to 0.045 percent.reuters.com

So what is a pandemic anyway and what is this Pandemic Severity Index that the article mentions?

Definition of Pandemic Pandemic: An epidemic (a sudden outbreak) that becomes very widespread and affects a whole region, a continent, or the world.By contrast: An epidemic affects more than the expected number of cases of disease occurring in a community or region during a given period of time. A sudden severe outbreak within a region or a group as, for example, AIDS in Africa or AIDS in intravenous drug users. An endemic is present in a community at all times but in low frequency. An endemic is continuous as in the case of malaria in some areas of the world or as with illicit drugs in some neighborhoods. The word “pandemic” comes from the Greek “pan-”, “all” + “demos”, “people or population” = “pandemos” = “all the people.” A pandemic affects all (nearly all) of the people. By contrast, “epi-” means “upon.” An epidemic is visited upon the people. And “en-” means “in.” An endemic is in the people.medterms.com

Is it true that the H1N1 flu really “affects all (nearly all) of the people”? Even the most casual of glances at the available data must answer that pivotal question in the negative.  Rather than being a dreadfully dreadful pandemic, it’s much sooner just dreadfully exaggerated. It’s so not even worthy of calling it the smallest of pandemics, that it’s downright impossible not to scoff at any allegation that it is.

But oh wait, the sexy and trendy sounding Pandemic Severity Index seems to offer a smooth and nuanced way out of this amazing overestimation of this sheer impotent disease:

The Pandemic Severity Index (PSI) is a proposed classification scale for reporting the severity of influenza pandemics in the United States. The PSI was accompanied by a set of guidelines intended to help communicate appropriate actions for communities to follow in potential pandemic situations.[1] Released by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on February 1, 2007, the PSI was designed to resemble the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale classification scheme.[2][3] [...] The index focuses less on how likely a disease will spread worldwide-that is, become a pandemic-and more upon how severe the epidemic actually is.[7] The main criterion used to measure pandemic severity will be case-fatality ratio (CFR), the percentage of deaths out of the total reported cases of the disease.[3] The actual implementation of PSI alerts is expected to occur after the World Health Organisation (WHO) announces phase 6 influenza transmission (human to human) in the United States. This would probably result in immediate announcement of a PSI level 3-4 situation.[3] The analogy of “category” levels were introduced to provide an understandable connection to hurricane classification schemes, with specific reference to the recent aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.[4][7] Like the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, the PSI ranges from 1 to 5, with Category 1 pandemics being most mild (equivalent to seasonal flu) and level 5 being reserved for the most severe “worst-case” scenario pandemics (such as the 1918 Spanish flu).[3][4] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic_Severity_Index

So, according to the very definition of the Pandemic Severity Index, seasonal flu has every bit of justification to be called a (Category one) pandemic too. In fact, more so even than the Swine flu. And yet, it isn’t… but the milder Swine flu is?

This idiotic and backward classification of the situation begs the question, WHY? Well, I already addressed that question a few paragraphs back but here’s a more poetic answer:

Reason Walks when Money Talks….

Conclusion

Here we have a disease of which the casualty numbers are suspiciously hyped up to irresponsible and unrealistic levels. And we have a so-called cure that is basically a toxic witches brew that on top of that has been rushed through production with no proper testing. In fact, it is impossible to assess any long term effects when they are to be deployed no later than midway of next year.

So no, the disease is not worse than the cure. In fact, it is the cure that should be dreaded most, not the disease.

References:

1. Proof that European H1N1 Vaccines Contain Mercury, Squalene and TWEEN 80
2. Mercola: CBS Reveals that Swine Flu Cases Seriously Overestimated
3. CBS-NEWS: Swine Flu Cases Overestimated?
4. flucount.org (Swine Flu Count – Worldwide statistics of the H1N1 Influenza A Pandemic)
5. CDC : Questions and Answers Regarding Estimating Deaths from Seasonal Influenza in the United States

Proof that European H1N1 Vaccines Contain Mercury, Squalene and TWEEN 80

“The vaccine market is booming,” says Bruce Carlson, spokesperson at market research firm Kalorama, which publishes an annual survey of the vaccine industry. “It’s an enormous growth area for pharmaceuticals at a time when other areas are not doing so well.” mercola.com

The Different Shots

In the first part of this blog I will reveal the manufacturers that dispense their H1N1 vaccines to Europe and what kind of toxic substances are in them. Secondly, I will home in on those substances and expand on the nature of their respective toxicities.

"Flu-pandemic - that's how we keep a lid on flu" (liberal translation, the original is punny)

As I was browsing the internet searching for official Dutch information on the H1N1 flu circus, the website called grieppandemie.nl caught my eye:

The “Veiligheid van het vaccin” (Safety of the vaccine) section, translates to:

Safety of the Vaccine   The vaccines that are currently being deployed have been developed over the last couple of years for the purpose of protecting against a variant of the virus that is now causing the flu-pandemic. The active component of the vaccine responsible for working specifically against this flu, the so-called antigen, has to be adapted. These adapted vaccines have to satisfy strict safety requirements for registration before they can be deployed. The registration procedures for the new vaccins Foceteria and Pandemrix are currently pending with the European Medicines Agency (EMEA). The EMEA is an institute of the European Union, that oversees the safety of new medications. To this end, it demands high standards of safety requirements. grieppandemie.nl

So the EMEA is the agency to turn to in finding out what is in vaccines destined for member states of the EU. In addition to the Focetria (Novartis) and Pandemrix (GlaxoSmithKline) vaccines already approved for Europe, the EMEA also recommends another, supposedly adjuvant-free, vaccine called Celvapan from Baxter:

The EMEA writes:

The European Medicines Agency has recommended to the European Commission that an additional vaccine against influenza A(H1N1) (‘swine flu’), Celvapan from Baxter, be granted a marketing authorisation. Adoption of an authorisation decision by the European Commission is expected shortly. This recommendation follows the authorisation of Focetria, from Novartis, and Pandemrix, from GlaxoSmithKline, by the European Commission on 29 September 2009. As for Focetria and Pandemrix, this recommendation will allow the manufacturer to replace the flu virus strain in the current ‘mock-up’ vaccine with the A(H1N1)v strain causing the current pandemic. Celvapan is a non-adjuvanted vaccine. This means that it does not contain ‘adjuvants’ to enhance the immune response. The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) is currently recommending a two-dose vaccination schedule, at an interval of three weeks, for adults, including pregnant women, and for children from six months of age. Clinical trials in adults and in children are ongoing, and more results will become available from mid-October 2009 onwards. emea.europa.eu

Let’s first find out what’s in these first two vaccines, Focetria and Pandemrix, that have already been approved for use in Europe. Since it is emphasized in the above EMEA website excerpt that Celvapan contains no adjuvants, it is suggested that the other two do.

Focetria (Novartis)

From the English package leaflet we read:

What Focetria contains - Active Substance: Influenza virus surface antigens (haemagglutinin and neuraminidase)* of strain: A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v like strain (X-179A) 7.5 micrograms** per 0.5 ml dose * propagated in eggs ** expressed in microgram haemagglutinin. This vaccine complies with the WHO recommendation and EU decision for the pandemic. - Adjuvant: The vaccine contains an ‘adjuvant’ (MF59C.1) to stimulate a better response. MF59C.1 is an oil/water emulsion containing 9.75 mg squalene, 1.175 mg polysorbate 80 and 1.175 mg sorbitan trioleate in a citrate buffer. - Other Ingredients: The other ingredients are: thiomersal (multidose vial only), sodium chloride, potassium chloride, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, disodium phosphate dihydrate, magnesium chloride hexahydrate, calcium chloride dihydrate, sodium citrate, citric acid and water for injections.emea.europa.eu Nederlandse bijsluiter Leaflets in other languages

Pandemrix (GlaxoSmithKline)

From the package leaflet we learn:

What Pandemrix contains • Active substance: Split influenza virus, inactivated, containing antigen* equivalent to: A/California/7/2009 (H1N1)v-like strain (X-179A) 3.75 micrograms** per 0.5 ml dose *propagated in eggs ** expressed in microgram haemagglutinin This vaccine complies with the WHO recommendation and EU decision for the pandemic. • Adjuvant: The vaccine contains an ‘adjuvant’ AS03 to stimulate a better response. This adjuvant contains squalene (10.69 milligrams), DL-α-tocopherol (11.86 milligrams) and polysorbate 80 (4.86 milligrams). • Other ingredients: The other ingredients are: polysorbate 80, octoxynol 10, thiomersal, sodium chloride, disodium hydrogen phosphate, potassium emea.europa.eu Nederlandse bijsluiter Leaflets in other languages

Celvapan (Baxter)

The leaflet package reveals:

What Celvapan contains Active substance: Whole virion influenza vaccine, inactivated, containing antigen of pandemic strain*: A/California/07/2009 (H1N1) 7.5 micrograms** per 0.5 ml dose * propagated in Vero cells (continuous cell line of mammalian origin) ** haemagglutinin This vaccine complies with the WHO recommendation and EU decision for the pandemic. Other ingredients: The other ingredients are: trometamol, sodium chloride, water for injections, polysorbate 80. emea.europa.eu Nederlandse bijsluiter Leaflets in other languages

The Different Poisons

In the second section of this blog I indicate the nature of the toxicity (read: health risks) of the substances referenced in the previous section.

Mercury (Thimerosal or Thiomersal)

This part is an updated loose adaptation of a section of a previous blog of mine, called Toxic Mercury – Evidence of a Strong Poison.

What is this stuff?

Thiomersal (INN) (C9H9HgNaO2S), or sodium ethylmercurithiosalicylate, commonly known in the United States as thimerosal, is an organomercury compound (approximately 49% mercury by weight) used as an antiseptic and antifungal agent.   It was invented and patented by Morris Kharasch. The pharmaceutical corporation Eli Lilly and Company gave it the trade name Merthiolate and it has been used as a preservative in vaccines, immunoglobulin preparations, skin test antigens, antivenins, ophthalmic and nasal products, and tattoo inks. The compound is being phased out from routine childhood vaccines in the United States, the European Union, and a few other countries.[1] Wikipedia (Thimerosal)

Here are two quotes from the CDC and the National Academies stating that thimerosal in vaccines is basically all fine and dandy:

Thimerosal “Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930s. No harmful effects have been reported from thimerosal at doses used in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service (PHS) agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure. Today, with the exception of some influenza (flu) vaccines, none of the vaccines used in the U.S. to protect preschool children against 12 infectious diseases contain thimerosal as a preservative.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   “Based on a thorough review of clinical and epidemiological studies, neither the mercury-based vaccine thimerosal nor the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine are associated with autism… Five large epidemiological studies in the United States, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Sweden since 2001 consistently provided evidence that there is no association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism… ” National Academies press release about the IOM report “Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism,” May 18, 2004 vaccineinformation.org

Regarding the first quote, if “no harmful effects have been reported from thimerosal at doses used in vaccines” then, while reading the next sentence, why promote the push to eliminate it from vaccines? The quote of and by itself by its mere formulation is oxymoronic and therefore suspicion raising.

Here’s a Material Safety Data Sheet of thimerosal:

Primary Physical and Health Hazards: Skin Permeable. Toxic. Mutagen. Irritant (eyes). Allergen. Nervous System and Reproductive Effects.   Caution Statement: Thimerosal may enter the body through the skin, is toxic, alters genetic material, may be irritating to the eyes, and causes allergic reactions. Effects of exposure may include numbness of extremities, fetal changes, decreased offspring survival, and lung tissue changes. Routes of Entry: Inhalation and skin absorption. Effects of Overexposure: Topical allergic dermatitis has been reported. Thimerosal contains mercury. Mercury poisoning may occur and topical hypersensitivity reactions may be seen. Early signs of mercury poisoning in adults are nervous system effects, including narrowing of the visual field and numbness in the extremities. Exposure to mercury in utero and in children may cause mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe motor coordination impairment. Based on animal data, may be irritating to the eyes.putchildrenfirst.org

Here’s a reference by a manufacturer of thimerosal (Sigma and Aldrich), given in the below picture, that provides it with T+,N hazard coding.

Source: nomercury.org

So what’s the meaning of these codes? The pictograms and hazard codes page indicates that T+ stands for “Extremely toxic” and N stands for “Dangerous for the environment.” Does that sound like stuff you want to have injected straight into your system?

Here is a portion of the abstract of a new peer-reviewed scientific study investigating thimerosal neurotoxicity. It states quite clearly that thimerosal induces autism-like neurotoxicity:

Thimerosal-induced cellular damage as evidenced by concentration- and time-dependent mitochondrial damage, reduced oxidative-reduction activity, cellular degeneration, and cell death in the in vitro human neuronal and fetal model systems studied. Thimerosal at low nanomolar (nM) concentrations induced significant cellular toxicity in human neuronal and fetal cells. Thimerosal-induced cytoxicity is similar to that observed in AD pathophysiologic studies. Thimerosal was found to be significantly more toxic than the other metal compounds examined.informaworld.com

Now compare this new find with the embarrassing position the CDC still maintains:

Recent estimates from CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring network found that about 1 in 150 children have an ASD. This estimate is higher than estimates from the early 1990s. Some people believe increased exposure to thimerosal (from the addition of important new vaccines recommended for children) explains the higher prevalence in recent years. However, evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism frequency does not support such an association. Furthermore, a scientific review* by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that “the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.” CDC supports the IOM conclusion. cdc.gov

Somebody better tell the CDC that thimerosal in vaccines is bad news after all. I doubt if they care to listen though.

In reference to the above new study one may argue that the study is an in vitro study and that to have a more accurate reflection of reality one should consider an in vivo study. In vitro here means direct application of mercury to the brain tissues examined. In vivo means here that the mercury is administered through needle into the bloodstream (of a living person). It depends on the strength of the blood-brain barrier whether or not this mercury will actually reach and affect the brain.

So the practical difference between an in vitro experiment and an in vivo experiment in this case is the blood-brain barrier (BBB), which if working to satisfaction should be able to obstruct thimerosal present in the blood from reaching the brain and so prevent it from doing damage.

This assumption however is obviously unjustified if and when the BBB is not working properly and as such is incapable of blocking mercury from entering the brain. So when is the BBB compromised? For one, the BBB is not fully functional in infants. Other reasons are given by Dr Blaylock:

Therefore, for the many people who have an impaired BBB, exposure to intravenously administered thimerosal does make them vulnerable to develop autism-like disorders or symptoms.

For a more detailed narrative on how mercury and mercurial compounds cause brain inflammation that may trigger Autism-like symptoms please read the Appendix of Toxic Mercury.

Squalene

What is this stuff?

Squalene is a natural organic compound originally obtained for commercial purposes primarily from shark liver oil, though botanic sources (primarily vegetable oils) are used as well, including amaranth seed, rice bran, wheat germ, and olives. All higher organisms produce squalene, including humans. It is a hydrocarbon and a triterpene. Squalene is a natural and vital part of the synthesis of cholesterol, steroid hormones, and vitamin D in the human body.[1] Squalene is used in cosmetics, and more recently as an immunologic adjuvant in vaccines. Wikipedia (Squalene)

Looks pretty benign, no? Well, that seems to be the case if you consume it through regular channels, that is by eating or drinking it. The situation changes unfortunately when you have the stuff injected straight into your system. Now the substance suddenly is being perceived far from benign. You see when injected, squalene is then registered by your immune system as a foreign substance, i.e. something that should not be there. As a consequence, an immune response is triggered, meaning that your immune system will proceed with attacking squalene.

Unfortunately for you, squalene is not just present in the blood after you’ve received the flu shot. Squalene is also built-in into various nervous tissues across your body, including brain. So when your immune system attacks squalene it will also start attacking those bodily structures that have squalene incorporated in them as building blocks. That is, your own immune system becomes your own enemy. This is the essence of an autoimmune disease like for instance Gulf War Syndrome:

Data published in the February 2000 and August 2002 issues of Experimental and Molecular Pathology strongly suggests that Gulf War Syndrome is caused by a vaccine contaminated with squalene.   The August 2002 article is entitled “Antibodies to Squalene in Recipients of Anthrax Vaccine” (Exp. Mol. Pathol. 73,19-27 (2002)). Gulf War Syndrome, or GWS, is the term which has been applied to the multi-symptom rheumatic disorder experienced by many veterans of the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf war. A similar disorder appeared in 1990-1991-era personnel who were never deployed to the Persian Gulf theater of operations and also in other military personnel, including participants in the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program, or AVIP, which was inaugurated in 1997. No data has ever suggested that the disorder experienced by the deployed 1990-1991 soldiers is different from the disorder experienced by the other groups of patients, but the other cases have not been considered to be cases of GWS. Squalene was found by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in five lots of the AVIP anthrax vaccine. The discovery of serum anti-squalene antibodies and the development of a test to detect these antibodies has made it possible to see that links appear to exist between the contaminated AVIP vaccine lots, the illness experienced by post-1997 vaccine recipients, the illness experienced by non-deployed 1990-1991-era patients, and the illness in deployed 1990-1991-era patients that has been referred to as GWS. The data establishing these links is presented in the peer-reviewed February 2000 and August 2002 articles. The published findings (1) strongly suggest that the GWS-like illness being reported by all of the various patient groups is the same illness, (2) strongly suggest that the contaminated vaccine caused the illness in the AVIP group, and (3) further suggest that squalene contamination of one or more 1990-1991-era vaccines accounts for the GWS cases from that era.autoimmune.com

Here’s the abstract of a scientific study which shows that Gulf War era troops suffering from GWS, whether or not they were deployed in the actual Gulf War, almost all had antibodies to squalene:

Antibodies to squalene in Gulf War syndrome. Asa PB, Cao Y, Garry RF.   Department of Microbiology, Tulane Medical School, 1430 Tulane Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70112, USA. PMBA@aol.com Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) is a multisystemic illness afflicting many Gulf War-era veterans. The molecular pathological basis for GWS has not been established. We sought to determine whether the presence of antibodies to squalene correlates with the presence of signs and symptoms of GWS. Participants in this blinded cohort study were individuals immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm during 1990-1991. They included 144 Gulf War-era veterans or military employees (58 in the blinded study), 48 blood donors, 40 systemic lupus erythematosus patients, 34 silicone breast implant recipients, and 30 chronic fatigue syndrome patients. Serum antibodies to squalene were measured. In our small cohort, the substantial majority (95%) of overtly ill deployed GWS patients had antibodies to squalene. All (100%) GWS patients immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm who did not deploy, but had the same signs and symptoms as those who did deploy, had antibodies to squalene. In contrast, none (0%) of the deployed Persian Gulf veterans not showing signs and symptoms of GWS have antibodies to squalene. Neither patients with idiopathic autoimmune disease nor healthy controls had detectable serum antibodies to squalene. The majority of symptomatic GWS patients had serum antibodies to squalene. Copyright 2000 Academic Press. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (pubmed)

Also see a host of references to various scientific studies that link squalene to autoimmune disease:
http://www.vaclib.org/basic/flu/web-swine/Squalene%20references%20for%20Edda.doc

Polysorbate 80 (TWEEN 80)

What is this stuff?

Polysorbate 80   Polysorbate 80 (commercially also known as Tween® 80) is a nonionic detergent and emulsifier derived from sorbitol and oleic acid, and is often used in foods, especially pickles. Polysorbate 80 is a viscous water soluble yellow liquid. The hydrophilic groups in this compound are polyethers which are polymers of ethylene oxide. Polysorbate 80 is often used in ice cream to prevent milk proteins from completely coating the fat droplets. This allows them to join together in chains and nets, to hold air in the mixture, and provide a firmer texture, holding its shape as the ice cream melts. Other names Polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate (x)-sorbitan mono-9-octadecenoate poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)medic8.com

Can it do harm? Yes, it can:

Polysorbate 80 in medical products and nonimmunologic anaphylactoid reactions. Coors EA, Seybold H, Merk HF, Mahler V.   Department of Dermatology, Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany. Polyoxyethylene-sorbitan-20-monooleate (also known as polysorbate 80 and Tween 80) is a solubilizing agent ubiquitously used in nutritives, creams, ointments, lotions, and multiple medical preparations (e.g., vitamin oils, vaccines, and anticancer agents) and as an additive in tablets. Whereas its relevance as a contact allergen has declined during the past decades, it is of current relevance as a “hidden” inductor of anaphylactoid reactions. OBJECTIVE: To identify polysorbate 80 (generally believed to be an inert vehicle) as an inductor of a severe anaphylactoid reaction. METHODS: Skin prick testing, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, IgE immunoblotting, and flow cytometric detection of basophil activation were performed in controls and in a patient with a medical history of anaphylactic shock due to intravenous administration of a multivitamin product during pregnancy. RESULTS: Polysorbate 80 was identified as the causative agent for the anaphylactoid reaction of nonimmunologic origin in the patient. Polysorbate specific IgE antibodies were not identified in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and immunoblot examinations, confirming the nonimmunologic nature of the anaphylactoid reaction. CONCLUSIONS: Polysorbate 80 is a ubiquitously used solubilizing agent that can cause severe nonimmunologic anaphylactoid reactions. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (pubmed)

Here’s a link to a Wikipedia page that carries a description of anaphylactic shock.

In addition to the risk of inducing anaphylactic shock, it has been demonstrated by a 1993 Slovakian study that TWEEN 80 damages fertility in rats:

Delayed effects of neonatal exposure to Tween 80 on female reproductive organs in rats. Gajdová M, Jakubovsky J, Války J.   Institute of Preventive and Clinical Medicine, Limbová, Bratislava. Neonatal female rats were injected ip (0.1 ml/rat) with Tween 80 in 1, 5 or 10% aqueous solution on days 4-7 after birth. Treatment with Tween 80 accelerated maturation, prolonged the oestrus cycle, and induced persistent vaginal oestrus. The relative weight of the uterus and ovaries was decreased relative to the untreated controls. Squamous cell metaplasia of the epithelial lining of the uterus and cytological changes in the uterus were indicative of chronic oestrogenic stimulation. Ovaries were without corpora lutea, and had degenerative follicles. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (pubmed)

Video references:

1. Robert Kennedy on the Vaccine Autism Coverup

2. Swine Flu’s vaccine’s devastating ingredient – Squalene

3. GULF WAR SYNDROME – Killing Our Own

4. 
   Swine Flu Hoax Exposed 2009