vaccines

Why Vaccines for Staph Infections Always Fail

Posted by

0


Staphylococcus aureus bacteria use an immune system trick to colonize up to 80% of humans, and that same strategy to evade vaccine-based immunity. This explains why all staph vaccines up to now have failed to provide clinically relevant immunity, according to a paper published last month in Cell Reports Medicine.

vaccine bottles that say "FAIL" with hand with a staph infection

Miss a day, miss a lot. 

Research into vaccines for Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), the most common type of staph infection, has led to experimental vaccines that protect mice but fail in humans. A paper published Jan. 16 in Cell Reports Medicine explained why.

When a person first encounters staph, the bacterium fools the human immune system into releasing ineffective antibodies instead of the neutralizing antibodies typically associated with robust immunity. That “trick” allows S. aureus to colonize us, usually harmlessly.

When a colonized person’s immune system is later challenged with a staph vaccine it does not make new, effective antibodies. Instead, it calls up more of the same ineffective antibodies that allowed the bug to colonize the individual in the first place.

Vaccine developers have tried at least three different approaches to S. aureus vaccination but all were met with the same issue.

The immune system is willing …

S. aureus is one of 30 Staphylococcus species in nature and 11 that colonize humans as part of the human microbiome. It is found in the nostrils, skin and other reservoirs in healthy people and is only dangerous when it enters the bloodstream, particularly in immunocompromised individuals.

Up to 80% of humans harbor Staphylococcus species.

The human immune system makes antibodies against S. aureus as it does against other microbial invaders. But instead of neutralizing antibodies that fight colonization and infection, S. aureus tricks the immune system into producing ineffective antibodies that allow the bug to continue colonizing us

When the colonized person is challenged with either S. aureus infection or vaccination, these dummy antibodies reemerge in force but do nothing to help the patient. Vaccination amplifies this effect — which is why S. aureus infections must be treated with antibiotics.

Vaccination “only works when the initial immune response to that pathogen was actually protective,” said J.R. Caldera, Ph.D., a co-author of the paper, in a news release.

Since 80% of staph infections are caused by the invasion of the same strain colonizing the individual’s nose or skin, their “initial immune response” was not protective so subsequent responses will not be either.

“What sets SA [Staphylococcus aureus] apart is that the bacteria themselves have ways of evading the immune system from the moment they encounter us, and these evasive strategies are only reinforced by vaccination,” Caldera said.

… but the antibodies are weak

Anti-staph vaccines generate strong immune responses to vaccination and infection but those responses are directed toward bacterial features that S. aureus uses to fool its host into accepting peaceful coexistence.

This is a case of vaccine-induced immune system priming or “original antigenic sin” — the process by which a vaccine locks in the response vaccinated people make when confronted with the pathogen.

This failure eventually led vaccine researchers down another dark alley, toward vaccines targeting the S. aureus toxin instead of the bacterium. So-called “toxoid” strategies are the basis of tetanus, diphtheria and DTP vaccines.

But “remarkably, both active [vaccine-based] and passive [antibody-based] platforms of immunization against SA toxins were also met with failures,” said senior author George Liu M.D., Ph.D., professor of pediatrics at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine.

For example, a 2021 AstraZeneca-funded study of suvratoxumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the S. aureus toxin, found that progression to pneumonia in staph-infected patients was no lower in treated than in untreated subjects.

Most pathogens, especially bacteria, are complex organisms carrying several different antigens. Vaccine developers usually target the most prominent antigen to trigger the strongest, most relevant immune response.

On that basis, Liu considered a third possible S. aureus vaccine strategy: targeting minor cell wall antigens on S. aureus instead of its toxins or the main antigen.

This approach would tend to induce weaker immune responses requiring high vaccine or adjuvant doses, but it fell short as well.

Antibiotic resistance leads to ‘super-bugs’

Nostrils are the main staph reservoir in humans and a significant source of infection, but the bug also colonizes the skin, perineum, vagina, throat and gastrointestinal tract.

Staph infections occur when the bacteria enter the bloodstream, joints, heart or skin, usually when the person’s immune system is weakened. Standard antibiotics usually cure staph infections.

However, over the past 70 years, bacteria that colonize humans have found ways to counter the use or overuse of antibiotics and antimicrobials designed to kill them. Some bacteria have developed resistance to these agents, making antibiotics less effective or completely ineffective.

One type of antibiotic-resistant S. aureus, “methicillin-resistant” S. aureus or “MRSA,” is of particular concern.

The most common MRSA outcome outside of hospitals is a skin infection. But serious cases can lead to pneumonia or other serious organ infections. Untreated MRSA infections can cause sepsis — an extreme, system-wide response to an infection.

Hospitalized patients are more susceptible to severe, life-threatening outcomes since they are exposed to fellow patients’ staph strains as well as the ones they carry. Surgical site infections are a significant source of serious, systemic staph infections.

The medical and social costs, direct and indirect, of antibiotic resistance in the U.S. may be as high as $55 billion per year. More than 2.8 million Americans per year have an antibiotic-resistant infection and 35,000 die. S. aureus caused nearly 120,000 bloodstream infections — the most serious kind — and 20,000 deaths in the U.S. in 2017.

Could S. aureus be beneficial?

The negative effects of S. aureus on human health are fairly well understood.

We know staph bacteria colonize us, are tolerated by the immune system and cause disease when they enter the bloodstream or invade the skin. We also know that S. aureus antibody responses do not clear the bacterium or eliminate either colonization or infection.

But the role of S. aureus as part of a normal, healthy microbiome has not been extensively investigated.

A 2022 study on components of the skin microbiome suggested that at least one Staphylococcus species, S. hominis — the bug mostly responsible for body odor — may prevent skin infections.

Another species that mainly colonizes skin, S. epidermis, is both anti-inflammatory and antibacterial.

A 2015 study found that chronic S. aureus infection prevented the development of autoimmune encephalomyelitis in a rat model of multiple sclerosis. Encephalomyelitis is inflammation of the brain and spinal cord. Although infection itself caused some types of inflammatory markers to rise it reduced the severity of nerve cell and central nervous system inflammation.

“SA [S. aureus] has been with humans a long time, so it’s learned how to be part-time symbiont, part-time deadly pathogen,” Liu said. “If we’re going to develop effective vaccines against SA, we need to understand and overcome the strategies it uses to maintain this lifestyle.”

Scientists Discover New, Better Way To Develop Vaccines.

Posted by

0


German researchers have developed a novel immunization technique that simplifies and accelerates the development of vaccines. This method, involving the fusion of antigen proteins to a membrane-bound protein, has shown promising results in targeting diseases like COVID-19 and offers potential in the fight against HIV-1.

A team of researchers in Germany has created an innovative system for presenting epitopes in mammalian cells, aimed at immunization research. This method is anticipated to significantly aid scientists in their immunization endeavors. Their research was recently published in the journal Biology Methods and Protocols.

Promoting blood cells to produce antibodies against a specific viral protein is an important step in developing vaccines for human use. This can be challenging for researchers because whether the subjects develop antibodies depends on how scientists design and administer antigens, which are parts of the virus they’re administering to test the effectiveness of the vaccine.

One very important aspect of virus research is how to express and purify the antigen for vaccination. Animals immunized with prepared antigens produce specific antibodies against the antigen. But scientists have to isolate the antigen to ensure that they develop the vaccine to target the specific disease they wish to combat. Once researchers purify the antigen, they can develop vaccines that lead subjects to produce the desired antibodies. But this isolation is especially time-consuming when attempting to develop lab-produced antigens as a virus often mutates rapidly. It can take several weeks for scientists to develop the right antigens.

Breakthrough in Antigen Display Technology

Here scientists developed a new method to induce target-specific immune responses. By fusing antigen proteins into a tetraspanin-derived anchor membrane-bound protein, the researchers created fusion proteins that are displayed predominantly on the surface of human cells. The exposition of proteins on the surface by a carrier protein induces the production of antibodies directed against the appropriate, relevant, antigens. Of additional advantage is that these antigens have the same conformation and modifications as the corresponding proteins in the virus because they are made by cells similar to that in the human body, which the virus infects naturally.

This new display technology could be a potentially much more reliable immunization technique. In the study here the researchers were able to induce antibodies against different proteins with a focus on the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The developed anchor protein allows scientists to target a specific disease for immunization purposes without the need to purify the antigen. The researchers are convinced that this technique can speed up the immunization process enormously.

“This work that is based on the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 and is only the beginning of a very interesting immunization technique,” said Daniel Ivanusic, one of the paper’s authors. “The most challenging, significant, and exciting application for us employing the tANCHOR technology is to induce neutralizing antibodies against HIV-1. I think this will be great!”

Spin-off DISEASE: Fully vaccinated for COVID manifesting new disease called VEXAS syndrome

Posted by

0


People who were injected with “vaccines” for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) are increasingly being diagnosed with a new type of disease they are calling VEXAS syndrome, an autoinflammatory ailment that was first discovered in 2020 around the time Operation Warp Speed was launched by the Trump regime.

VEXAS syndrome, short for vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic syndrome, is said to be caused by mutations in the innate immune cells, as well as a somatic mutation in the UBA1 gene found on the X chromosome. Most inflammatory diseases, by the way, are caused by dysfunction that arises in adaptive immune cells.

“Somatic mutations cannot be inherited, meaning individuals acquire this mutation later in life,” explains The Epoch Times about the disease. “The mutation affects the stem cells in the bone marrow. The cells mature into specialized immune cells that circulate within the bloodstream.”

“Immune cells carrying the UBA1 mutation are highly inflammatory, and once enough of them accumulate, patients start developing symptoms.”

(Related: Be careful of the World Health Organization [WHO], which wants to control and rule over the world under the guise of protecting the world against COVID and other “threats.”)

Autoinflammation caused by COVID jabs

Back in April, French scientists reported on the case of a 76-year-old man who almost immediately after getting jabbed for COVID with Pfizer’s mRNA (modRNA) variety was diagnosed with VEXAS syndrome. His symptoms included tender bumps under the skin, rashes and purple spots on his limbs.

Skin problems are commonly reported among VEXAS patients, and the man was no exception. He was later determined by specialists to have the UBA1 mutation inherent to the disease.

“The rare incidence of VEXAS syndrome and the short delay of 3 days between vaccination and onset of symptoms were very suggestive of the vaccine’s role as a trigger,” the study authors, from Drôme Nord Hospitals, wrote.

Another patient, 72, developed similar symptoms, as well as a fever, fatigue, a cough and deep vein thrombosis. He was initially misdiagnosed with “long COVID,” only to later also show evidence of the same UBA1 mutation as the first patient.

“In my experience, it is unlikely that VEXAS syndrome could have been triggered by an infection or COVID-19 vaccination,” commented Dr. Sinisa Savic, an immunologist and associate clinical professor at the University of Leeds. “We know that as people age, they develop all sorts of mutations in the bone marrow … That is why VEXAS is largely found in the elderly population.”

Typically, VEXAS syndrome occurs in men over the age of 50. Both infections and vaccinations can trigger or worsen symptoms in people who are already on track to develop VEXAS syndrome.

“Anything that triggers an immune response can cause temporary worsening symptoms,” Dr. Savic added. “I don’t think there’s any particular argument about that.”

Among specialized immune cells, only innate immune cells have been found to carry the UBA1 mutation. Adaptive immune cells, meanwhile, form what is known as the “third” or last line of defense against disease, and these cells have not been found to carry the UBA1 mutation.

Dr. Savic believes that adaptive immune cells, including T and B cells, probably cannot survive long enough to become specialized if they carry the UBA1 mutation. Specialization of innate immune cells, conversely, appear to be less affected by the UBA1 mutation.

Both infections and vaccinations trigger responses in the immune system that are supposed to (in theory for vaccinations, anyway) form immune memory. This process does not occur in people with autoinflammatory conditions – in fact, an immune reaction can cause an imbalance that actually worsens a patient’s condition.

“This is the case with any autoimmune or inflammatory condition because the immune system tries to control itself, but if you’re then challenged by something else, then that level of control may be reduced,” Dr. Savic said.

5G REMOTE KILL VECTOR: Science paper reveals cell phone signals can activate the release of biological PAYLOADS from graphene oxide injected into the body

Posted by

0


A science paper published in MaterialsToday Chemistry reveals that cell phone signals can be used to release biological or chemical payloads from graphene oxide that’s introduced into the human body. The paper, published in September of 2022, is entitled, “Remotely controlled electro-responsive on-demand nanotherapy based on amine-modified graphene oxide for synergistic dual drug delivery.”

The study abstract reveals how a cell phone can emit signals to activate a low voltage current that interacts with Graphene Oxide (GO) molecules, causing efficient delivery of drug payloads:

This study aims to determine low-voltage-controlled dual drug (aspirin and doxorubicin) release from GO surface. Here, we have demonstrated how to control the drug release rate remotely with a handy mobile phone, with zero passive release at idle time.

Because of its extremely high surface area and complex structure composition, graphene oxide turns out to be the perfect molecule for delivery of biological or drug payloads inside the body. From the study:

These advantages make GO an extremely potential nanocomposite material as a drug carrier in the field of biomedicine and biotechnology, while being combined with a polymer or inorganic matrix.

Importantly, the presence of a specific frequency of a low voltage current is all that’s necessary to cause graphene oxide to release its payload.

5G cell tower signals create micro currents inside the body

We already know that 5G signals can generate electrical currents inside the human body, even from a significant distance. An important article authored by Dr. Joseph Mercola and published in Childrens Health Defense reveals that 5G cell signal radiation results in measurable biological and chemical changes inside the human body. From his article:

  • 5G relies primarily on the bandwidth of the millimeter wave, known to cause a painful burning sensation. It’s also been linked to eye and heart problems, suppressed immune function, genetic damage and fertility problems.
  • The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) admits no 5G safety studies have been conducted or funded by the agency or telecom industry, and that none are planned.
  • The FCC has been captured by the telecom industry, which in turn has perfected the disinformation strategies employed by the tobacco industry before it.
  • Persistent exposures to microwave frequencies like those from cellphones can cause mitochondrial dysfunction and nuclear DNA damage from free radicals produced from peroxynitrite.
  • Excessive exposures to cellphones and Wi-Fi networks have been linked to chronic diseases such as cardiac arrhythmias, anxiety, depression, autism, Alzheimer’s and infertility.

The Cellular Phone Task Force website lists numerous warnings from governments and agencies around the world who have sounded the alarm on cell phone radiation and its harmful effects on human biology.

Radiofrequency microwave radiation causes voltage changes inside the body’s cells, altering calcium channels

Additionally, compelling research led by Martin Pall, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University, reveals that microwave radiation from mobile devices and wireless routers causes voltage changes inside the body’s cells, activating what are called “Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels” (VGCCs), which are located in the outer membrane of your cells. It is this membrane that determines what passes into and out of the cell.

See the full study by Martin Pall, PhD., entitled: Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. That study explains:

Twenty-three studies have shown that voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) produce these and other EMF effects… Furthermore, the voltage-gated properties of these channels may provide biophysically plausible mechanisms for EMF biological effects.

From Dr. Mercola’s article linked above: (emphasis added)

According to Pall’s research radiofrequency microwave radiation such as that from your cellphone and wireless router activates the voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) located in the outer membrane of your cells.

According to Pall, VGCCs are 7.2 million times more sensitive to microwave radiation than the charged particles inside and outside our cells, which means the safety standards for this exposure are off by a factor of 7.2 million.

Low-frequency microwave radiation opens your VGCCs, thereby allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions into the cell, which in turn activates nitric oxide and superoxide which react nearly instantaneously to form peroxynitrite that then causes carbonate free radicals, which are one of the most damaging reactive nitrogen species known and thought to be a root cause for many of today’s chronic diseases.

This means that cell phone radiation (and 5G cell tower radiation) does, indeed, induce voltage changes in the human body, and that these voltage changes have very real biochemical effects, some of which may be dangerous to human health (such as the formation of peroxynitrite molecules).

Fighting these potent free radicals can be achieved in part with nutritional approaches, such as through the use of superoxide dismutase enzyme (SOD), which is the foundational nutrient in the Health Ranger Store’s 5G Defense powders. Notably, SOD (which is usually derived from melon fruit) does not block cell tower radiation itself, but it helps the body respond to cellular stresses such as the formation of peroxynitrite molecules.

In related news reported by Reuters, French regulators have issued a warning to Apple to stop selling iPhone 12 phones due to the presence of excessive radiation produced by the devices. Apple’s smartphone exceeds the allowable legal limit of radiation. This phone has been sold since 2020.

5G signals may be used to cause Graphene Oxide to release payloads inside the human body

Connecting the dots on all this, 5G signals can be used to generate low voltage inside the human body, causing Graphene Oxide molecules to release predetermined payloads inside the body. Via the published paper linked above:

Upon application of external stimuli, many materials are able to release drugs. However, most of them need sophisticated instruments except electrical stimulation. Electro-stimulated drug delivery has attracted attention due to the low expense, painless, and portability of the control equipment, making it manageable for customized applications. In this study, we used NGO as an electro-sensitive material to deliver drugs in a controllable manner.

“This is the first time we have used ASP and DOX as a model drug which can be delivered simultaneously by external voltage,” the paper states. The conclusion of the paper adds: (emphasis added)

In conclusion, we have shown here that NGO can be used as a dual drug delivery agent, and the release of drugs can be controlled by an external voltage. To exploit the synergistic effect of ASP and DOX, we modified NGO and attached two drugs to it. Our labmade remote-controlled device efficiently released the anticancer drug. The releasing process can easily be switched on and off with a mobile phone by changing the bias voltage.

Graphene Oxide can carry biological or chemical weapons as payloads

In the scientific paper quoted above, the payload was aspirin plus a common cancer drug. However, payloads can be almost anything of sufficiently small size, including both hydrophilic and hydrophobic molecules. From the study, “We have also demonstrated how hydrophilic (ASP) and hydrophobic drugs (DOX) can be delivered by using a single delivery platform.”

This means that potent chemical weapons — theoretically including nerve agents that are fatal at nanograms of exposure — could be loaded into graphene oxide molecules which are surreptitiously delivered into the body via aggressively propagandized medical interventions such as fake vaccines or covid swabs. Theoretically, such weapons might be able to be delivered to the population via food vectors as well. Once in the body, a small amount of payload leakage may generate some level of nerve damage among inoculated victims, but the real payload delivery won’t happen until a proper 5G signal is broadcast across the inoculated population, using the “release frequency” that generates the required voltage to unleash the payload.

In other words, a 5G broadcast signal at the appropriate frequency could instantly cause graphene oxide molecules to release the payloads into the bodies of those who were previously inoculated with those payloads. This would happen simultaneously, across the entire population that is within range of the broadcast frequencies which generate the necessary voltage in the body.

If the payload were a nerve agent, the real world effect would be the sudden dropping dead of large portions of populations across cities where 5G broadcast are able to saturate them. If payloads were virus-like nanoparticles, payload delivery could cause a large portion of the population to suddenly appear to be “infected” with a pandemic virus that is spreading at unimaginable speed.

This technology, in other words, could be used as a “kill switch” to terminate whatever portion of the population was previously inoculated with payload-carrying GO.

“Black ink” printed on pharmaceutical capsules shown to be magnetic and may contain graphene oxide

Some additional information came to my attention during the writing of this article. The black ink printed on the side of pharmaceutical capsules actually consists of mysterious black specks which are magnetic. A contact sent me a video, represented in the following screen shot, showing pharmaceutical capsules soaked in water for several hours, after which the black “ink” from the capsules turned into black specs that displayed startling magnetic properties. In this still photo, you can see the black specs gather at the common magnet held against the glass:

As this article reveals in LiveScience.com, stunning new research finds that graphene can be made magnetic by assembling layers in a specific rotational orientation. This gives rise to magnetism, even though the underlying atomic elements are nothing but carbon. From the article:

The magnetic field isn’t created by the usual spin of electrons within the individual graphene layers, but instead arises from the collective swirling of electrons in all of the three-layers of the stacked graphene structure, researchers reported Oct. 12 in the journal Nature Physics.

Is graphene being used in the “ink” that’s printed on the side of prescription medications? We don’t know for certain, but the fact that this ink is clearly magnetic is alarming.

Graphene oxide can also transmit gigahertz signals to nearby receivers

Additionally, under certain exotic applications of graphic oxide (GO) materials, those whose bodies are activated by cell tower broadcast could themselves function as electromagnetic “repeaters” due to the ability of GO to function as transmitters.

This capability is well documented in a study entitled, “Radio-frequency characteristics of graphene oxide,” published in Applied Physics Letters in 2010. (https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3506468) That study explains: (emphasis added)

We confirm graphene oxide, a two-dimensional carbon structure at the nanoscale level can be a strong candidate for high-efficient interconnector

in radio-frequency range. In this paper, we investigate high frequency characteristics of graphene oxide in range of 0.5–40 GHz. Radiofrequency transmission properties were extracted as S-parameters to determine the intrinsic ac transmission of graphene sheets, such as the impedance variation dependence on frequency. The impedance and resistance of graphene sheets drastically decrease as frequency increases. This result confirms graphene oxide has high potential for transmitting signals at gigahertz ranges.

Graphene oxide materials, in other words, can both carry payloads which are delivered via remote cell phone signaling, as well as transmit signals to other nearby receivers.

This could theoretically be used to start a “chain reaction” of 5G cell tower signals being re-broadcast from one person to another. In theory, this could extend a “kill switch” signal broadcast far beyond the initial range of 5G cell towers themselves.

From the conclusion of that published paper:

…[W]e expect that GO could be used for transmission lines in next-stage electronics and could be very strong candidate for nanocarbon electronics.

Conclusions

  1. Graphene oxide can carry chemical or biological payloads.
  2. Graphene oxide carrying payloads can be introduced into the body through vaccines or swabs.
  3. The release of those payloads can be controlled by external cell tower signals which cause specific voltage changes in human cells.
  4. Some voltage changes are already known to occur with exposure to cell tower radiation, especially with 5G.
  5. Graphene oxide payloads can include “kill switch” payloads such as nerve agents or infectious agents.
  6. The 5G tower system can therefore function as a chemical weapons payload release infrastructure system to achieve a “mass kill” of populations which were previously inoculated with payload-carrying GO.
  7. Covid vaccines — which are now widely known to have had nothing to do with halting any pandemic (since even the White House and CDC both admit they do not halt transmission or infections) — could have theoretically been used to inoculate people with graphene oxide payloads which have not yet been activated.

Thus, it is plausible — but not proven — that vaccines + 5G cell towers could be exploited as a depopulation weapon system to achieve near-simultaneous mass extermination of a large percentage of the human population, simply by activating GO payload release with a specific broadcast energy intensity and frequency.

Given that the western governments of the world are clearly attempting to exterminate their own populations right now, this conclusion should be concerning to all those who wish to survive the global depopulation agenda.

Urinary and Prostatic Complications Occur After COVID and Its Vaccines: Studies

Posted by

0


Urinary symptoms of incontinence, urinary tract diseases, urinating hesitancy, and frequent urination have all been reported.

COVID-19 infections and vaccines for it have been linked to urinary and prostatic complications.

A recent Hong Kong study found that among men who were being treated for baseline lower urinary tract symptoms, those who have had a COVID-19 infection were at a greater risk of having an enlarged prostate, which can lead to a greater chance of urinary tract infections, urine retention, and hematuria (urinating blood).

“Male patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 are more likely to have deterioration of LUTS (lower urinary tract symptoms). This association is not without biological plausibility,” the authors concluded.

Receptors for SARS-CoV-2 and its superficial spike protein are abundant in the prostate, this therefore “renders it a target for SARS-CoV-2, leading to inflammation and therefore these outcomes of interest,” the authors added.

Urinary Complications After COVID or Vaccination

Urinary symptoms of incontinence, urinary tract diseases, urinating hesitancy, and frequent urination have all been reported either after COVID infections or after inoculation with its vaccines.

Since the urethra passes through the prostate, enlarged prostates can impede the flow of urine, causing urinary hesitation, infections, and retention.

In the Hong Kong study, the authors reasoned that the urinary complications caused by an enlarged prostate are due to the virus causing inflammation in the genito-urological area. They explain that the SARS-CoV-2 viruses may be binding to ACE-2 and TMPRSS2 receptors in the testes and prostate, causing damage. The relatively high expression levels of ACE-2 in male and female reproductive organs suggest that these organs are potentially vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

However, some doctors think that the persistent spike proteins from the vaccine may also be driving the damage. Biodistribution studies of the vaccine have shown that the mRNA vaccines may segregate in the ovaries and testes, with other studies showing that the spike proteins may persist for many months to years.

A common complication is the worsening of lower urinary tract symptoms among patients who already have an underlying problem. Urinary proteins involved in immune response have been shown to change before and after COVID-19 vaccination.

Urinary incontinence is another common side effect of the COVID-19 vaccine. Psychiatrist Dr. Amanda McDonald, who has treated several hundred patients for COVID and post-vaccine symptoms, told The Epoch Times that incontinence is quite common among her vaccinated patients.

“I have had some twenty-something-year-old women with incontinence and they’re just being told that this is normal,” Dr. McDonald said, “I have had six, seven women in a row coming in telling me the same story and saying my primary physician sent me here to talk to my psychiatrist because they think it’s all in my head.”

Dr. McDonald has mainly prescribed ivermectin as treatment for her patients, since ivermectin can bind to and block spike proteins.

Incontinence tends to be more common in females than males. Other studies investigating urinary symptoms post-vaccination have similarly reported more females reporting side effects than males.

Internal medicine physician Dr. Keith Berkowitz, who has been treating long COVID and post-vaccine patients, believes that the urinary incontinence may be due to urinary tract infections caused by a suppressed immune system.

He has been measuring his patients for their immune cell levels and found that some patients who have prior infections or inoculations have abnormally low immune cell counts. Since he did not test their immune levels prior to vaccination or infection, it is unknown if the immunosuppression state is caused by the vaccine or the infection, nevertheless, a link persists.

Elevated PSA Level After COVID and Vaccination

Studies have linked both SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccinations with a slight increase in prostate serum antigen (PSA), with the third anti-COVID vaccine dose having a more prominent impact. The clinical significance is not known yet, but some health providers like Scott Marsland from the Leading Edge Clinic suspect that it may be an indicator for prostate cancer.

A man’s PSA level is often measured through a blood test to screen for prostate cancer.

High PSA levels can be a warning signal for prostate cancer, but there are cancer-free men with high PSA levels, just as there are men with prostate cancer and normal PSA levels.

Mr. Marsland said that several of his patients who were in remission for many years had developed new-onset prostate cancer following vaccination. This has not occurred for his unvaccinated but infected patients.

He also mentioned that patients who have enlarged prostate often have urinary urgency, get up multiple times at night, and have some degree of incontinence. “this can be at a really young [age], and it was not something that they had an issue with before they had COVID or before they got vaccinated.”

COVID-19 vaccines caused DECLINE in life expectancy in the U.S.

Posted by

0


Life expectancy across the U.S. has declined, and this drop coincides with the introduction of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines.

According to Elizabeth Arias, a researcher for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the U.S. life expectancy. “[It will take] some time before we’re back where we were in 2019,” she said.

The Daytona Beach News-Journal reported that according to CDC numbers, life expectancy for the entire U.S. was 77 years in 2020. However, this dropped to 76.4 years by 2021 – in time for the introduction of the COVID-19 injections that year.

Heart disease was the leading cause of death in the U.S. for 2021, and this is also linked to the COVID-19 injections. It can be noted that many of the most widely reported side-effects from COVID-19 injections have been related to the cardiovascular system. Countless people have suffered from either a heart attack or a stroke after being injected. (Related: New “smoking gun” analysis shows dramatic excess mortality rise linked to COVID-19 vaccines.)

One study by the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in California found that heart attack deaths climbed for all age groups during 2020 and 2021. But the biggest jump in heart attack deaths was seen in the group aged 25 to 44 at 29 percent.

COVID-19 injections shorten men’s lives by 24 years

The CDC’s own data also disclosed the true dangers of the vaccines. According to the Daily Expose, men injected with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines could see as much as 24 years taken off their lifespan as a result.

The public health agency’s all-cause mortality data shows that each dose of the COVID-19 vaccine a person got raised their mortality rate by seven percent in 2022, compared to 2021. In other words, people injected with five doses were 35 percent more likely to die in 2022 than in 2021.

The Expose compared the COVID-19 vaccines to “slow-acting genetic poison” based on this data, given the fact that people do not appear to be recovering from the damage caused by earlier vaccines when it comes to excess mortality. It ultimately warned that a person injected with five doses would be 350 percent more likely to pass away in 2031, and a shocking 700 percent more likely to die in 2041 than an unvaccinated person.

Dr. Robert Califf, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), acknowledged this reduced life expectancy. “We are facing extraordinary headwinds in our public health with a major decline in life expectancy,” he wrote on X. “The major decline [of life expectancy] in the U.S. is not just a trend; I’d describe it as catastrophic.”

Not surprisingly, Califf stopped short of pinning the blame on the COVID-19 vaccines. Many of those who dare to suggest that the injections are responsible for excess deaths find themselves being censored.

In one instance, whistleblower Barry Young from New Zealand shared data from the country’s health agency that pointed to a strong link between the COVID-19 injections and excess mortality. According to the data he shared, the vaccines killed more than 10 million around the world.

But this revelation came with a steep price, as Young was arrested and now faces prison time. Nevertheless, the whistleblower said he shared the data as it blew his mind. He also wanted experts to analyze it and make people aware of what is happening.

Vaccines Could Impact Mortality and Risks of Other Diseases: Study

Posted by

0


Apart from potentially preventing a particular disease, vaccines may cause persistent nonspecific effects that can affect a person’s lifetime survival.

In a review published on Dec. 26 in Vaccine, researchers found that non-live vaccines like influenza, COVID-19, hepatitis B, and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTaP) tend to cause adverse nonspecific effects (NSE), increasing a person’s risks of all-cause mortality and the potential risk of infections from diseases they are meant to protect against.

A live vaccine contains a weakened form of the pathogen, which is less virulent but capable of replicating in the body, thus mimicking the actual disease progression. Non-live vaccines use inactivated viruses, fragments, or genes of the pathogen to trigger an immune response without pathogen replication.

Live vaccines elicit a much stronger immune defense, typically requiring only one shot, while non-live vaccines result in a weaker response, often necessitating multiple shots.

So far, research has identified several non-live vaccines that cause adverse nonspecific effects, namely DTaP and Tdap, influenza H1N1, malaria, hepatitis B, inactivated polio, and COVID mRNA vaccines.

The Vaccine study singled out DTaP, influenza, malaria, hepatitis B, and COVID mRNA vaccines.

Related Stories

Did the Vaccine Eradicate Smallpox?

1/5/2024

Did the Vaccine Eradicate Smallpox?

‘It’s One of the Great Mysteries,’ Why COVID Spares Children

1/3/2024

‘It’s One of the Great Mysteries,’ Why COVID Spares Children

On the other hand, live vaccines such as the oral live polio vaccine (OPV), the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine for tuberculosis, and the smallpox vaccines all have beneficial nonspecific effects, according to the study.

“Live vaccines … elicit epigenetic alterations that train the innate immune system and increase immunity to unrelated infections. In opposition, non‐live vaccines may promote ‘tolerance’ that increases susceptibility to unrelated illnesses,” the authors suggested.

The study was primarily based on decades of work from Danish researchers Dr. Christine Stabell Benn and professor Peter Aaby.

“Our work is a tribute to their great scientific work that has not been recognized,” biologist Alberto Rubio-Casillas, one of the study’s authors, told The Epoch Times.

Non-Live Vaccines Are Like an ‘Ill-Prepared’ Army

“Historically, we’ve thought about the innate immune system as the first line of defense,” Dr. Benn told The Epoch Times.

It was thought that innate immunity could not store memory. To use war as an analogy, the immune system’s “army” could not learn from previous battles with pathogens. Adaptive immunity, on the other hand, could learn and be trained, forming antibodies to fight against the infection.

Therefore, for a long time, vaccines were evaluated based on their effects on the adaptive immune system, and antibodies were measured following vaccination.

But researchers in the Netherlands have since shown that the innate immune system can be trained. After vaccinating people with the BCG vaccines and harvesting some of the patients’ innate immune cells, researchers found that after vaccination, the innate cells exhibited a more robust immune response and demonstrated improved clearance of tuberculosis, as well as other bacteria and fungi when compared to patients’ prevaccination status.

However, the opposite was shown for non-live vaccines.

Thus, the innate immune system actually does learn something from its previous battles. This is called trained innate immunity.

Live vaccines, which mimic an actual disease, enhance the effectiveness of the innate immune system in defending against infections. Non-live vaccines, on the other hand, weaken the immune system’s ability to fend off infections.

In a TED talk, Dr. Benn compared infections to a competitive tennis match and live vaccines to a tennis coach. The tennis coach may change tactics and strategies, training the body to have “a wide variety of tricks” against the pathogen. Non-live vaccines, however, are like tennis ball machines that shoot out balls at a specific speed and spot. If a person only trains with a tennis ball machine, he or she will be less prepared for an actual match.

“So you may be ill-prepared and even worse off when a real opponent enters the court, and the balls start coming and hitting elsewhere than what you trained for,” Dr. Benn said.

Nonspecific Effects

Some vaccines result in positive nonspecific effects, but others may result in overall adverse nonspecific effects. The order in which vaccines are administered also factors in.

While non-live vaccines cause negative NSEs, administering a live vaccine after a non-live one neutralizes negative NSEs, Dr. Benn said.

This has been shown in studies evaluating the safety of measles vaccines, which are often given around the same time as DTP, a non-live vaccine. Studies have found that if the measles vaccine are given after the DTP vaccine, there is an overall positive effect, whereas if this order is reversed, then there is a negative effect.

“It seems that effects are strongest as long as the vaccine is the most recent vaccine,” said Dr. Benn.

Dr. Benn added that the BCG vaccine has long-term beneficial nonspecific effects “in spite of other vaccines being given afterwards.”

The DTaP vaccine has arguably the most evidence of adverse nonspecific effects. Girls who took the DTaP vaccine had a 50 percent higher risk of dying than boys who got it. Compared to girls who were DTaP-unvaccinated, vaccinated girls’ risk of dying was over 2.5 times higher.

Dr. Benn’s studies have generally shown that girls are at a greater risk of developing adverse nonspecific effects after being administered non-live vaccines.

Live Vaccines Replaced With Non-Live Vaccines

Non-live vaccines are increasingly replacing live vaccines. For example, live oral polio vaccines are no longer available on the U.S. market, and a non-live version is administered instead.

This substitution of live vaccines with non-live can pose potential health risks to the general immunity of the population, as the immune systems become less trained and potentially “lazy,” said Dr. Benn.

However, the main reason non-live vaccines are preferred over live vaccines is that they are believed to be safer for people with depleted immune systems.

Since a live vaccine causes mild disease in the body, people with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome can develop a disease from the injection and may die since their bodies are unable to clear infections. Conversely, non-live vaccines comprise only disease components, so they cannot induce disease.

In this aspect, Dr. Benn said that the “risk of getting the real disease with the live vaccines has been seen as a bigger threat than I think it deserves.”

Research suggests that people with weaker immune constitutions due to age or chronic disease may sometimes benefit from having their immune systems trained using live vaccines.

In one study involving hospitalized older patients randomized to get the BCG vaccine or a placebo, the incidence of disease among those who took the BCG vaccine was about half the incidence of disease in the placebo group.

Health Authorities Still Skeptical

Despite the evidence suggesting the potential superiority of live vaccines, Dr. Benn’s research has been largely unacknowledged by the mainstays of academia.

“In my interpretation, whereas most researchers now acknowledge nonspecific effects, the major health organizations are reluctant to accept our findings because [the findings] imply the possibility that some vaccines may sometimes be harmful. So it is easier just to dismiss the whole thing,” she said.

“The vaccine skeptics, on the other side, may find that our observations on non-live vaccines confirm their worst fears—vaccines can be harmful—but they may be more reluctant to accept the beneficial effects. And their focus on the negative effects may make the vaccine supporters take an even more rigid stance.”

Immunologists now largely agree that some vaccines cause nonspecific effects, but how these effects should be quantified remains controversial.

This is because the nonspecific effects of vaccines are dependent on context, whereas a vaccine’s specific effects are generally considered context-independent. For example, females may make more antibodies than males and younger people more than older, but most people still get some form of immunity.

“In contrast, because the nonspecific effects act on the broader innate and general immune system, they are dependent on other factors going on in the immune system … like other health interventions that can alter and modify the nonspecific effects,” Dr. Benn explained. Not everybody will have the same benefit, she added.

Additionally, pharmaceutical companies may be more reluctant to produce live vaccines because they are harder to culture and manufacture.

“If you have ever tried to bake with sourdough, it’s a little bit like live vaccines; they are very dependent on the temperature of the room, the water used to culture it, and so on,” said Dr. Benn.

“But basically, all the live vaccines I’m talking about—they have no patents anymore, they’re super cheap to produce, and it’s some of the cheapest vaccines we have to make.”

Vaccine Safety: NSEs Versus Adverse Events

Though live vaccines tend to cause positive NSEs, that is not to say they cannot potentially cause adverse events. NSEs are considered a separate entity from adverse events, Dr. Benn explained. According to her, in rare cases, live vaccines may induce the actual disease in some recipients, such as people born with gross defects in their immune systems or who have severe immunodeficiencies, like fulminant AIDS.

In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, live vaccines were likely not considered due to concerns about the formation of recombinant viruses when a vaccinated person comes into contact with the circulating viral strain.

However, despite their potential beneficial NSEs, the COVID vaccines may still be associated with adverse events due to the presence of highly toxic spike proteins, which studies now link to long COVID and vaccine injuries.

In the medical textbook “The Immune Response,” the authors wrote that, in isolated cases, live viral strains administered to individuals can regain virulence, causing disease in recipients. Additionally, there is a risk of contamination with other viral strains during manufacturing.

WHO Prequalifies Safer Modified Oral Polio Vaccine

Posted by

0


The World Health Organization (WHO) has quality-assured (prequalified) the novel type 2 oral polio vaccine (nOPV2) after 3 years of being granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL). The vaccine was developed with contributions from scientists at the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

The WHO decision follows the delivery of 950 million doses worldwide and scrutiny of the results in immunized populations, affirming the vaccine’s safety and efficacy. 

The nOPV2 is a modified version of the oral polio vaccine (OPV) that specifically targets poliovirus type 2. It was developed to mitigate the risk of vaccine-derived outbreaks, which can occur when the weakened virus in the vaccine circulates among under-immunized populations and regains the ability to cause paralysis. It maintains effectiveness against polio while reducing the potential for the virus to mutate and regain virulence, making it a safer option for widespread vaccination campaigns, especially in regions where polio remains a threat.

Genetic modifications to the vaccine, for example, a stabilized RNA stem-loop structure in the 5′ noncoding region that is the major determinant of OPV2 attenuation, were tested through a number of pre-clinical methods (serial passaging, cell culture assays used to estimate temperature sensitivity, testing in transgenic mice models, etc.) before initiating clinical development.

The nOPV2 serves as a crucial shield for children against polio, and its prequalification status by the WHO streamlines access for WHO member countries without the stringent readiness criteria previously mandated under the EUL. 

Prequalification guarantees extended and widespread availability for global organizations to supply and distribute the nOPV2 in developing nations. 

Poliomyelitis, transmitted mainly through contaminated food and water, particularly threatens infants and young children, potentially leading to severe paralysis or fatality. 

The OPVs, including nOPV2, have substantially curbed polio cases globally. They do not require stringent cold storage, facilitating immunization in remote areas. 

Three years ago, amid mounting concerns about vaccine-derived outbreaks in Asia and Africa, the nOPV2 became the first vaccine to gain WHO EUL , paving the way for its prequalification today. 

The decision signifies a pivotal step forward in fortifying global immunity against polio and reaffirms the collective commitment to ensure children worldwide receive safer and more accessible polio vaccines. 

Shingles Vaccine Highly Effective Over 4 Years

Posted by

0


Two-dose Shingrix vaccine also provided long-term protection in people taking corticosteroids

A photo of the packaging and vials of Shingrix

The two-dose recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV; Shingrix) remained highly effective at preventing shingles over a 4-year period in real-world settings, according to a prospective cohort study.

Over 4 years, the two-dose regimen was 76% effective (95% CI 75-78), with one dose of the vaccine just 64% effective over the same time period (95% CI 62-67), underscoring the need for people to get both doses, Nicola P. Klein, MD, PhD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California in Oakland, and colleagues reported in the Annals of Internal Medicineopens in a new tab or window.

“The study findings are reassuring in confirming that the recombinant zoster vaccine is highly effective for at least 4 years,” Klein told MedPage Today in an email. “The study also reaffirms the importance of getting the second dose of vaccine to maximize protection against shingles, which can be a painful and potentially dangerous condition.”

Klein noted that vaccine effectiveness was the same in patients who received the second vaccine dose later than the recommended interval of 2 to 6 months between doses. “One of the main messages is that everyone for whom the vaccine is recommendedopens in a new tab or window should get two doses, but not to panic if the second dose ended up being delayed beyond 6 months.”

The study included about 2 million people over the age of 50 who had never received RZV. During the study period from 2018 through 2022, 38% received at least one vaccine dose and 29% received two doses of RZV. After both doses, vaccine effectiveness was 79% during the first year, 75% during the second year, and 73% during the third and fourth years.

Although vaccine effectiveness after one dose was 70% effective during the first year, effectiveness waned substantially after that to 45% during the second year, 48% during the third year, and 52% after the third year.

Effectiveness also varied by age. The vaccine was slightly more effective in people who were vaccinated when they were younger than 65 years of age (81%) versus those who were older (74%).

Notably, in people who received corticosteroids — a group at significantly higher risk for shingles — the vaccine exhibited lower but substantial effectiveness (65%). The authors pointed out the number of shingles cases per 100 recipients prevented by the vaccine was about the same in corticosteroid users and nonusers.

“Our analysis can give clinicians additional support for urging adults in the recommended categories — over age 50 or immunocompromised — to get vaccinated against herpes zoster,” Klein said.

The study’s estimates of vaccine effectiveness were lower than those observed in the ZOE-50opens in a new tab or window and the ZOE-70opens in a new tab or window clinical trials, the authors noted. ZOE-50 found that the vaccine was 97% effective in people ages 50 and older and ZOE-70 found that the vaccine was 90% effective in those 70 years of age or older. A long-term follow-up study of those trials concluded that vaccine effectiveness held steady for at least 7 years, but long-term effectiveness of the vaccine in real-world settings hasn’t been extensively evaluated, the authors said.

The prospective cohort study gathered data from patients in four healthcare systems within the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration between the CDC and nine integrated healthcare systems. RZV was offered free of charge to most eligible patients. Researchers excluded those who received a diagnosis of shingles in the year before the study began. Among participants, 38% were 65 years of age or older, 53% were female, and 59% were white. The outcome was incident herpes zoster infection.

During the study follow-up over 45,000 cases of shingles were diagnosed and most (94%) were in unvaccinated participants. Unadjusted incidence of herpes zoster was 1.7 per 1,000 person-years in fully vaccinated people versus 6.7 per 1,000 person-years in unvaccinated people.

One of the potential limitations of the study was that a diagnosis of shingles required both a herpes zoster diagnosis ICD code and an antiviral prescription, rather than PCR testing. This may have lowered vaccine effectiveness estimates, researchers wrote. Also, patients with milder illness may have not sought care, potentially overestimating vaccine effectiveness.

Behind the needle: Who are the puppeteers of childhood immunizations?

Posted by

0


In a world where shaming and punishing individuals for wanting the freedom to accept or decline medical interventions is becoming the unquestioned status quo, the state of California continues to carry the banner in Draconian, police-state-like efforts that aim to control the masses.

Even though childhood vax rates are still generally high in this country, more and more parents are saying “no” to the standard childhood immunization schedule set by the pharma-bought Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  And the truth is, it’s been a long time coming – likely with no small thanks to the absolute mess that was the COVID-19 pandemic.  Unfortunately, that’s not stopping state politicians from trying to push the Big Pharma agenda of making every man, woman, and child in the United States a lifelong customer.

State-sponsored threats against medical freedom continue: California threatens to pull funding for hundreds of schools due to “low” vaccine rates, but critics question accuracy of state’s audit

The California Department of Health (CDPH) recently alerted nearly 600 schools in the state that their funding may be restricted because more than 10 percent of their students were not “fully vaccinated” for the previous academic year.  But the CDPH’s audit of these schools is misleading according to many critics, and at worst, is “driven by Big Pharma and political interests,” writes Children’s Health Defense.  For example:

Speaking to Children’s Health Defense, analyst and writer Karl Kanath notes that per the CDC schedule, several shots required for school entry can be administered later in childhood, e.g., between the ages of 4 and 6 (the age at which many kids enter kindergarten).  But this means that many kids in California could have been labeled “unvaxxed” by the CDPH’s audit even if their parents were simply choosing a delayed schedule, which is an increasingly popular option).

(Referring to California’s elimination of personal belief exemptions to childhood vaccines back in 2015, Kanath also warns of a grim picture for the future of medical freedom in America, saying that “eliminating school exemptions for children is a major step in making exemptions unavailable for adults.”)

Other critics argue that childhood vax statistics are being skewed simply to paint the picture that dropping immunization rates are a crisis-worthy public health issue.  But an April 2022 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) from the CDC found the U.S. kindergarten vax rate for the 2020-21 school year was 94 percent – a mere one percentage point lower than the previous year.

Who decides how to raise your children: You or the CDC?

Here’s a radical idea:

Parents should have the right to choose whether their children receive all, some, or none of the vaccinations currently recommended by the CDC per the childhood immunization schedule – which is a schedule that seems to grow bigger and bigger as we speak.  But make no mistake: it’s not a choice if parents are made to feel coerced into opting in or punished for opting out.

It’s also not a choice when the CDC claims that choosing not to inject your child with dozens of jabs is across-the-board neglectful or dangerous.  Yes, some “vaccine-preventable” childhood illnesses can be serious and even deadly.  However, there are many nuances that the CDC and other pro-vax agencies fail to discuss when educating parents.  For instance:

  • What is the actual likelihood that these communicable diseases, if contracted, would cause severe symptoms?
  • What are the available treatment options for these communicable diseases?
  • Are there certain communities or demographics more at risk?
  • Are parents truly able to give informed consent to these vaccines when healthcare providers are not explaining the full range of risks, benefits, and alternatives?
  • Have the effects of all these shots given together been adequately studied?  (Spoiler alert: they haven’t)
  • What is the CDC doing to address the fact that fewer than one percent of adverse effects of vaccines are NOT reported, as acknowledged by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services?

We also can’t ignore the fact that the CDC is clearly bought and paid for by the very pharmaceutical companies making insane profits off these “required” vaccines.

Indeed, as recently as November 2019 (which, post-pandemic, seems like an eternity ago), a cohort of advocacy groups released a petition that called on the CDC to stop claiming it doesn’t have any financial support or financial conflict of interest from drug manufacturers.

Reporting on the petition, Ash Clinical News writes that the advocacy groups – including Public Citizen, Knowledge Ecology International, Liberty Coalition, Project on Government Oversight, and U.S. Right to Know – are “concerned about the pharmaceutical industry’s possible undue influence on medical research and practice.” And we can clearly see why:

“The CDC has accepted millions of dollars through the CDC Foundation,” writes Ash Clinical News.  “During fiscal years 2014 through 2018, the CDC Foundation received $79.6 million from companies like Pfizer, Biogen, and Merck.  Since it was created by Congress in 1995, the nonprofit organization has accepted $161 million from corporations.”

It all begs the question: how many of our country’s public policies are dictated by transparent, unbiased, and legitimate science – and how many are dictated by alarmist headlines, skewed statistics, and financial incentives?  And in the meantime, how many of our children are suffering avoidable consequences?