Please do not get scared with biotechnology terminology. Baculovirus Expression Vector system is based on the introduction of a foreign gene into viral genome region by recombination (genetic engineering method) with a transfer vector containing target gene. This does not mean that end product contains Baculovirus – it’s only this virus DNA that was used to introduce HPV gene to make L1 protein in insect cells. What it means that HPV protein shell was made by insect cells containing Baculovirus DNA with inserted HPV L1 protein gene (if I can explain it this way).

I am very sorry, but it is difficult to provide basic biotechnology tutorial on WDDTY forum, although I may consider adding an appropriate page to my website in the future.

I do not think that Baculovirus Expression Vector system used in this vaccine production was the reason for FDA to postpone its approval as FDA is aware of methods in Biotechnology which in turn also had to be certified before being used in manufacturing processes. The provider of Baculovirus Expression Vector system is Invitrogen Corporation (www.invitrogen.com).

P.S. It is not only HPV vaccine that can trigger CMV re-activation in carriers - Influenza vaccine or any other vaccine, infection or intoxication with chemicals, drugs, heavy metals etc. can do the same (plus genetic factors also should be considered). The main risk is in lack of effective and cost-effective diagnostic/screening tools, not in the vaccines themselves.

Hope it helps.

---

Alla Cranham, MSc ABMT,
Registered Homotoxicologist

Mercury House
Northgate
Nottingham
NG7 7FN

Tel +44(0) 845 450 7316
Mob +44(0) 77361 47458
Fax +44(0) 115 9163109
http://www.in-vivo-health.co.uk

Dear emv :

 

I would like to give you some comments on this important subject. I am German and the following statements mainly describe (but not only) the German situation. Also excuse my English; it used to be a lot better but I don’t practise it anymore that much. Hopefully I can still make myself clear.

 

Here are my points:

 

1.         The Placebo groups did not really get a placebo because aluminiumhydroxyd (which is an adjuvant) was in the placebo as well as in the studied vaccinations Gardasil and Cervarix. So obviously the side effects were comparable. You have to know that without this adjuvant there would not be any immune response whatsoever. No adjuvant, no antibodies! That is the very reason why aluminiumhydroxyd is in nearly every vaccine. Just about a year ago a Canadian group of scientists was testing this chemical with mice and found out that it was killing neurons. They got the shock of their life and are not going to take vaccinations themselves anymore. If you want to have their web side to check it out yourself I will gladly go and check my papers.

 

            You also have to know that producing antibodies only means that the body was in contact with either the natural occurring virus or the virus from the vaccine. Nothing else. It does not mean that it saves you from infection should the disease come around. This is an official statement from the German authority responsible for the licensing of vaccines! This same authority had to admit also that they have no clue to the biological mechanisms of vaccines once being injected into the human body. That’s why it’s called “infection theory”.  Actually, if you think about it: If vaccines would work the way medicine is telling us they should destroy the vaccination viruses given with the second, third or fourth repeat vaccination the way they are supposed to destroy a natural occuring virus.

 

2.         You found out yourself that both vaccines are genetically engineered. Most people with common sense don’t want to eat tomatoes that are produced through gene technology, but most of them have no idea that hepatitis B vaccines and also HPV vaccines are produced exactly with this technology and they are being injected directly into the bloodstream without the body having the chance of rejecting them through the natural ways of elimination. I would really like to know how much scientists really know about longterm effects of this fairly new technology. 

 

3.         Before licensure Gardasil was only studied in groups of 16 to 26 year old women for 4 years. It takes decades for developing cervical cancers. They only found out that the vaccinated group had fewer warts of the type that the vaccines contained. There is no scientific consensus that these warts are actually causing cancer, maybe they are a co-reason for the illness but this is not even sure. In any case, regarding the outcome of the studies the results regarding cancer were exactly the same in both groups. Neither the placebo nor the vaccinated group developed cancer which is really no surprise considering the time it takes to develop. Also you should know that those vaccinations only work – according to the producers – on girls (and boys which they would like to vaccinate as well) who did not have an infection with these types of viruses before being vaccinated.

 

4.         Nearly all women will be and have been infected with some types of these viruses. The risk of getting cervical cancer is 0,02 %, of dying of this disease is 0,005 % (in Germany but I guess it should not be much different in Scottland).

 

5.         Get yourself the wash sheet (I think that’s what you call it in English; that is the paper you get whenever you buy a drug – only when your doctor is injecting substances into your body you or your child never get to see it). You will be surprised what kind of side effects are listed – of course, they are very, very, very rare. In the US all kinds of consumer groups (not the authorities!) are watching this very closely and they draw another picture. Even the death rate is increasing by the month. For the authorities the death of a healthy young girl out of the blue without any explainable cause is only accidental. They do not have a clue why these girls die shortly (sometimes only one day like one case in Austria) after the injection; the only thing they know for sure is that it definitely is not due to the vaccination.  Life is dangerous; *** happens. Please log in at the following web side: www.nvic.org (National Vaccination Information Center).

6.         EMEA is not reporting to the European Health Ministry but the European Economic Ministry. I guess we can have a lot of trust in their motivation.

 

7.         Somebody in this blog said that the pharmaceutical industry and doctors cannot be interested in killing their customers. Right! This would purely be accidental and can be counted as collateral damage. But they cannot really be interested in making and keeping everybody healthy either. This would mean that they will not have any customers left. There is a good saying: Today there are more people that live off cancer than die because of it.

 

Well there is so much more to say about the subject but it will be too much for this blog. If you would like more information from Germany, please let me know and I gladly check through my papers. Just send my an e:mail: marianne.jaedick@t-online.de.

 

Good luck and I wish you the “right” decision for your daughter.

Many thanks Marianne - that's very, very helpful: good to get the European perspective! I'll PM you later.

 

emv

Dear Marianne,

If I were you, I would not take responsibility to state that ‘placebo groups did not really get a placebo because aluminium hydroxide was in the placebo as well as in the studied vaccinations’ unless I was 100 percent competent in the subject.

But your statement ‘no aluminium hydroxide – no antibody’ is correct to some extend. Aluminium hydroxide is a constituent of vaccine buffer solution because vaccine active particles have to be administered in pH buffered solution in which these particles would remain active. Without correct buffer solution these particles will aggregate with each other and therefore lose their activity to mount immune response and specific antibody production in the body. Placebo group received only buffer solution, i.e. without vaccine active ingredient, which is pretty standard approach.

I am afraid I can not support such radical views against vaccination per se as these views, to my opinion, lack scientific justification. Main therapeutic principle of Homeopathy ‘like cures like’ is also applicable to the philosophy of vaccination. Let me remind you that deadly smallpox was eradicated only due to successful vaccination campaigns throughout the world.

 

 

---

Alla Cranham, MSc ABMT,
Registered Homotoxicologist

Mercury House
Northgate
Nottingham
NG7 7FN

Tel +44(0) 845 450 7316
Mob +44(0) 77361 47458
Fax +44(0) 115 9163109
http://www.in-vivo-health.co.uk

Alla,

Smallpox was on the decline well BEFORE immunisation was introduced but it is still credited with its demise...the same was true for cholera,scarlet fever,diphtheria,whooping cough and the other infectious diseases.

The real reason for their demise seems to have been better sanitation and housing and altered virulence in the micro-organisms themselves.

In Germany in 1870-81 over 1 million had smallpox and 120,000 died...over 96% had been vaccinated and 4% not...interesting.

Vaccination and Immunisation:Dangers,Delusions and Alternatives by Leon Chaitow is an excellent,no hype source of info on this topic.

Blobby

---

Robin Allan
Chek Practitioner
Natural Health Coach

http://www.robinallan.com


robin_allan@hotmail.com

07967-366470

Dear Alla:

 About the aluminium hydroxide being in the placebo I will check my papers in order to give you the source I am having it from. But believe me, this is a source that I trust a lot more than an industry and authorities that advertise the vaccination thought since 200 years without knowing even the basics. I don't need scientific reasoning that most "normal" people don't understand anyway because they have their own language. But I and most people have a common sense, all they have to do is use it and loose their adoring admiration for anything scientific and ask the right questions. The person I got the above statement from (I am sure there are more persons that know this) is being watched, ridiculed and persecuted because of his statements regarding vaccinations so that he has to have everything checked out very carefully and always gives the sources where he has it from. Unfortunately I have read and collected 100 of books and an awful lot of other material that I will have to go through and that will take a little time. But I think it is important and you have a right to know so just be a little patient.

 Regarding homoeopathy and vaccination (I am a 100 % believer in classical homoepathy and since about 20 years have no other treatment except for my teeath and once when I broke my elbow where I had to have an operation) I must say that - in my opinion - unfortunately there are all kinds of homeopaths nowadays around. Hahnemann (the "founder of homeopathy" for those who do not know) did in fact think in the beginning that vaccinations are good but very shortly afterwards realized that this has nothing to do with the homeopathic principles which he invented or better realized. First of all there is absolutely now individual approach since with vaccination you take 6 billion people and treat them all the same at the same time (a little exaggerated but you get the picture) disregarding any symptoms, miasmas ect. Second you have no idea of what is happening in the body once this mix-up of many substances (different viruses with multiple vaccinations, adjuvants, antibiotics and a lot more - check the ingredient list of any vaccination). You surely must have heard of the Hering principles of healing. Classical homeopaths (these are the ones that go by Hahnemann's principles) only give one homeopathic ingredient and one only at one time. Regarding homeopathic vaccination nosodes there is a big controversy between homeopaths because these also have nothing to do with Hahnemann's homeopathy since there is no prophylactic treatment with him (except nutrition or something like that).

 About smallpox and other " through vaccination preventable" diseases you should get yourself the book "The role of Medicine: Dream, Mirage or Nemesis" from Thomas McKeown. He was a professor of social medicine at the University from Birmingham during the years 1945 to 1977. That says it all and his findings were confirmed by many authors around the world later. Here is something that I will have to check in my papers as well: According to a WHO doctor or scientist smallpox were only eradicated once they stopped the smallpox vaccination program and took care of hygenic measures around the world.

 As I told emv there is a lot more to say about all these things and I would gladly get into a discussion with you only it would be too much for this blog, I guess. Sorry, I just always have to say so much about it. I just want to tell you that I follow the subject of vaccination since about 20 years very carefully going to all kinds of seminars, reading a lot of books, talking to doctors and authorities etc. The internet makes it a lot more easy to get information nowadays. When I started there was no internet so it really was quite difficult and a lot more expensive to get information on the downside of vaccinations. The other side I just call propaganda which was easy to get. By the way, I was real believer in vaccination and did not really want to know that they are bad for you because the idea is very appealing to have a magic bullet and all your problems are blows away. It took me quite a while to get the propaganda out of my head.

Well, enough for today. You'll hear from me as soon as I checked my papers.

 Have a good day and regards,

Marianne

 

Thanks for this info, blobby. 

Let me also explain a little bit more: smallpox is/was caused by two virus variants Variola major and Variola minor, not bacteria, therefore better sanitation and housing can not play role in smallpox eradication as disinfectants and antiseptics do not afford selective inhibition of viruses. As viruses can replicate only inside the living cell, the source of infection in such case can not be targeted with disinfectants or other sanitation measures. Smallpox was a unique for human disease, and human body was the only battlefield to fight Variola virus. Cholera, scarlet fever, diphtheria and whooping cough are bacterial infectious diseases, and vaccination certainly played role in control of these. After the breakup of the former Soviet Union in the late 1980s, vaccination rates in its constituent countries fell so low that there was an explosion of diphtheria cases. In 1991 there were 2,000 cases of diphtheria in the USSR although housing and sanitation level remained unchanged.  

I would appreciate if you could point to the source of information regarding evidence or scientific justification for altered virulence of smallpox. Virulence can be altered under the force of evolution; for that the survival conditions for this virus had to be altered, and there is no reason to exclude strong immune responses to infection due to vaccination as a contributing factor. 

To make conclusion on the reason for smallpox mortality in Germany being linked with vaccination without knowing all the details does not seem to be unbiased as it is not known whether the vaccination there took place when the virus was already in the area. Vaccination is not a treatment, but prevention measure, and it has to be administered when there is a certainty of any infection absence at the time of administration, otherwise the proper immune response resulting in raise of specific antibodies will be impaired and side effects inevitable.

Thank you, both, Marianne and blobby, for your advice on the books to read. Although I do not tend to read popular literature on health-related subjects, I will make an effort to read these books in the near future and will let you know my opinion.

All the best to all.

 

---

Alla Cranham, MSc ABMT,
Registered Homotoxicologist

Mercury House
Northgate
Nottingham
NG7 7FN

Tel +44(0) 845 450 7316
Mob +44(0) 77361 47458
Fax +44(0) 115 9163109
http://www.in-vivo-health.co.uk

Alla,

If you subscribe to Pasteurs Germ Theory then better sanitation and housing will certainly not be seen as having any effect on the virus itself.

If you subscribe to Bechamps Terrain Theory then the above can certainly have improved the health of the host and created a healthier internal environment that could have resisted the virus.

Housing and sanitation may have remained the same in 1991 USSR but did nutrition?...what caused their immune systems to drop low enough to develop the illness?...How many actually died?...is 2,000 in a country the size of the USSR really an issue?

My source of info was the book I mentioned in my previous post...it does include references.

Blobby

---

Robin Allan
Chek Practitioner
Natural Health Coach

http://www.robinallan.com


robin_allan@hotmail.com

07967-366470

Nutrition in USSR countries in those years was better than never before - more food was available due to privatisation in economy, and the farming is still mainly organic as somehow intensive farming is underdeveloped there.

---

Alla Cranham, MSc ABMT,
Registered Homotoxicologist

Mercury House
Northgate
Nottingham
NG7 7FN

Tel +44(0) 845 450 7316
Mob +44(0) 77361 47458
Fax +44(0) 115 9163109
http://www.in-vivo-health.co.uk

Dear Alla, dear Blobby (I guess we are the only ones left on this blog):

 Sorry Alla, but I really do not quite understand your attitude. The books recommended by us are by now means "popular literature on health-related subjects". I checked up on Leon Chaitow and copy in his CV at the end. Unfortunately to really understand anti vaccination circles you just have to get yourself aquainted with their arguments. I am always surprised on how easy it is to put doctors or/and other pro vaccination people on the spot because they normally have no answer to those arguments. But now I understand: They just don't want to put work into the other side of the picture. Because that is really work.

 As I promised I checked through my papers and it took me up to 2 hours of my time. Sorry but I didn't find the statement from the WHO doctor about eradiction of smallpox. You are right in that way that it had not much to do with hygene. But it had to do with seperating, isolating and quaranteering contact persons, desinfection of all materials those people got in contact with. The WHO called it "modified smallpox elimination program". They realized that everytime they started to mass vaccinate populations the death and sickness toll skyrocketed. These are things that you read in books which scientists, doctors and journalists have written about the subject. You'll get all the sources you could ask for.

 For the aluminium hydroxid in the placebo study group of the HPV vaccines, please go the NVIC web side (mentioned before). Sorry, but again you have to put a little work into it.

 The Canadian study which found out about aluminium hydroxid killing neurons you can find on the following webpage:

 www.straight.com/Print_Page.cfm?id=16717

One more thing: Your last comment regarding the USSR came quite as a surprise to me. Now I would like to know where you got this from. My understanding is that after the break down there is an utter chaos with privatisation taking over. This means for the USSR that millions of people do not have the money to buy even the basic things. Maybe food is available but not the money for most people.

Alla, could you tell me what a Homotoxicologist exactly does. I really don't know and am really interested. Thanks.

Have a good day.

Marianne

Leon Chaitow:

practicing naturopath, osteopath, and acupuncturist in the United Kingdom, with over forty years clinical experience, Dr. Chaitow is Editor-in-Chief, of the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. He regularly lectures in the United States as well as Europe where he instructs physiotherapists (Holland and USA), osteopaths (Spain and UK), chiropractors (Denmark, USA and UK) as well as massage therapists (Ireland, Sweden, USA). He is a senior lecturer by London's University of Westminster on under and postgraduate courses in therapeutic bodywork and naturopathy.

In 1993, he became the first naturopath/osteopath to be appointed as consultant to a UK government-funded conventional medical practice. He lives and practices in both the UK and Greece.

 

I'm still here!

My daughter returned to school today and the very first assembly featured a video presentation bigging up the forthcoming Cervarix programme. It begins next month and it's clear there's going to be a lot of pressure put on these secondary school students to give their consent. Jade Goody's diagnosis today is, I have no doubt, going to be thrown into the mix - some might say cynically... (And this is not to detract from the ordeal Ms Goody faces.)

At the moment, my daughter has decided against taking part in the programme. She anyway responds badly to arm-twisting and has now read enough - from both viewpoints - to have reached her own decision. I just hope she will withstand the peer pressure.

I'll continue to keep you posted!

Thanks for your informative reply, Marianne

 

You can find more information about Homotoxicology from my website: http://www.in-vivo-health.co.uk/?content=consultations  as well as from www.homotoxicology.org , also http://www.heel.com/homotox/?smid=1 and International Academy of Homotoxicology website http://www.iah-online.com/cms/iwebs/default.aspx (you have to register there to get access to the lectures).

 

Regarding my comment on USSR situation: I used to live there until 1996 and was able to witness the real situation without relying on mass media information.

I looked on www.straight.com/Print_Page.cfm?id=16717 – the study by neuroscientist Chris Shaw mentioned there is still unpublished – and there must be the reason for that. Pharmaceutical industry receives a lot of criticism on the fact that results of pre-clinical toxicity studies on animals can not be reliable – and this criticism does make sense, therefore any new drug undertakes a lot further studies such as clinical phase I, II and III – and even that may still not be sufficient. Chris Shaw was injecting human anthrax vaccine into mice thus performing similar to pre-clinical toxicity study, but how it compares with other studies? The difference between science and non-science is in the fact that any research is accepted by science only if results are proven to be reproducible. Any single study results are not considered reliable – this is how science works. I was trying to comment from biomolecular technology point of view for which I have a recent MSc degree from University of Nottingham. Unless the books you recommend state even more recent scientific facts that are different from what I already know, I would be prepared to look into that as you never know: what you may find out there could make a lot of sense.

In the mean time – I have a busy practice to run.

Have a good day.

 

---

Alla Cranham, MSc ABMT,
Registered Homotoxicologist

Mercury House
Northgate
Nottingham
NG7 7FN

Tel +44(0) 845 450 7316
Mob +44(0) 77361 47458
Fax +44(0) 115 9163109
http://www.in-vivo-health.co.uk

Hello.

I'm just researching this vaccine for my daughters as well and stumbled upon this site.

For reference the Shaw paper has been published (I've not read it just yet, only just found it) http://www.springerlink.com/content/x457214811q62412/ 

I'm a scientist myself, albeit from a psychology perspective so  I'll take my time to review that among other literature. 

 

 

 

Alla Cranham:

...

I was trying to comment from biomolecular technology point of view for which I have a recent MSc degree from University of Nottingham. Unless the books you recommend state even more recent scientific facts that are different from what I already know, I would be prepared to look into that as you never know: what you may find out there could make a lot of sense.

In the mean time – I have a busy practice to run.

Have a good day.

 

I must say that I find this paragraph particularly patronising.  I think that from reading this thread that those who believe that they are aware of current developments in the field are quite ready to dismiss developments that may be left of centre.

 

I would also like to stress that unpublished research is not necessarily unpublished because it is incorrect.  There are a plethora of reasons why research remains in the bottom of the file cabinet, one of which can be political, another can be timeliness, a third may be funding issues and there are many more reasons...it is never merely as simple as a peer review process. I'd hesitate to dismiss research based on the sole fact that it was (but actually is published!) unpublished. Personally speaking I have a ton of data that needs writing up for specific audiences. Certain journals may not want my work merely as it is too long for their output. That is just one tiny example that I am personally experiencing.

It's quite clear that the originator of the thread is keen to find out more about the vaccination  and any issues surrounding it. This person has also read widely and is prepared to read more on all sides of the vaccination fence.It is one thing for someone to comment on an area of expertise, fine....it's also fine for people to express other opinions, but I don't feel that patronising anyone is useful or welcoming.

 

I must stress that I am coming at this with a relative "newbie" perspective here. I have in the past made ethical judgements about previous vaccines based on the ingredients and not the vastly over reported outcomes for my own children.