A direct response to the article titled: I love it when an antivax “study” meant to show how “dirty” vaccines are backfires so spectacularly
Posted by Orac on February 2, 2017
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/02/02/antivaccinationists-try-to-show-vaccines-are-dirty-but-really-show-that-they-are-amazingly-free-from-contamination/
The study referred to in this article is this study directly below.
New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Microand
Nanocontamination
http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-00072.pdf
I will go through the article above which is written by the author you see, and which is identified as so called Orac, and which Orac of course known to be none other than, David Gorski, known as doctor and Professor David Gorski, a well-known online blogging character assassin, falsely masquerading as a science defender.
I have picked out several key paragraphs and/or paragraph excerpts from that said article, and I will respond to each one of them directly. The article excepts are marked and highlighted with [ italics].
[Not surprisingly, MedCrave is included on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers, basically a list of “pay to publish” open access journals who charge significant sums to authors to publish their work but whose editorial oversite and peer review are—shall we say?—lacking.]
It looks like any public scientific study literature that is not connected to big pharma in some way, or the standard pharma medical model is on that list, and all of them. And where did it say that they charge large amounts of money at MedCrave; I don't see that actually stated? And what Gorski article would be complete without an opening chapter full of attempted false discrediation and mud slinging at the information and/or study authors?
[Looking at the area outside these precipitates but inside the liquid drop, we identified other things: single particles, clusters of particles and aggregates (organic-inorganic composites) that are due to an interaction of the inorganic particulate matter with the organic part of the vaccine.
Wow! That looks scary, doesn’t it? Basically, though, the authors are looking at a big aluminum phosphate crystal, given how the samples are prepared for electron microscopy:]
And so here again the article entirely ignores what else was found other than crystallized aluminum phosphate, and as if it were of no significance.
[I’m not an expert in electron microscopy (EM), but I know that samples for EM generally have to be examined under vacuum. That’s why, in the case of biological samples, you can’t look at living cells. If you take a liquid sample and put it under even low vacuum, it evaporates. What’s left? Crystals and precipitates. Also, as you might imagine, EM is very, very sensitive. So it’s going to pick up incredibly tiny, biologically irrelevant amounts of everything...]
Where are you safety studies that who when those said contaminants are injected, even in small amounts, that they are "BIOLOGICALLY IRRELEVANT"? That has never been studied and shown to be the case, ever. Off it doesn't have any such studies, and the CDC does not have any such said studies.
[I realize it’s an imperfect example; so let’s look at another, one that our friend the Skeptical Raptor uses:
Therein lies the most problematic issue with the data. The numbers are well below the level of biological activity, if these various chemicals even have biological activity (most don’t). For example, the authors found 1569 particles or precipitates in one drop of Cervarix (an anti-HPV vaccine). Sounds horrific right? Except that one drop of vaccine contains around 1.39 X 10^21 individual molecules. This so called contamination approximately 0.0000000000000000000719% of these so called contaminants.]
Where are your studies showing that any of these substances when injected, are below the level of biological activity? You have no such studies, and you are simply assuming that to be the case. And that shown calculation is again an obviously intentional and deliberate minimization and without substantiation as to the insignificance of an injected dose; and lets say that does is injected into the arm or leg of an infant or small child.
[In that Cervarix sample, the researchers found aluminum hydroxide, one of those scary sounding compounds. Let’s say every one of those 1569 particles was aluminum hydroxide, it would mean that around 0.000000000001 ng of aluminum hydroxide in a vial of vaccine. That is simply biologically irrelevant. Even if the aluminum hydroxide was found, it’s level is so low, that the human body wouldn’t notice it. You breathe in more aluminum on a normal day than you would ever find in a vial of vaccine.]
So now breathing alumnium is the same exact thing as injecting it? What child is breathing aluminum and how has it been studied? Obviously the immune system recognizes an injected aluminum adjuvant, and so the human body HAS noticed it; (which one of the most blatant and obvious lies of this article). Without that aluminum adjuvant, no so called inactivated vaccine antigen would be recognized sufficiently enough to result in increased resulting antibodies sufficient to produce and FDA approval of the vaccine. If a small child for example jets injected enough times with a vaccine aluminum adjuvant, several studies have shown aluminum as well can cause over activation of brains microlgia cell, and with resulting chronic levels brain inflammation. You do not even know what the injected amount of any of these substances actually are harmful to human health. When injected, those harmful amounts could be very small. Again, where are your studies showing that any of these substances when injected, are below the level of biological activity? You have no such studies, and you are simply assuming that to be the case.
[What follows, then, is a series of photomicrographs of all sorts of particles that they found after evaporating 44 vaccines from four different countries, as listed in Table 1 of the paper. If you look at the other tables, you’ll see that the authors list all sorts of scary-sounding metals and compounds ranging from tungsten to aluminum to silicone to gold, to zirconium, all, ominously, “embedded in biological substrate” (i.e., precipitated proteins, which is what you would expect to find if you evaporated a vaccine, along with the minerals from the salt solution).]
What direct evidence do you have for this claim and to claim that that tungsten to aluminum to silicone to gold, to zirconium, all, ominously, “embedded in biological substrate” (i.e., precipitated proteins, which is what you would expect to find if you evaporated a vaccine, along with the minerals from the salt solution)? All of those things are found in salt, and saline solution? Really?
Here is what they actually found in the study and to redirect away from this twisted Orac/Gorski articles attempt to hide and minimize it.
New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Microand
Nanocontamination
Abstract
Vaccines are being under investigation for the possible side effects they can cause. In order to supply new information, an electron-microscopy investigation method was applied to the study of vaccines, aimed at verifying the presence of solid contaminants by means of an Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope equipped with an X-ray microprobe. The results of this new nvestigation show the presence of micro- and nanosized particulate matter composed of inorganic elements in vaccines’ samples which is not declared among the components and whose unduly presence is, for the time being, inexplicable. A considerable part of those particulate contaminants have already been verified in other matrices and reported in literature as non biodegradable and non biocompatible. The evidence collected is suggestive of some hypotheses correlated to diseases that are mentioned and briefly discussed.
http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-00072.pdf
Perhaps the last straw: Our worst nightmare come true -- nanoparticles in vaccines.
________________________________________________
Intro by J.B. Handley
Breaking!! New published study (This week: 1/23/17) from Italy shows vaccines contaminated with undeclared micro and nano-sized particles!
Good luck finding one mention of this study from the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination in the U.S. media!
What does the study say? It's jaw-droppingly bad, just start with the discussion at the end, the scientists were "baffled", they found a bunch of stuff in ALL pediatric vaccines that they didn't expect to find like Lead, Tungsten, Zirconium, Iron, Nickel, Antimony, stainless steel, and chromium--to name a few! (The one vaccine that was 100% free from inorganic contaminants? A pet vaccine!)
Discussion:
"The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity which, in any case, is still there, that typical of foreign bodies. For that reason, they induce an inflammatory reaction."
and,
"Specific researches on components of the vaccines like adjuvants (in most instances, Aluminum salts) are already indicated as possible responsible of neurological symptoms"
and,
"The investigations verified the physical-chemical composition of the vaccines considered according to the inorganic component as declared by the Producer. In detail, we verified the presence of saline and Aluminum salts, but further presence of micro-, sub- micro- and nanosized, inorganic, foreign bodies (ranging from 100nm to about ten microns) was identified in all cases, whose presence was not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product."
and,
"As can be seen, the particles are surrounded and embedded in a biological substrate. In all the samples analyzed, we identified particles containing: Lead (Typhym, Cervarix, Agrippal S1, Meningitec, Gardasil) or stainless steel (Mencevax, Infarix Hexa, Cervarix. Anatetall, Focetria, Agrippal S1, Menveo, Prevenar 13, Meningitec, Vaxigrip, Stamaril Pasteur, Repevax and MMRvaxPro)."
and,
"Figure 3a-3d show particles of Tungsten identified in drops of Prevenar and Infarix (Aluminum, Tungsten, Calcium chloride).
Figure 6a & 6b show one of the foreign bodies identified in Agrippal. The particle is composed of Cerium, Iron, Titanium and Nickel. (Figure 7a & 7b) present an area of Repevax where the morphology of red cells - we cannot tell whether they are human or animal- is clearly visible."
and,
"The link between these two entities generates an unfolding of the proteins that can induce an autoimmune effect once those proteins are injected into humans."
Study Table 2: List of the vaccines according to their manufacturers with the chemical composition of the debris identified in each sample. The elements most
represented are reported. Actually read it as to what was found. And that is normal and to be expected in a vaccine? All a result of evaporated salt/saline solution used in the manufacture of a vaccine? Really? Study Table 3 is as well very revealing and as well all of the picture figures, 1 through 8.
Discussion
The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity which, in any case, is still there, that typical of foreign bodies. For that reason, they induce an inflammatory reaction.
After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas [17]. But they can also be carried by the blood
circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination. We believe that in many cases they get distributed throughout the body without causing any visible reaction, but it is also likely that, in some circumstances, they reach some organ, none excluded and including the microbiota, in a fair quantity. As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect (due to a nano-bio-interaction [18]) can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way [19-22]. It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA [23].
Conclusion
The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case. This new investigation represents a new quality control that can be adopted to assess the safety of a vaccine. Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g., filtration) used to produce vaccines, not investigated and not detected by the Producers. If our hypothesis is actually the case, a close inspection of the working places and the full knowledge of the whole procedure of vaccine preparation would probably allow to eliminate the problem.
http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-00072.pdf
End point of this expose, by JB Handley, anything else here is written by me the editor of vacfacts website.
-----------
[Let me repeat for emphasis. The investigators think that what they found is that vaccines are contaminated with all sorts of inorganic metals. What they really found is that the amount of inorganic contamination is so low as to be biologically irrelevant. In fact, what they found is that vaccines are incredibly pure products.]
Again, where is your scientific study evidence for the claim that the levels of the contaminant substances found in the study, are all biologically irrelevant? There is no such existing study which shows that to be true, and as no such studies to determine that said conclusion, have ever been done. Offit and the CDC have actually done little more than make comparisons between dietary consumption exposures in comparison to injected amounts of aluminum adjuvant in vaccines, and in claiming that the injected amount is lower than what is estimated to be dietarily consumed by an average individual. This mislead level of thinking is even considered to abate any controversy as to injecting a just born infant with an aluminum adjuvant containing Hepatitis B vaccine. No consideration is given to the size and age of the person, or even if it is an infant with clearly yet has not existing a fully undeveloped blood brain barrier.
[Let me repeat for emphasis. The investigators think that what they found is that vaccines are contaminated with all sorts of inorganic metals. What they really found is that the amount of inorganic contamination is so low as to be biologically irrelevant. In fact, what they found is that vaccines are incredibly pure products.]
Are you kidding? Again go back and re-look at Table 2. And the article writer actually has the audacity to claim to that-that table and this study shows vaccines to be incredibly ...PURE? Such major levels of complete denial, and as always. This kind of a study needs to be done again and duplicated, and in being specifically designed to find as much additional information as possible.
And what GORSKI article would ever be complete and without a large dose of can't be, and couldn't be wild speculation and as always. Here we go again, below.
[And I didn’t even get into a very good question that our scaly friend asked: What were the controls? What would you find if you carried out the same analyses on tap water, for instance? It could very well be that syringe used to draw up and deposit the specimen could be the source of the “contamination.” Hell, it could just as easily be the cellulose matrix on which the specimens are deposited for analysis that were responsible for the “contamination.” I’m familiar with those filters, as they are commonly used in molecular biology. They are not ultra-pure. How were they stored? Often filters can pick up dust from the air. Whatever the source of the particles observed, without controls, there’s no way of knowing if the source was the vaccines or not. It could be that vaccines are even more pure than this study shows!
Now, knowing this, go and read the discussion and conclusion of this paper. You will laugh, and you should laugh. The investigators deserve nothing but mockery for this idiocy, such as:]
Again, this discussion and conclusion is actually something to laugh about? This is actual cause for mockery? People desiring and looking for real study science and even if preliminary in regard to vaccines risks, need to be mocked? So much for the credibility of that article. Orac/Gorski's no science there based article BS is again dead in the water and in TRUTH, going nowhere.
Discussion
The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable,
that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important
to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of
the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity which, in any case, is still there, that typical of foreign bodies. For that reason, they induce an inflammatory reaction.
After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas [17]. But they can also be carried by the blood
circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination. We believe that in many cases they get distributed throughout the body without causing any visible reaction, but it is also likely that, in some circumstances, they reach some organ, none excluded and including the microbiota, in a fair quantity. As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the proteincorona effect (due to a nano-bio-interaction [18]) can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way [19-22]. It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA [23]
In some cases, e.g. as occurs with Iron and some Iron alloys, they can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues [24-26]. The detection of presence of Aluminum and NaCl salts is obvious as they are substances used by the Producers and declared as components, but other materials are not supposed to be in the vaccine or in any other injectable drug, at that, and, in any case, Aluminum has already been linked with neurological diseases [27-29].
Given the contaminations we observed in all samples of human-use vaccines, adverse effects after the injection of those vaccines are possible and credible and have the character of randomness, since they depend on where the contaminants are carried by the blood circulation. It is only obvious that similar quantities of these foreign bodies can have a more serious impact on very small organisms like those of children. Their presence in the muscles, due an extravasation from the blood, could heavily impair the muscle functionality [30,31].
We come across particles with chemical compositions, similar to those found in the vaccines we analyzed, when we study cases of environmental contamination caused by different pollution sources. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt. In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants.
Other forms of so-far unknown contaminations have recently been observed and, in any case, vaccines contain components that could themselves be the cause of adverse effects. It is a well-known fact in toxicology that contaminants exert a mutual, synergic effect, and as the number of contaminants increases, the effects grow less and less predictable. The more so when some substances are unknown. As a matter of fact, no exhaustive and reliable official data exist on the side-effects induced by vaccines. The episodic evidence reported by people allegedly damaged by vaccines is twofold: some say the damage occurred and became visible within a few hours from administration, and some maintain that it was a matter of some weeks. Though we have no indisputable evidence as to the reliability of those attestations, we can put forward a hypothesis to explain the different phenomena. In the former case, the pollutants contained in the drug have reached the brain and, depending on the anatomical site interested, have induced a reaction. If that is the case, the whole phenomenon is very rapid. In the latter circumstance, the pollutants reached the microbiota, thus interfering with the production of enzymes necessary to carry out neurological functions [32-35]. That possibility takes time, as it involves the production of chemical compounds in a sufficient quantity, and an elapse of some weeks between injection and clinical evidence is reasonable. Of course, ours is no more than a hypothesis open to discussion and in need of proof, hoping that a chance of further investigation is allowed.
Conclusion
The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case. This new investigation represents a new quality control that can be adopted to assess the safety of a vaccine. Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional,
since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines, not investigated and not detected by the Producers. If our hypothesis is actually the case, a close inspection of the working places and the full knowledge of the whole procedure of vaccine preparation would probably allow to eliminate the problem. A further purification of the vaccines could improve their quality and could probably decrease the number and seriousness of the adverse incidental effects.
[Given that the CMSRI’s scientific advisory board includes antivaccine “scientists” like Christopher Shaw, Yehuda Shoenfeld, Richard Deth, Stephanie Seneff, and Vicky Debold, along with some others I’m not familiar with, it’s not at all surprising that CMSRI loves it. It also amuses me to no end that the “scientific board” didn’t see the obvious problems with this paper.]
By the way, those said study names and sources have produced some very damning studies and concluding data. Those studies and their authors are obviously not to be taken lightly, and of course unless your motive is to deliberately deny the relevance and importance of what those studies have found. The only problems with this preliminary study are the ones you falsely created, and twisted into alleged problems by your own and again needed in denial article creation.
[That’s because it’s all about antivaccine fear mongering, not science.]
Mr Gorski has of course has never been about promoting the real science, but only the pharma connected JUNK science that keeps the public mislead.
Not long ago we talking about the late Jeff Bradstreet and as to his claim that elevated levels of nagalase were being found in those children with autism; thus as well that nagalase possibly being present in vaccines, but now as well various metallic and unknown nano-particles. How much worse can it get? Independently done studies are the only studies that have and /or ever will find the truth in regard to vaccines. Offit and the CDC are simply not looking. They already know that they are screwed if they start directly looking at it all.
Biomedical treatment and chelation practitioner's have wondered where all the heavy metals were coming from when vaccine injured and/or autistic children received such as DMSA or DMPS chelation of existing heavy metals during bio-medical treatment. Perhaps the vaccines are the source of those excreted heavy metals, after all. And then when those metals were removed many children in significant amounts, those children were seen to have significant levels of recovery from a diagnosis of autism. There is nothing that Gorski won't try to take a shit on, and for direct vaccine truth information.
Research Article
The Severity of Autism Is Associated with Toxic Metal Body Burden and Red Blood Cell Glutathione Levels
Abstract
This study investigated the relationship of children's autism symptoms with their toxic metal body burden and red blood cell (RBC) glutathione levels. In children ages 3–8 years, the severity of autism was assessed using four tools: ADOS, PDD-BI, ATEC, and SAS. Toxic metal body burden was assessed by measuring urinary excretion of toxic metals, both before and after oral dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA). Multiple positive correlations were found between the severity of autism and the urinary excretion of toxic metals. Variations in the severity of autism measurements could be explained, in part, by regression analyses of urinary excretion of toxic metals before and after DMSA and the level of RBC glutathione (adjusted of 0.22–0.45, in all cases). This study demonstrates a significant positive association between the severity of autism and the relative body burden of toxic metals.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2009/532640/ (full study)
End of the said article, analysis.
Again, this is the article source referred to.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/02/02/antivaccinationists-try-to-show-vaccines-are-dirty-but-really-show-that-they-are-amazingly-free-from-contamination/
-------------
Vaccine Contaminants, Nanotechnology, and Cancer
http://vaxxter.com/vaccine_contaminants_nano_cancer/
If you want to realize more about the nature of what editor David Gorski/Orac does on that so called, Science Based Medicine blog, and as well the so called (Orac) edited, Respectful Insolence blog, read the below article. They are written and edited by the same said person.
Professor David Gorski, a well-known online character assassin masquerading as a science defender
Internet Trolls Attack Anyone Resisting Vaccine Party Line
Excerpted: The more you read, the more you start to realize that there is a growing number of doctors, scientists, nurses, and other health care providers who have serious questions about the current vaccine paradigm favored by the pharmaceutical industry, government agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), medical trade groups, and the mainstream media.
Increasingly, professionals within a wide range of health care and science fields are giving interviews and writing articles and books voicing their concerns about vaccine risks, the misrepresentation of the historical role of vaccines in reducing mortality from infectious diseases, the expanding schedule and number of vaccines mandated, or even the basic mechanism theories behind vaccine science.
David Gorski, MD, alias “Orac””
Michael Simpson, alias “Skeptical Raptor”
Predictably, every time you give the name of a contrarian doctor or scientist in response to the 99.9% figure, what you tend to get is, “Eh, well, he’s a quack, she’s not credible.” Also, you get referred to blogs such as Science-Based Medicine,1 or Respectful Insolence,2 or the Skeptical Raptor’s Blog.3 They’re often written by or associated with a guy named David Gorski, MD, who also goes by the alias “Orac.” Gorski is a surgical oncologist and an assistant professor of surgery at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, MI.4
Should you wish to debunk someone, anyone, who dares to disagree with mainstream thinking on vaccines, all you need do is inform Orac, and the good doctor will gladly oblige by writing up a boorish piece, long on insult and short on science. Orac’s methods are painfully predictable. In one piece earlier this year, he criticized a prominent immunologist5 who had the nerve to write an open letter on vaccine science to state legislators in California about to vote on a bill eliminating personal belief vaccine exemptions. He started out by dismissing the individual’s credentials outright. Orac writes:
Read more:
http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2015/11/internet-trolls-attack-anyone-resisting-vaccine-party-line/
Dr. David Gorski and His Merry Band of Idiots Don’t Like Full Page Ads
Dr. David Gorski, known to the dorkosphere as “Orac”, by JB Handley
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/dr-david-gorski-and-his-merry-band-of-idiots-dont-like-full-page-ads.html
Pro-vaccine shill Dr. David Gorski, linked to cancer fraudster, in cahoots with pharma to develop lucrative autism drug
http://www.naturalnews.com/053706_David_Gorski_autism_drug_Karmanos_Cancer_Center.html
Dr David Gorski, no real doctor at all. How does a man chose to defy and spend his life going against any real form of health care and actual knowledge, and as well regarding the current risk of vaccines, and on today's horrid and endless CDC vaccine schedule? Non human scum.
Posted by Orac on February 2, 2017
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/02/02/antivaccinationists-try-to-show-vaccines-are-dirty-but-really-show-that-they-are-amazingly-free-from-contamination/
The study referred to in this article is this study directly below.
New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Microand
Nanocontamination
http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-00072.pdf
I will go through the article above which is written by the author you see, and which is identified as so called Orac, and which Orac of course known to be none other than, David Gorski, known as doctor and Professor David Gorski, a well-known online blogging character assassin, falsely masquerading as a science defender.
I have picked out several key paragraphs and/or paragraph excerpts from that said article, and I will respond to each one of them directly. The article excepts are marked and highlighted with [ italics].
[Not surprisingly, MedCrave is included on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers, basically a list of “pay to publish” open access journals who charge significant sums to authors to publish their work but whose editorial oversite and peer review are—shall we say?—lacking.]
It looks like any public scientific study literature that is not connected to big pharma in some way, or the standard pharma medical model is on that list, and all of them. And where did it say that they charge large amounts of money at MedCrave; I don't see that actually stated? And what Gorski article would be complete without an opening chapter full of attempted false discrediation and mud slinging at the information and/or study authors?
[Looking at the area outside these precipitates but inside the liquid drop, we identified other things: single particles, clusters of particles and aggregates (organic-inorganic composites) that are due to an interaction of the inorganic particulate matter with the organic part of the vaccine.
Wow! That looks scary, doesn’t it? Basically, though, the authors are looking at a big aluminum phosphate crystal, given how the samples are prepared for electron microscopy:]
And so here again the article entirely ignores what else was found other than crystallized aluminum phosphate, and as if it were of no significance.
[I’m not an expert in electron microscopy (EM), but I know that samples for EM generally have to be examined under vacuum. That’s why, in the case of biological samples, you can’t look at living cells. If you take a liquid sample and put it under even low vacuum, it evaporates. What’s left? Crystals and precipitates. Also, as you might imagine, EM is very, very sensitive. So it’s going to pick up incredibly tiny, biologically irrelevant amounts of everything...]
Where are you safety studies that who when those said contaminants are injected, even in small amounts, that they are "BIOLOGICALLY IRRELEVANT"? That has never been studied and shown to be the case, ever. Off it doesn't have any such studies, and the CDC does not have any such said studies.
[I realize it’s an imperfect example; so let’s look at another, one that our friend the Skeptical Raptor uses:
Therein lies the most problematic issue with the data. The numbers are well below the level of biological activity, if these various chemicals even have biological activity (most don’t). For example, the authors found 1569 particles or precipitates in one drop of Cervarix (an anti-HPV vaccine). Sounds horrific right? Except that one drop of vaccine contains around 1.39 X 10^21 individual molecules. This so called contamination approximately 0.0000000000000000000719% of these so called contaminants.]
Where are your studies showing that any of these substances when injected, are below the level of biological activity? You have no such studies, and you are simply assuming that to be the case. And that shown calculation is again an obviously intentional and deliberate minimization and without substantiation as to the insignificance of an injected dose; and lets say that does is injected into the arm or leg of an infant or small child.
[In that Cervarix sample, the researchers found aluminum hydroxide, one of those scary sounding compounds. Let’s say every one of those 1569 particles was aluminum hydroxide, it would mean that around 0.000000000001 ng of aluminum hydroxide in a vial of vaccine. That is simply biologically irrelevant. Even if the aluminum hydroxide was found, it’s level is so low, that the human body wouldn’t notice it. You breathe in more aluminum on a normal day than you would ever find in a vial of vaccine.]
So now breathing alumnium is the same exact thing as injecting it? What child is breathing aluminum and how has it been studied? Obviously the immune system recognizes an injected aluminum adjuvant, and so the human body HAS noticed it; (which one of the most blatant and obvious lies of this article). Without that aluminum adjuvant, no so called inactivated vaccine antigen would be recognized sufficiently enough to result in increased resulting antibodies sufficient to produce and FDA approval of the vaccine. If a small child for example jets injected enough times with a vaccine aluminum adjuvant, several studies have shown aluminum as well can cause over activation of brains microlgia cell, and with resulting chronic levels brain inflammation. You do not even know what the injected amount of any of these substances actually are harmful to human health. When injected, those harmful amounts could be very small. Again, where are your studies showing that any of these substances when injected, are below the level of biological activity? You have no such studies, and you are simply assuming that to be the case.
[What follows, then, is a series of photomicrographs of all sorts of particles that they found after evaporating 44 vaccines from four different countries, as listed in Table 1 of the paper. If you look at the other tables, you’ll see that the authors list all sorts of scary-sounding metals and compounds ranging from tungsten to aluminum to silicone to gold, to zirconium, all, ominously, “embedded in biological substrate” (i.e., precipitated proteins, which is what you would expect to find if you evaporated a vaccine, along with the minerals from the salt solution).]
What direct evidence do you have for this claim and to claim that that tungsten to aluminum to silicone to gold, to zirconium, all, ominously, “embedded in biological substrate” (i.e., precipitated proteins, which is what you would expect to find if you evaporated a vaccine, along with the minerals from the salt solution)? All of those things are found in salt, and saline solution? Really?
Here is what they actually found in the study and to redirect away from this twisted Orac/Gorski articles attempt to hide and minimize it.
New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Microand
Nanocontamination
Abstract
Vaccines are being under investigation for the possible side effects they can cause. In order to supply new information, an electron-microscopy investigation method was applied to the study of vaccines, aimed at verifying the presence of solid contaminants by means of an Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope equipped with an X-ray microprobe. The results of this new nvestigation show the presence of micro- and nanosized particulate matter composed of inorganic elements in vaccines’ samples which is not declared among the components and whose unduly presence is, for the time being, inexplicable. A considerable part of those particulate contaminants have already been verified in other matrices and reported in literature as non biodegradable and non biocompatible. The evidence collected is suggestive of some hypotheses correlated to diseases that are mentioned and briefly discussed.
http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-00072.pdf
Perhaps the last straw: Our worst nightmare come true -- nanoparticles in vaccines.
________________________________________________
Intro by J.B. Handley
Breaking!! New published study (This week: 1/23/17) from Italy shows vaccines contaminated with undeclared micro and nano-sized particles!
Good luck finding one mention of this study from the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination in the U.S. media!
What does the study say? It's jaw-droppingly bad, just start with the discussion at the end, the scientists were "baffled", they found a bunch of stuff in ALL pediatric vaccines that they didn't expect to find like Lead, Tungsten, Zirconium, Iron, Nickel, Antimony, stainless steel, and chromium--to name a few! (The one vaccine that was 100% free from inorganic contaminants? A pet vaccine!)
Discussion:
"The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity which, in any case, is still there, that typical of foreign bodies. For that reason, they induce an inflammatory reaction."
and,
"Specific researches on components of the vaccines like adjuvants (in most instances, Aluminum salts) are already indicated as possible responsible of neurological symptoms"
and,
"The investigations verified the physical-chemical composition of the vaccines considered according to the inorganic component as declared by the Producer. In detail, we verified the presence of saline and Aluminum salts, but further presence of micro-, sub- micro- and nanosized, inorganic, foreign bodies (ranging from 100nm to about ten microns) was identified in all cases, whose presence was not declared in the leaflets delivered in the package of the product."
and,
"As can be seen, the particles are surrounded and embedded in a biological substrate. In all the samples analyzed, we identified particles containing: Lead (Typhym, Cervarix, Agrippal S1, Meningitec, Gardasil) or stainless steel (Mencevax, Infarix Hexa, Cervarix. Anatetall, Focetria, Agrippal S1, Menveo, Prevenar 13, Meningitec, Vaxigrip, Stamaril Pasteur, Repevax and MMRvaxPro)."
and,
"Figure 3a-3d show particles of Tungsten identified in drops of Prevenar and Infarix (Aluminum, Tungsten, Calcium chloride).
Figure 6a & 6b show one of the foreign bodies identified in Agrippal. The particle is composed of Cerium, Iron, Titanium and Nickel. (Figure 7a & 7b) present an area of Repevax where the morphology of red cells - we cannot tell whether they are human or animal- is clearly visible."
and,
"The link between these two entities generates an unfolding of the proteins that can induce an autoimmune effect once those proteins are injected into humans."
Study Table 2: List of the vaccines according to their manufacturers with the chemical composition of the debris identified in each sample. The elements most
represented are reported. Actually read it as to what was found. And that is normal and to be expected in a vaccine? All a result of evaporated salt/saline solution used in the manufacture of a vaccine? Really? Study Table 3 is as well very revealing and as well all of the picture figures, 1 through 8.
Discussion
The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable, that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity which, in any case, is still there, that typical of foreign bodies. For that reason, they induce an inflammatory reaction.
After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas [17]. But they can also be carried by the blood
circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination. We believe that in many cases they get distributed throughout the body without causing any visible reaction, but it is also likely that, in some circumstances, they reach some organ, none excluded and including the microbiota, in a fair quantity. As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the protein-corona effect (due to a nano-bio-interaction [18]) can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way [19-22]. It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA [23].
Conclusion
The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case. This new investigation represents a new quality control that can be adopted to assess the safety of a vaccine. Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional, since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g., filtration) used to produce vaccines, not investigated and not detected by the Producers. If our hypothesis is actually the case, a close inspection of the working places and the full knowledge of the whole procedure of vaccine preparation would probably allow to eliminate the problem.
http://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/IJVV-04-00072.pdf
End point of this expose, by JB Handley, anything else here is written by me the editor of vacfacts website.
-----------
[Let me repeat for emphasis. The investigators think that what they found is that vaccines are contaminated with all sorts of inorganic metals. What they really found is that the amount of inorganic contamination is so low as to be biologically irrelevant. In fact, what they found is that vaccines are incredibly pure products.]
Again, where is your scientific study evidence for the claim that the levels of the contaminant substances found in the study, are all biologically irrelevant? There is no such existing study which shows that to be true, and as no such studies to determine that said conclusion, have ever been done. Offit and the CDC have actually done little more than make comparisons between dietary consumption exposures in comparison to injected amounts of aluminum adjuvant in vaccines, and in claiming that the injected amount is lower than what is estimated to be dietarily consumed by an average individual. This mislead level of thinking is even considered to abate any controversy as to injecting a just born infant with an aluminum adjuvant containing Hepatitis B vaccine. No consideration is given to the size and age of the person, or even if it is an infant with clearly yet has not existing a fully undeveloped blood brain barrier.
[Let me repeat for emphasis. The investigators think that what they found is that vaccines are contaminated with all sorts of inorganic metals. What they really found is that the amount of inorganic contamination is so low as to be biologically irrelevant. In fact, what they found is that vaccines are incredibly pure products.]
Are you kidding? Again go back and re-look at Table 2. And the article writer actually has the audacity to claim to that-that table and this study shows vaccines to be incredibly ...PURE? Such major levels of complete denial, and as always. This kind of a study needs to be done again and duplicated, and in being specifically designed to find as much additional information as possible.
And what GORSKI article would ever be complete and without a large dose of can't be, and couldn't be wild speculation and as always. Here we go again, below.
[And I didn’t even get into a very good question that our scaly friend asked: What were the controls? What would you find if you carried out the same analyses on tap water, for instance? It could very well be that syringe used to draw up and deposit the specimen could be the source of the “contamination.” Hell, it could just as easily be the cellulose matrix on which the specimens are deposited for analysis that were responsible for the “contamination.” I’m familiar with those filters, as they are commonly used in molecular biology. They are not ultra-pure. How were they stored? Often filters can pick up dust from the air. Whatever the source of the particles observed, without controls, there’s no way of knowing if the source was the vaccines or not. It could be that vaccines are even more pure than this study shows!
Now, knowing this, go and read the discussion and conclusion of this paper. You will laugh, and you should laugh. The investigators deserve nothing but mockery for this idiocy, such as:]
Again, this discussion and conclusion is actually something to laugh about? This is actual cause for mockery? People desiring and looking for real study science and even if preliminary in regard to vaccines risks, need to be mocked? So much for the credibility of that article. Orac/Gorski's no science there based article BS is again dead in the water and in TRUTH, going nowhere.
Discussion
The quantity of foreign bodies detected and, in some cases, their unusual chemical compositions baffled us. The inorganic particles identified are neither biocompatible nor biodegradable,
that means that they are biopersistent and can induce effects that can become evident either immediately close to injection time or after a certain time from administration. It is important
to remember that particles (crystals and not molecules) are bodies foreign to the organism and they behave as such. More in particular, their toxicity is in some respects different from that of
the chemical elements composing them, adding to that toxicity which, in any case, is still there, that typical of foreign bodies. For that reason, they induce an inflammatory reaction.
After being injected, those microparticles, nanoparticles and aggregates can stay around the injection site forming swellings and granulomas [17]. But they can also be carried by the blood
circulation, escaping any attempt to guess what will be their final destination. We believe that in many cases they get distributed throughout the body without causing any visible reaction, but it is also likely that, in some circumstances, they reach some organ, none excluded and including the microbiota, in a fair quantity. As happens with all foreign bodies, particularly that small, they induce an inflammatory reaction that is chronic because most of those particles cannot be degraded. Furthermore, the proteincorona effect (due to a nano-bio-interaction [18]) can produce organic/inorganic composite particles capable of stimulating the immune system in an undesirable way [19-22]. It is impossible not to add that particles the size often observed in vaccines can enter cell nuclei and interact with the DNA [23]
In some cases, e.g. as occurs with Iron and some Iron alloys, they can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues [24-26]. The detection of presence of Aluminum and NaCl salts is obvious as they are substances used by the Producers and declared as components, but other materials are not supposed to be in the vaccine or in any other injectable drug, at that, and, in any case, Aluminum has already been linked with neurological diseases [27-29].
Given the contaminations we observed in all samples of human-use vaccines, adverse effects after the injection of those vaccines are possible and credible and have the character of randomness, since they depend on where the contaminants are carried by the blood circulation. It is only obvious that similar quantities of these foreign bodies can have a more serious impact on very small organisms like those of children. Their presence in the muscles, due an extravasation from the blood, could heavily impair the muscle functionality [30,31].
We come across particles with chemical compositions, similar to those found in the vaccines we analyzed, when we study cases of environmental contamination caused by different pollution sources. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt. In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants.
Other forms of so-far unknown contaminations have recently been observed and, in any case, vaccines contain components that could themselves be the cause of adverse effects. It is a well-known fact in toxicology that contaminants exert a mutual, synergic effect, and as the number of contaminants increases, the effects grow less and less predictable. The more so when some substances are unknown. As a matter of fact, no exhaustive and reliable official data exist on the side-effects induced by vaccines. The episodic evidence reported by people allegedly damaged by vaccines is twofold: some say the damage occurred and became visible within a few hours from administration, and some maintain that it was a matter of some weeks. Though we have no indisputable evidence as to the reliability of those attestations, we can put forward a hypothesis to explain the different phenomena. In the former case, the pollutants contained in the drug have reached the brain and, depending on the anatomical site interested, have induced a reaction. If that is the case, the whole phenomenon is very rapid. In the latter circumstance, the pollutants reached the microbiota, thus interfering with the production of enzymes necessary to carry out neurological functions [32-35]. That possibility takes time, as it involves the production of chemical compounds in a sufficient quantity, and an elapse of some weeks between injection and clinical evidence is reasonable. Of course, ours is no more than a hypothesis open to discussion and in need of proof, hoping that a chance of further investigation is allowed.
Conclusion
The analyses carried out show that in all samples checked vaccines contain non biocompatible and bio-persistent foreign bodies which are not declared by the Producers, against which the body reacts in any case. This new investigation represents a new quality control that can be adopted to assess the safety of a vaccine. Our hypothesis is that this contamination is unintentional,
since it is probably due to polluted components or procedures of industrial processes (e.g. filtrations) used to produce vaccines, not investigated and not detected by the Producers. If our hypothesis is actually the case, a close inspection of the working places and the full knowledge of the whole procedure of vaccine preparation would probably allow to eliminate the problem. A further purification of the vaccines could improve their quality and could probably decrease the number and seriousness of the adverse incidental effects.
[Given that the CMSRI’s scientific advisory board includes antivaccine “scientists” like Christopher Shaw, Yehuda Shoenfeld, Richard Deth, Stephanie Seneff, and Vicky Debold, along with some others I’m not familiar with, it’s not at all surprising that CMSRI loves it. It also amuses me to no end that the “scientific board” didn’t see the obvious problems with this paper.]
By the way, those said study names and sources have produced some very damning studies and concluding data. Those studies and their authors are obviously not to be taken lightly, and of course unless your motive is to deliberately deny the relevance and importance of what those studies have found. The only problems with this preliminary study are the ones you falsely created, and twisted into alleged problems by your own and again needed in denial article creation.
[That’s because it’s all about antivaccine fear mongering, not science.]
Mr Gorski has of course has never been about promoting the real science, but only the pharma connected JUNK science that keeps the public mislead.
Not long ago we talking about the late Jeff Bradstreet and as to his claim that elevated levels of nagalase were being found in those children with autism; thus as well that nagalase possibly being present in vaccines, but now as well various metallic and unknown nano-particles. How much worse can it get? Independently done studies are the only studies that have and /or ever will find the truth in regard to vaccines. Offit and the CDC are simply not looking. They already know that they are screwed if they start directly looking at it all.
Biomedical treatment and chelation practitioner's have wondered where all the heavy metals were coming from when vaccine injured and/or autistic children received such as DMSA or DMPS chelation of existing heavy metals during bio-medical treatment. Perhaps the vaccines are the source of those excreted heavy metals, after all. And then when those metals were removed many children in significant amounts, those children were seen to have significant levels of recovery from a diagnosis of autism. There is nothing that Gorski won't try to take a shit on, and for direct vaccine truth information.
Research Article
The Severity of Autism Is Associated with Toxic Metal Body Burden and Red Blood Cell Glutathione Levels
Abstract
This study investigated the relationship of children's autism symptoms with their toxic metal body burden and red blood cell (RBC) glutathione levels. In children ages 3–8 years, the severity of autism was assessed using four tools: ADOS, PDD-BI, ATEC, and SAS. Toxic metal body burden was assessed by measuring urinary excretion of toxic metals, both before and after oral dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA). Multiple positive correlations were found between the severity of autism and the urinary excretion of toxic metals. Variations in the severity of autism measurements could be explained, in part, by regression analyses of urinary excretion of toxic metals before and after DMSA and the level of RBC glutathione (adjusted of 0.22–0.45, in all cases). This study demonstrates a significant positive association between the severity of autism and the relative body burden of toxic metals.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2009/532640/ (full study)
End of the said article, analysis.
Again, this is the article source referred to.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/02/02/antivaccinationists-try-to-show-vaccines-are-dirty-but-really-show-that-they-are-amazingly-free-from-contamination/
-------------
Vaccine Contaminants, Nanotechnology, and Cancer
http://vaxxter.com/vaccine_contaminants_nano_cancer/
If you want to realize more about the nature of what editor David Gorski/Orac does on that so called, Science Based Medicine blog, and as well the so called (Orac) edited, Respectful Insolence blog, read the below article. They are written and edited by the same said person.
Professor David Gorski, a well-known online character assassin masquerading as a science defender
Internet Trolls Attack Anyone Resisting Vaccine Party Line
Excerpted: The more you read, the more you start to realize that there is a growing number of doctors, scientists, nurses, and other health care providers who have serious questions about the current vaccine paradigm favored by the pharmaceutical industry, government agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), medical trade groups, and the mainstream media.
Increasingly, professionals within a wide range of health care and science fields are giving interviews and writing articles and books voicing their concerns about vaccine risks, the misrepresentation of the historical role of vaccines in reducing mortality from infectious diseases, the expanding schedule and number of vaccines mandated, or even the basic mechanism theories behind vaccine science.
David Gorski, MD, alias “Orac””
Michael Simpson, alias “Skeptical Raptor”
Predictably, every time you give the name of a contrarian doctor or scientist in response to the 99.9% figure, what you tend to get is, “Eh, well, he’s a quack, she’s not credible.” Also, you get referred to blogs such as Science-Based Medicine,1 or Respectful Insolence,2 or the Skeptical Raptor’s Blog.3 They’re often written by or associated with a guy named David Gorski, MD, who also goes by the alias “Orac.” Gorski is a surgical oncologist and an assistant professor of surgery at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, MI.4
Should you wish to debunk someone, anyone, who dares to disagree with mainstream thinking on vaccines, all you need do is inform Orac, and the good doctor will gladly oblige by writing up a boorish piece, long on insult and short on science. Orac’s methods are painfully predictable. In one piece earlier this year, he criticized a prominent immunologist5 who had the nerve to write an open letter on vaccine science to state legislators in California about to vote on a bill eliminating personal belief vaccine exemptions. He started out by dismissing the individual’s credentials outright. Orac writes:
Read more:
http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2015/11/internet-trolls-attack-anyone-resisting-vaccine-party-line/
Dr. David Gorski and His Merry Band of Idiots Don’t Like Full Page Ads
Dr. David Gorski, known to the dorkosphere as “Orac”, by JB Handley
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/dr-david-gorski-and-his-merry-band-of-idiots-dont-like-full-page-ads.html
Pro-vaccine shill Dr. David Gorski, linked to cancer fraudster, in cahoots with pharma to develop lucrative autism drug
http://www.naturalnews.com/053706_David_Gorski_autism_drug_Karmanos_Cancer_Center.html
Dr David Gorski, no real doctor at all. How does a man chose to defy and spend his life going against any real form of health care and actual knowledge, and as well regarding the current risk of vaccines, and on today's horrid and endless CDC vaccine schedule? Non human scum.
