Featured

Vaccine Injured, Stage 3 COPD, Second/Thirdhand Smoke Victim, Emf & Climate Modification Spray Exposed – Can Life Get Any Better? (Yes, It Has!)

Those who know me are aware of my story. For those who don’t, here it is and it’s why I am now, Natural Nana.

It took a death sentence from stage 3 COPD to connect the dots. In 1998, at the age of 36, I had to take the Hep B series for work. Within a few months of completing the series, slowly and progressively, my joints and muscles began to ache, swell and become intolerably painful. I went from being a vibrant, very active, working mother – to a complete emotional and physical mess.

Most people don’t think twice about the little jaunt to the bathroom. It took me 10 minutes to get out of bed and make the 15′ walk. From the excruciating feeling of thousands of nails being driven into my muscles, to the agony of trying to use hands. which were frozen into claw-like positions, I never wanted to wake up – that’s IF I managed to win over insomnia – which I had never experienced before.

After one particularly rough night, no sleep, debilitating pain so severe it made me throw up, I caved and went to the ER. After a lot of blood work, assessments, conferences with other doctors, the ER Doc returned and said I had all the ‘signs and symptoms of Lyme Disease, but it wasn’t showing up on the tests’. I hadn’t been tick bitten (wood tick, not deer tick) since I was 9, and never had any bulls-eye or symptoms then. He had no answer for that. Instead I was told my liver enzymes were abnormal and asked if I was a drinker – I said ‘no’.

I was further informed that I had RA (supposedly associated with LD) and fibromyalgia, much scribbling on my chart, then, told to follow up with my regular doc. As he was leaving the room, he turned and asked, ‘have you had the Hep B series?’ The only thing I could think of, with the current level of pain was, ‘you ain’t poking me with any needles’.

I told doc, ‘yeah – about 4 months ago.. so I don’t need it.’ Doc left the room with an odd look on his face. Wish I knew then, what I know now..~~FF to Dec. 2009 – ER visit for chest pains and inability to breathe.

Long story short, at age 47, I was diagnosed with chronic sinusitis, acute bronchitis, pneumonia and stage 3 COPD – which came with a 3-5 year expiration date, “IF” I strictly adhered to the doctor’s orders and took all the pills/breathing treatments prescribed.

For the record, I’ve never smoked in my life. Second and third hand smoke sealed my fate.

When I was leaving the ER, the nurse on duty asked if I was current on vax’s. I shook my head ‘no’, said I wasn’t interested – never really trusted them. When I mentioned the last time I got vaxed – that a few months later I was diagnosed with LD (Lyme Disease, only it wasn’t LD), the nurse had the same funny look as the ER doc. A long conversation ensued and I was advised to find the vax insert and read it.. thoroughly.

A few weeks later, I was able to get my hands on a copy of the insert. SOBs!

After reading the insert, doing my diligent investigations, yup! Every symptom I experienced, indicated I was vaccine injured. Having done extensive investigations and research, I now know, vaccines are nothing less than legalized genocide, slow death perpetuated by the CDC/WHO/FDA and funded by the liability-less big pharma stockholders.

So, here’s the update – at age 54, my life is completely different.

Here is why -My last dr. visit was March 2010. During that visit, I conveyed how I felt like death warmed over, got winded walking from my bedroom to the bathroom, couldn’t function because the pain was debilitating, still had insomnia and didn’t feel like I was living – but just barely existing.

He never looked up from my chart, said ‘Well, your lungs are permanently scarred, so breathing will always be difficult. But, blood work looks good so let’s continue treatment as ordered.’

I wanted to throat punch him. I was so livid when I left, it lit a fire in my soul that defies description. That day was THE pivotal, life changing moment when I liberated myself from the medical world, took my OWN health into my OWN hands. I searched, researched and investigated natural remedies and was able to do a 180° turn-around with my life. From March-Sept ‘10, with the help of wild Mediterranean oregano oil, white thyme oil, ACV, raw honey, tulsi, d.e., zeolite, colloidal silver and the elimination of all processed foods, I was able to wean myself off all prescriptions, OTCs and breathing treatments – and regain the majority of my health, NATURALLY.

To date, I have been 100% script/OTC-free – and haven’t been sick a single day since. I can take a deep, belly breath and not cough/choke/gasp, and I can walk a mile without feeling like I’m dying. Also, I’ve dropped 100 lbs and made another huge lifestyle change last July, when I became flexitarian. Thanks to the chemtrail toxins, I still get the occasional flare-up of RA, Lupus and fibromyalgia, but I have not had a single cold, flu or respiratory issue – even when I am exposed to those around me, who are in a repetitive rotation of getting sick, being sick or recovering from being sick.

So, back to why I shared this additional information.. chemflu (aka SRM/global dimming) is real. I’ve noticed on heavy spray days, my lungs have to work harder, my eyes burn, itch, sting and my throat feels dry and itchy, like I’ve gargled with fiberglass. (yeah, fiberglass) Because my respiratory system has been significantly compromised, it’s of utmost importance to keep it as healthy as possible.

Honestly, I’d rather be called a ‘conspiracy theorist’ or a ‘nutcase’ than believe the bullshit we’ve been fed for all these years, by those who we trust most. Whether it’s through food, water, soil, vaccines, pharmaceuticals or air – OUR immune systems are being bombarded on the daily, so PLEASE do NOT dismiss your symptoms, no matter how small. LISTEN to that voice within; the voice that warns you, the voice that will guide you to the right path, regardless what the masses are saying. It may very well save your life.

Oh, before I forget – in his defense – I have zero doubt the ER doctor was absolutely correct with his grave prognosis. (yeah, I can laugh about it now)”IF” I had continued to follow his orders; swallow all those pills, inhale all those toxins – I would most assuredly be dead by now. But, the rebel in me loves proving people wrong, especially if those people have a lot of fancy letters behind their names. Not bad for a dead woman, huh? ~blessings~

Natural Nana

April 2018 – **UPDATE**
A few months ago, yet another set of bizarre symptoms emerged. After doing my diligent homework, seeking answers via meditation, and refusal to give up, I learned I had all the hallmark symptoms of Sjogren’s syndrome. SS is much like arthritis or lupus, it characteristically attacks the mucous membranes and results in symptoms of a dry mouth and dry, sore eyes, weakness in extremities, painful/inflamed joints, lethargy regardless of how much sleep and in my case, insomnia.

More homework ensued.

The more I read, the angrier and more driven I became. From what I’d learned, this syndrome had been linked to vaccine damage. *insert expletives of choice*Once again, I sought out natural remedies. I was already taking wild Mediterranean oregano oil w/ msm in hemp oil, then added N-Acetyl Cysteine and evening primrose oil. This combination significantly reduced my pain from a steady 6-8, down to a solid 4-5. This was good, but not good enough.Thanks to a wonderful friend (blessings to you, Landee), that’s when I began including zeolite.. and it was THE game changer. For the record, I’ve taken zeolite before. I’ve used a few products and had nominal results, but as I said, THIS was THE game changer!

The first two days of taking it were the roughest. Once again, I did my homework to see if I was doing something wrong. I discovered that when using a detox, it isn’t uncommon to experience discomfort within the first few days. So, I pursued.

The payoff was well worth it. By day 3, I was sleeping like a baby and had ZERO pain! That’s right – ZERO!

Here I am at day #20 and STILL no pain!

Of everything I’ve learned, the most important lesson is this – modern medicine focuses on addressing the symptoms, not the cure – and allopathic practitioners do not want you to DO YOUR HOMEWORK! Patients are little more than student/medical loan payments, so why would physicians want healthy people?

If you want to truly be healthy, then DO YOUR HOMEWORK! Wouldn’t it be wonderful to keep doctors around, for emergency situations only?

Blessings to you on your journey to GREAT health!~~~More info in comments on this link – https://www.facebook.com/notes/natural-nana/vaccine-injured-secondthirdhand-smoke-victim-climate-modification-spray-exposed-/1649789198651131/ Over the past few years, I’ve been asked many times, what products I’ve used to help heal and regain my health. It finally dawned on me, if I created a page with all that info, it would save a lot of time and would be a great reference source.
So, here you go!
This is just the beginning. I will be adding more as time allows.
Blessings and good health to you! – https://www.facebook.com/natural.nana/posts/1820323668264349?hc_location=ufi

How I healed

What I used to heal

Examining RFK Jr.’s claim that the CDC “Owns over 20 vaccine patents.”

Mr. Kennedy is in very safe territory by reporting that the CDC has over 20 patents that create vast, undisclosed conflicts of interests in vaccine safety.

This past week, President-Elect Trump invited Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to discuss Mr. Kennedy leading a vaccine safety commission.  The mainstream media coverage of the meeting was widespread and furious. 

The vaccine industry and its media lap dogs do not want their corruption exposed in any official forum, and they have pointed their fury at Mr. Trump and Mr. Kennedy. 

We have seen a great deal of media on Kennedy and his vaccine safety and corruption claims in the last week.  The nice thing about that is this – because he has been in the mercury fight for so long, and started investigating the claims of moms of vaccine injured children more than a decade ago, his coverage has returned  the spotlight to the corruption that was uncovered in the early days of the realization that the vaccine program was hurting our kids.

One of these old pieces of information that has made its way back into the discussion because of Mr. Kennedy’s media attention is the claim that, “The CDC owns over 20 vaccines patents.”

My vaccine safety and corruption research began shortly after my son was vaccine injured in 2003, and I have heard this claim circulated since I began advocacy in this arena, but I have never seen any evidence for this claim.

In 2003, UPI reporter Mark Benjamin wrote an in depth piece on the conflicts of interest (COI) in vaccine safety entitled, “UPI Investigates: The vaccine conflict.”  We have Mr. Benjamin to thank for bringing the patents and COIs held by the members of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, including Dr. Paul Offit, to the public’s attention, and for documenting the early years of Offit’s increasingly absurd claims.  In this article, Offit asserts that holding vaccine patents, being funded by Merck and having Merck buy and distribute, to physicians, his book extolling the virtues of vaccines, does not compromise his objectivity as a member of the committee that determines what is and is not sound vaccine practice:

“When asked, members of the committee told UPI their potential conflicts do not affect their judgment.

“I am probably just the kind of person you are talking about,” said Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was a committee member until last month. At the same time, he shared a patent for another rotavirus vaccine. Merck has funded Offit’s research for 13 years.

“I am a co-holder of a patent for a (rotavirus) vaccine. If this vaccine were to become a routinely recommended vaccine, I would make money off of that,” Offit said. “When I review safety data, am I biased? That answer is really easy: absolutely not.”
 

“Is there an unholy alliance between the people who make recommendations about vaccines and the vaccine manufacturers? The answer is no.’”
 

Merck bought and delivers copies of Offit’s book, “What Every Parent Should Know About Vaccines,” to American doctors. The book has a list price of $14.95.
 

“Merck Vaccine Division is pleased to present you with a copy of the recent publication, ‘What Every Parent Should Know about Vaccines,'” says a Dear Doctor letter from Merck. “The authors designed the book to answer questions parents have about vaccines and to dispel misinformation about vaccines that sometimes appears in the public media.”
 

Offit said he does not know how many copies of his book Merck purchased. “I don’t have any control over that,” he said.”
 

I encourage you to read the entire article.

However, the specifics and number of CDC vaccine patents are not reviewed there. 

Mr. Kennedy repeated the claim last month in an interview with EcoWatch saying, “The CDC is a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry. The agency owns more than 20 vaccine patents and purchases and sells $4.1 billion in vaccines annually.”  Again, no source.

I have been around long enough to know that vaccine claims have to be checked and rechecked.  And since this is a very old claim, one that I would like to be able to state (if it is true), I decided to review it.

I am fortunate to have, as one of my partners in advocacy, fellow autism parent Mark Blaxill, an Intellectual Property expert who has been employed by billion dollar corporations to manage their patents.  Blaxill was the man who found out that HHS, through NIH, owns patents on all HPV vaccines, and receives a percentage of the profits for each dose of Gardasil and Cervarix administered anywhere in the world.  He published the stunning revelation in a detailed three part expose entitled, “A License to Kill? Part 1: How A Public-Private Partnership Made the Government Merck’s Gardasil Partner.”

When I contacted Blaxill to ask how to run a patent search, he was kind enough to do it for me.  He found 57 granted US patents with the CDC listed as an assignee.  You can see the search results here.

Upon cursory review of the patents, I found that one did not seem applicable to vaccination, but merely referenced an article on vaccination.  That leaves us with 56 CDC patents to scrutinize.

Here is what I found.

There are CDC patents applicable to vaccines for FluRotavirusHepatitis AHIVAnthraxRabiesDengue feverWest Nile virusGroup A StrepPneumococcal diseaseMeningococcal diseaseRSVGastroenteritisJapanese encephalitisSARSRift Valley Fever, and chlamydophila pneumoniae.

There is a CDC patent for “Nucleic acid vaccines for prevention of flavivirus infection,” which has applications in vaccines for Zika, West Nile virus, Dengue fever, tick-borne encephalitis virus, yellow fever, Palm Creek virus, and Parramatta River virus.


CDC also has several patents for administering various ”shots” via aerosol delivery systems for vaccines.


There’s a CDC patent on a process for vaccine quality control by “quantifying proteins in a complex preparation of uni- or multivalent commercial or research vaccine preparations.”

There’s a CDC patent on a method “for producing a model for evaluating the antiretroviral effects of drugs and vaccines.”

CDC has a patent for companies who want to test their respiratory system applicable vaccine on an artificial lung system.

If a vaccine maker is concerned that their vaccine might contain a human rhinovirus, CDC has a patent on a process for determining if such contamination exists.

CDC has a patent on an assay to assist vaccine makers in finding antigen-specific antibodies in a biological sample.

CDC holds a patent that provides vaccine makers with a method of “reducing the replicative fitness of a pathogen by deoptimizing codons.”  Asserting that, “pathogens with deoptimized codons can be used to increase the phenotypic stability of attenuated vaccines.”

The agency also holds a patent on adjuvants for a vaccine used on premature infants and young babies.


There is a CDC patent to cover a vaccine for an infection induced by a tape worm found in pork.

They even have patents that cover vaccines for animal illnesses including Canarypox virus, Fowlpox virus, Sealpox virusdog flu and monkey cancer.

Does this seem like a public health agency making “independent” vaccine recommendations, or a private company with an impressive portfolio to which one might look for investment opportunities?

The CDC is reputed to be an independent government agency making vaccine recommendations to the public, only for the public good.  They are the agency charged with vaccine safety oversight, via their Immunization Safety Office.

Here is how the office describes its charge:
 

“CDC’s Immunization Safety Office plays a vital role in ensuring our nation’s vaccine safety.

Sound immunization policies affecting children and adults in the U.S. depend on continuous monitoring of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.  CDC uses many strategies to assess vaccine safety, to identify health problems possibly related to vaccines, and to conduct studies that help determine whether a health problem is caused by a specific vaccine. CDC also works with other federal government agencies and other stakeholders to determine the appropriate public health response to vaccine safety concerns and to communicate the benefits and risks of vaccines.

The Immunization Safety Office regularly reports on vaccine safety monitoring findings and any concerns to CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This advisory group develops the recommended vaccine schedule for children and adults in the U.S.  ACIP considers the safety and effectiveness of vaccines before making recommendations to the vaccine schedule or changing recommendations for vaccine use.”


Note that they proudly state that they report to the ACIP – the same committee on which Paul Offit infamously served, as if this reporting somehow adds legitimacy to their vaccine safety work.  The same committee that Congress has excoriated for their long history of conflicts of interests.
Nowhere on the CDC’s web site can I find the disclosure that the agency is a profit partner with the vaccine makers for whom it is supposed to be providing safety oversight.

Mr. Kennedy is in very safe territory by reporting that the CDC has over 20 patents that create vast, undisclosed conflicts of interests in vaccine safety.  He is understating the problem by more than half.

This brief look at current patents held by the CDC deserves an in-depth review to determine exactly what current financial relationships with vaccine makers now exist and  what the current impact those revenue streams are likely having on vaccine safety positions.  Furthermore, one must closely look at the financial relationships between the CDC and vaccine makers it is currently courting, to include the potential exploitation of new patents for financial gain. These are merely a few  lines of inquiry, among hundreds, needing to be examined and why the potential RFK commission on vaccine safety must be impaneled.

No wonder the vaccine industry (and let’s not kid ourselves, CDC IS the vaccine industry) and their media outlets are fighting with such a fury to prevent the #RFKcommission from being formed.

Fortunately, Mr. Kennedy has already said he will fight this corruption against our children until his last breath, and we seem to have a new president who doesn’t care what Pharma and the mainstream media throw at him.  There is more than 20 years’ worth of documented abuse and corruption in the vaccine program that, if properly examined, would at the very least force reforms that would drastically reduce the profits of the industry.

The vaccine business is currently a $30 billion per year industry in which organizations like the World Health Organization have urged increased investment, projecting that it will become a $100 billion per year industry by 2025.  Thus, it is evident that the CDC and their business partners need the public to not only be okay with the 69 doses of recommended childhood vaccines, but to begin to adhere to the additional 100 plus doses of vaccines recommended by the new adult schedule, and to be ready to inject their families with the additional 271 vaccines in the development pipeline.

That profit boom can’t happen if the corruption in the industry, and the vast, unassessed damage that it has done to the health of children (and now adults) is laid open for all to finally see.  The $30 billion per year industry will become a sub $10 billion per year industry, with a cap on how much it can make.  Because there is a cap on how much the human body can process.

We must continue to press the Trump administration for comprehensive vaccine safety review and reform, including the universal right to forgo any and all vaccines without coercion.

Without a White House to ignore CDC’s abuses and run interference with the American public, the corrupt vaccine industry may be turning into a paper tiger, and its media simply a powerless crowd of bullies with a megaphone, broadcasting “sound and fury signifying nothing.”

https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/examining-rfk-jrs-claim-cdc-owns-over-20-vaccine-patents

Independent Science on the Effect of Wireless Radiation on Human Health

5G Telecommunication tower antenna in morning sky Evening sky

There are more than 1,000 scientific studies conducted by independent researchers from around the world concerning the biological effects of RF radiation. Here we present some of the most recent. 

I. Effects On Fetal And Newborn Development

  1. Mother’s Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Before and During Pregnancy is Associated with Risk of Speech Problems in Offspring. Zarei, S., et al. Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering 9(1):61-68 (2019).
  2. Prenatal Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Field and Its Impact on Fetal Growth. Ren, Y., et al. Environmental Health (2019).
  3. The Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation on Mice Fetus Weight, Length and Tissues. Alimohammadi, I., et al. Data in Brief 19:2189-2194 (2018).
  4. Effects of Prenatal Exposure to WiFi Signal (2.45 GHz) on Postnatal Development and Behavior in Rat: Influence of Maternal Restraint. Othman, H., et al. Behavioral Brain Research 326: 291-301 (2017).
  5. Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A prospective Cohort Study. Li, De-Kun, et al. Scientific Reports (2017). 
  6. Postnatal Development and Behavior Effects of In-Utero Exposure of Rats to Radiofrequency Waves Emitted From Conventional WiFi Devices. Othman, H., et al. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 52:239-247 (2017).
  7.  Lasting Hepatotoxic Effects of Prenatal Mobile Phone Exposure. Yilmaz, A., et al. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 30(11): 1355-1359 (2017).
  8. Multiple Assessment Methods of Prenatal Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation from Telecommunication in the Mothers and Children’s Environmental Health (MOCEH) Study. Choi, Ha, et al. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 29(6):959-972 (2016).
  9. The Use of Signal-Transduction and Metabolic Pathways to Predict Human Disease Targets from Electric and Magnetic Fields Using in vitro Data in Human Cell Lines. Parham, Portier, et al. Frontiers in Public Health (2016). 
  10. A Review on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) and the Reproductive System. Asghari, Khaki, et al. Electronic Physician 8(7):2655-2662 (2016).
  11. Genotoxicity Induced by Foetal and Infant Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Modulation of Ionising Radiation Effects. Udroiu, Antoccia, et al. PLoS One (2015).
  12. Oxidative Stress of Brain and Liver is Increased by Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) Exposure of Rats During Pregnancy and the Development of Newborns.Çelik, Ömer, et al. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75(B):134-139 (2015).
  13. Neurodegenerative Changes and Apoptosis Induced by Intrauterine and Extrauterine Exposure of Radiofrequency Radiation.Güler, Göknur, et al. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75(B):128-133 (2015).
  14. Maternal Exposure to a Continuous 900-MHz Electromagnetic Field Provokes Neuronal Loss and Pathological Changes in Cerebellum of 32-Day-Old Female Rat Offspring. Odaci, Ersan, et al. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75(B):105-110 (2015).
  15. Different Periods of Intrauterine Exposure to Electromagnetic Field: Influence on Female Rats’ Fertility, Prenatal and Postnatal Development. Alchalabi, Aklilu, et al.  Asian Pacific Journal of Reproduction 5(1):14-23 (2015).
  16. Use of Mobile Phone During Pregnancy and the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion. Mahmoudabadi, Ziaei, et al. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering  13:34 (2015).
  17. Oxidative Mechanisms of Biological Activity of Low-Intensity Radiofrequency Radiation. Yakymenko, et al.  Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 34(3):1-16 (2015).
  18. Effects of Prenatal 900 MHz Electromagnetic Field Exposures on the Histology of Rat Kidney. Ulubay, et al. International Journal of Radiation Biology 91(1):35-41 (2015).
  19. The Effect of Exposure of Rats During Prenatal Period to Radiation Spreading from Mobile Phones on Renal Development.Bedir, et al. Renal Failure 37(2):305-9 (2014).
  20. Dosimetric Study of Fetal Exposure to Uniform Magnetic Fields at 50 Hz. Liorni, et al. Bioelectromagnetics  35(8):580-97 (2014).
  21. Influence of Pregnancy Stage and Fetus Position on the Whole-Body and Local Exposure of the Fetus to RF-EMF. Varsier, et al. Physics in Medicine and Biology 59(17):4913-26 (2014).
  22. Autism-Relevant Social Abnormalities in Mice Exposed Perinatally to Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields.Alsaeed, et al. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience 37:58-6 (2014).
  23. Pyramidal Cell Loss in the Cornu Ammonis of 32-day-old Female Rats Following Exposure to a 900 Megahertz Electromagnetic Field During Prenatal Days 13–21. Bas, et al. NeuroQuantology Volume 11, Issue 4: 591-599 (2013).
  24. The Effects of 900 Megahertz Electromagnetic Field Applied in the Prenatal Period on Spinal Cord Morphology and Motor Behavior in Female Rat Pups. Odaci, et al. NeuroQuantology Volume 11, Issue 4: 573-581 (2013).
  25. Fetal Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From 800-1900 MHz-Rated Cellular Telephones Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice. Aldad, Gan, et al. Scientific Reports 2(312) (2013).
  26. Cranial and Postcranial Skeletal Variations Induced in Mouse Embryos by Mobile Phone Radiation. Fragopoulou, Koussoulakos, et al. Pathophysiology 17(3):169-77 (2010).
  27. Dysbindin Modulates Prefrontal Cortical Glutamatergic Circuits and Working Memory Function in Mice. Jentsch, et al Neuropsychopharmacology 34, 2601–8 (2009).
  28. Stress Signalling Pathways that Impair Prefrontal Cortex Structure and Function. Arnsten, A. F. National Review of Neuroscience 10, 410–22 (2009).
  29. Maternal Occupational Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Brain Cancer in the Offspring. Li, Mclaughlin, et al. Cancer Causes & Control 20(6):945-55 (2009).
  30. Reproductive and Developmental Effects of EMF in Vertebrate Animal Models. Pourlis, A.F. Pathophysiology 16(2-3):179-89 (2009).
  31. Prenatal and Postnatal Exposure to Cell Phone Use and Behavioral Problems in Children. Divan, Kheifets, et al. Epidemiology19(4):523-29 (2008).
  32. Effects of Prenatal Exposure to a 900 MHz Electromagnetic Field on the Dentate Gyrus of Rats: A Stereological and Histopathological Study. Odaci, et al. Brain Research 1238: 224–229 (2008).
  33. Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation Up-Regulates Apoptosis Genes in Primary Cultures of Neurons and Astrocytes. Zhao, et al. Science Digest 412: 34–38 (2007).
  34. Cell Death Induced by GSM 900-MHz and DCS 1800-MHz Mobile Telephony Radiation. Panagopoulos, et al. Mutation Research626, 69–78 (2006).
  35. Ultra High Frequency-Electromagnetic Field Irradiation During Pregnancy Leads to an Increase in Erythrocytes Micronuclei Incidence in Rat Offspring. Ferreira, Knakievicz, et al. Life Sciences 80(1):43-50 (2006).
  36. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Biederman, J. & Faraone, S. V. Lancet 366, 237–248 (2005).
  37. Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: An Overview of the Etiology and a Review of the Literature Relating to the Correlates and Lifecourse Outcomes for Men and Women. Brassett-Harknett, A. & Butler, N. Clinical Psychology Review 27,188–210 (2005).

 
II. Effects On Young Children 
 

  1. Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, and Epigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development. Sage, C. & Burgio, E. Child Development (2017). 
  2. Prospective Cohort Analysis of Cellphone Use and Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties in Children. Sudan, M, et al. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (2016). 
  3. Why Children Absorb More Microwave Radiation than Adults: The Consequences. Morgan, Kesari, et al. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 2(4):196-204 (2014).
  4. Epidemiological Characteristics of Mobile Phone Ownership and Use in Korean Children and Adolescents. Byun, Yoon-Hwan, et al. Environmental Health and Toxicology 28 (2013).
  5. A Prospective Study of In-Utero Exposure to Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Childhood Obesity. Li, De-Kun, et al. Scientific Reports 2.540 (2012).
  6. Exposure to Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Childhood Cancer: Update of the Epidemiological evidence. Schüz and Joachim. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 107(3):339-42 (2011).
  7. Cell Phone Use and Behavioural Problems in Young Children. Divan, Kheifets, et al. Journal of Epidemiol Community Health 66(6):524-9 (2010).
  8. Mobile Phones, Radiofrequency Fields, and Health Effects in Children-Epidemiological Studies. Feychting, Maria. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 107(3):343-348 (2010).
  9. Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Behavioral Problems in Bavarian Children and Adolescents. Thomas, Silke, et al. European Journal of Epidemiology 25(2):135-41 (2009).
  10. The Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields. Repacholi, et al. Deventer. Journal of Pediatrics 116(2):303-313 (2005).

 
III. Brain Tumors 
 

  1. Simulation of The Incidence of Malignant Brain Tumors in Birth Cohorts That Started Using Mobile Phones When They First Became Popular in Japan. Sato, Y., Kojimahara, N., and Yamaguchi, N. Bioelectromagnetics 40(3): 143-149 (2019).
  2. ​Report of Final Results Regarding Brain and Heart Tumors in Sprague-Dawley Rats Exposed From Prenatal Life Unitl Natural Death to Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Field Representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM Base Station Environmental Emission. Falcioni, L, et al. Environmental Research (2018).
  3. Exposure to Cell Phone Radiofrequency Changes Corticotrophin Hormone Levels and Histology of The Brain and Adrenal Glands in Male Wistar Rat. Shahabi, S., et al. Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences 21:1269-1274 (2018).
  4. Brain Tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme Incidence in England 1995-2015 Suggests an Adverse Environmental or Lifestyle Factor. Philips, A., et al. Journal of Environmental and Public Health (2018).
  5. The 2100 MHz Radiofrequency Radiation of a 3G-Mobile Phone and the DNA Oxidative Damage in Brain. Sahin, Ozgur, et al. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75(B):94-98 (2016).
  6. Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and the Risk for Glioma – Analysis of Pooled Case- Control Studies in Sweden 1997-2003 and 2007-2009. Hardell and Carlberg. PathoPhysiology 22(1):1-13 (2015).
  7. Mobile Phone Radiation Causes Brain Tumors and Should Be Classified as a Probable Human Carcinogen. Morgan, Miller, et al. International Journal of Oncology 46:1865-1871 (2015).
  8. Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumours in the CERENAT Case-Control Study. Coureau, Bouvier, et al. Occupational & Environmental Medicine 71(7):514-22 (2014).
  9. Use of Mobile Phones and Cordless Phones is Associated with Increased Risk for Glioma and Acoustic Neuroma. Hardell, Carberg, et al. PathoPhysiology 20(2):85-110 (2013).
  10. Mobile Phones and Head Tumours: A Critical Analysis of Case-Control Epidemiological Studies. Levis, Minicuci, et al. Open Environmental Sciences 6(1):1-12 (2012).
  11. On the Association Between Glioma, Wireless Phones, Heredity and Ionising Radiation. Carlberg and Hardell. PathoPhysiology19(4):243-252 (2012).
  12. Mobile Phones and Head Tumours. The Discrepancies in Cause-Effect Relationships in the Epidemiological Studies – How Do They Arise? Levis, Minicuci, et al. Environmental Health 10:59 (2011).
  13. Indications of Possible Brain Tumour Risk in Mobile-Phone Studies: Should We Be Concerned? Cardis and Sadetzki. Occupational & Environmental Medicine 68:169-171 (2011).
  14. Estimating the Risk of Brain Tumors from Cell Phone Use: Published Case-Control Studies. Morgan, LL. Pathophysiology 16(2-3):137-147 (2009).
  15. Cell Phones and Brain Tumors: A Review Including the Long-Term Epidemiologic Data. Khurana, Teo, et al. Surgical Neurology72(3):205-14 (2009).
  16. Epidemiological Evidence for an Association Between Use of Wireless Phones and Tumor Diseases. Hardell, Carlberg, et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):113-122 (2009).
  17. Histopathological Examinations of Rat Brains After Long-Term Exposure to GSM Mobile Phone Radiation. Grafström, Gustav, et al. Brain Research Bulletin 77(5):257-63 (2008).
  18. Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Acoustic Neuroma. Lonn, Ahlbom, et al. Epidemiology 15(6):653-659 (2004).

 
IV. Parotid Gland Tumors
 

  1. Influence of Handheld Mobiles on Parotid: A Cohort Study. Ranjitha, G., et al. Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine & Radiology 29:254-258 (2017).
  2. Does Cell Phone Use Increase the Chances of Parotid Gland Tumor Development? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. De Siqueira, de Souza, et al. Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine 45(11) (2016). 
  3. Pooled Analysis of Case-Control Studies on Acoustic Neuroma Diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007- 2009 and Use of Mobile and Cordless Phones. Hardell, Carlberg, et al. International Journal of Oncology 43(4):1036-144 (2015).
  4. Using the Hill Viewpoints from 1965 for Evaluating Strengths of Evidence of the Risk for Brain Tumors Associated with use of Mobile and Cordless Phones. Hardell and Carlberg. Reviews on Environmental Health 28(2-3):97-106 (2013).
  5. Case-Control study of the Use of Mobile and Cordless Phones and the Risk for Malignant Melanoma in the Head and Neck Region. Hardell, Carlberg, et al. Pathophysiology 18(4):325-333 (2011).
  6. Correlation Between Cellular Phone Use and Epithelial Parotid Gland Malignancies. Duan, Zhang, et al. Clinical Paper Head and Oncology 40(9):966-7 (2011).
  7. Mobile Phones Use and Risk of Tumors: A Meta-Analysis. Mynf, Ju, et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology 27(33):5565-72 (2009).
  8. Mobile Phone, Cordless Phones and the Risk for Brain Tumours. Hardell and Carlberg. International Journal of Oncology 35(1):5-17 (2009).
  9. Public Health Implications of Wireless Technologies. Sage and Carpenter. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):233-46 (2009).
  10. Epidemiological Evidence for an Association Between use of Wireless Phones and Tumor Diseases. Hardell, Carlberg, et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):113-122 (2009).
  11. Cell Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant Parotid Gland Tumors – A Nationwide Case- Control Study. Sadetzki, Chetrit, et al. American Journal of Epidemiology 167(4):457-467 (2008).

 
V. Other Malignancies
 

  1. The Carcinogenic Potential of Non-Ionizing Radiations: The Cases of S-50 Hz MF and 1.8 GHz GSM Radiofrequency Radiation. Soffritti, M. and Giuliani, L. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology (2019).
  2. Tumor Promotion by Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Below Exposure Limits for Humans. Lerchl, Klose, et al. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 459(4):585-590 (2015).
  3. Swedish Review Strengthen Grounds for Concluding that Radiation from Cellular and Cordless Phones is a Probable Human Carcinogen. Davis, Kesari, et al. Pathophysiology 20(2):123-129 (2013).
  4. Multifocal Breast Cancer in Young Women with Prolonged Contact Between Their Breasts and Their Cellular Phones. West, Kapoor, et al. Case Reports in Medicine (2013).
  5. Epidemiological Evidence for an Association Between Use of Wireless Phones and Tumor Diseases. Hardell, Carlberg, et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):113-122 (2009).
  6. Study on Potential Effects of “902 MHz GSM-type Wireless Communication Signals” on DMBA-Induced Mammary Tumours in Sprague-Dawley Rats. Hruby, Neubauer, et al. Mutation Research 649(1-2):34-44 (2008).

 
VI. Effects On DNA
 

  1. Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells More Strongly Than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Markova, Malmgren, et al. Environmental Health Perspectives 118(3):394-399 (2010).
  2. Radiofrequency Radiation and Gene/Protein Expression: A Review. McNamee and Chauhan. Radiation Research 172(3):265-287 (2009).
  3. Evaluation of HSP70 Expression and DNA Damage in Cells of a Human Trophoblast Cell Line Exposed to 1.8GHz Amplitude-Modulated Radiofrequency Fields. Valbonesi, Franzellotto, et al. Radiation Research 169(3):270-279 (2008).
  4. Gene and Protein Expression Following Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields from Mobile Phones. Vanderstraeten and Verschaeve. Environmental Health Perspectives 116(9):1131-5 (2008).
  5. Nonthermal Effects of RadioFrequency-Field Exposure on Calcium Dynamics in Stem Cell- derived Neuronal Cells: Elucidation of Calcium Pathways. Rao, Titushkin, et al. Radiation Research 169(3):319-329 (2008).
  6. Gene Expression Changes in the Skin of Rats Induced by Prolonged 35 GHz Millimeter-Wave Exposure. Millenbaugh, Roth, et al. Radiation Research 169(3):288-300 (2008).
  7. DNA Damage in Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid Cells Exposed to Cellular Telephone Radiofrequency Fields in Vitro. Philips, Ivaschuk, et al. Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics 45(1):103-110 (1998).

 
VII. Neurological/Cognitive Effects
 

  1. Early-Life Exposure to Pulsed LTE Radiofrequency Fields Causes Persistent Changes in Activity and Behavior in C57BL/6 J Mice. Broom, K., et al. Bio Electro Magnetics 40(7):498-511 (2019).
  2. Are Rises in Electro-Magnetic Field in The Human Environment, Interacting with Multiple Environmental Pollutions, The Tripping Point for Increases in Neurological Deaths in the Western World? Pritchard, C., Silk, A. and Hansen, L. Medical Hypotheses 127: 76-83 (2019).
  3. Effect of 1800-2100 MHz Electromagnetic Radiation on Learning-Memory and Hippocampal Morphology in Swiss Albino Mice. Kishore, G., Venkatashu, K., and Sridevi, N. Jorunal of Clincal and Diagnostic Research 12(2): 14-17 (2019).
  4. Monitoring of BALB/C Strain Mice Health, Investigation of Behavior, Hematological Parameters Under the Effect of an Electromagnetic Field. Zymantiene, J., et al. Medycyna Weterynarjna 75(03): 158-163 (2019).
  5. 2.45 GHz Microwave Radiation Impairs Learning, Memory, and Hippocampal Synaptic Plasticity in The Rat. Karimi, N., et al. Toxicology and Industrial Health 34(12): 873-883 (2018).
  6. Mobile Phone Distance From Head and Temperature Changes of Radio Frequency Waves on Brain Tissue. Forouharmajd, F., Ebrahimi, H. and Pourabdian, S. International Journal of Preventative Medicine (2018).
  7. A Prospective Cohort Study of Adolescents’ Memory Performance and Individual Brain Dose of Microwave Radiation from Wireless Communication. Foerster, M., et al. Environmental Health Perspectives 126(7) (2018). 
  8. Electromagnetic Radiation 2450 MHz Exposure Causes Cognition Deficit with Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Activation of Intrinsic Pathway of Apoptosis in Rats. Gupta, S.K., Mesharam, M.K., and Krishnamurthy, S. Journal of Biosciences 43(2) 263-276 (2018). 
  9. The Effect of Wi-Fi Electromagnetic Waves in Unimodal and Multimodal Object Recognition Tasks in Male Rats.  Hassanshahi, A., et al. Neurological Sciences 38(6):1069-1076 (2017). 
  10. Effects of Short and Long Term Electromagnetic Fields Exposure on the Human Hippocampus. Deniz, O.G., et al. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 5(4):191-197 (2017). 
  11. Effects of Long Term Exposure of 900-1800 MHz Radiation Emitted from 2G Mobile Phone on Mice Hippocampus – A Histomorphometric Study.Mugunthan, Shanmugasamy, et al. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10(8):AF01-6 (2016).
  12. Effect of Mobile Phone Radiation on Pentylenetetrazole-Induced Seizure Threshold in Mice. Kouchaki, Motaghedifard, et al. Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences 19(7):800-3 (2016).
  13. Effects of 3 Hz and 60Hz Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields on Anxiety-Like Behaviors, Memory Retention of Passive Avoidance and ElectroPhysiological Properties of Male Rats. Rostami, Shahani, et al. J Lasers Medical Science 7(2):120-125 (2016).
  14. Short-Term Memory in Mice is Affected by Mobile Phone Radiation. Ntzouni, Stamatakis, et al. PathoPhysiology 18(3):193-199 (2011).
  15. Use of Mobile Phones and Changes in Cognitive Function in Adolescents. Thomas, Benke, et al. Occupational Environmental Medicine 67(12):861-866 (2010).
  16. Increased Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability in Mammalian Brain 7 Days After Exposure to the Radiation from a GSM-900 Mobile Phone. Nittby, Brun, et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):103-112 (2009).
  17. Effects of GSM 1800 MHz on Dendritic Development of Cultured Hippocampal Neurons. Ning, Xu, et al. Acta Pharmacol Sin28(12):1873-1880 (2007).
  18. Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation. Lai, Henry. Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems1:27-80 (1994).

 
VIII. Effects On Male Fertility
 

  1. Long-Term Exposure to 4G Smartphone Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Diminished Male Reproductive Portential by Directly Disrupting Spck3-MMP2-BTB Axis in the Testes of Adult Rats. Yu, G., et al. Science of The Total Environment 698 (2020).
  2. Radiations and Male Fertility. Kesari, K., Agarwal, A. and Henkel, R. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 16(118) (2018).
  3. The Effect of 2.45 GHz Non-Ionizing Radiation on the Structure and Ultrastructure of The Testis in Juvenile Rats. Histology and Histopathology(2018).
  4. Modulatory Effect of 900 MHz Radiation on Biochemical and Reproductive Parameters in Rats. Narayana, SN., et al. Bratislava Medical Journal119(9):581-587 (2018).
  5. Aloe Arborescens Juice Prevents EMF-Induced Oxidative Stress and Thus Protects from Pathophysiology in the Male Reproductive System In Vitro. Solek, P., Majchrowics, L., and Koziorowski, M. Environmental Research 166:141-149 (2018).
  6. Radiofrequency Radiation (900 MHz)-Induced DNA Damage and Cell Cycle Arrest in Testicular Germ Cells in Swiss Albino Mice. Pandey, N., et al. Toxicology and Industrial Health 33(4) 373-384 (2017).
  7. The Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Sperm Function. Houston, Nixon, et al. Reproduction (2016)
  8. Male Fertility and its Association with Occupational and Mobile Phone Tower Hazards: An Analytical Study. Al-Quzwini, Al-Taee, et al. Middle East Fertility Society Journal (2016).
  9. Sperm DNA Damage – The Effect of Stress and Everyday Life Factors. Radwan, M, et al. International Journal of Impotence Research 28, 148-154 (2016). 
  10. Electromagnetic Radiation at 900 MHz Induces Sperm Apoptosis through bcl-2, bax and caspase-3 Signaling Pathways in Rats.Liu, Si, et al. Journal of Reproductive Health 12:65 (2015).
  11. Habits of Cell Phone usage and Sperm Quality – Does It Warrant Attention? Zilverlight, Wiener-Megnazi, et al. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 31(3):421-426 (2015).
  12. Extremely Low frequency Magnetic Fields Induce Spermatogenic Germ Cell Apoptosis: Possible Mechanism. Lee, Park, et al. BioMed Research International (2014).
  13. In Vitro Effect of Cell Phone Radiation on Motility, DNA Fragmentation and Clusterin Gene Expression in Human Sperm. Zalata, El-Samanoudy, et al. International Journal of Fertility and Sterility 9(1):129-136 (2014).
  14. Effect of Electromagnetic Field Exposure on the Reproductive System. Gye and Park. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine 39(1):1-19 (2012).
  15. Effects of the Exposure of Mobile Phones on Male Reproduction: A Review of the Literature. Vignera, Condorelli, et al. Journal of Andrology 33(3):350-356 (2012).
  16. Use of Laptop Computers Connected to Internet Through Wi-Fi Decreases Human Sperm Motility and Increases Sperm DNA Fragmentation.Avendano, C., et al. Fertility and Sterility 97(1):39045 (2012).
  17. Exposure to Magnetic fields and the Risk of Poor Sperm Quality. Li, Yan, et al. Journal of Reproductive Toxicology 29(1):86-92 (2010).
  18. Mobile Phone Radiation Induces Reactive Oxygen Species Production and DNA Damage in Human Spermatozoa In Vitro. Luliis, Newey, et al. PLoS ONE 4(7) (2009).
  19. Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation (Rf-EMR) from GSM Mobile Phones Induces Oxidative Stress and Reduces Sperm Motility in Rats. Mailankot, Kunnath, et al. Clinical Science 64(6):561-5 (2009).
  20. Cell Phones: Modern Man’s Nemesis? Makker, Varghese, et al. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 18(1):148-157 (2008).
  21. Indicative SAR Levels Due to an Active Mobile Phone in a Front Trouser Pocket in Proximity to Common Metallic Objects.Whittow, Panagamuwa, et al. Propagation Conference 149-152 (2008).
  22. Cell Phones and Male Infertility: Dissecting the Relationship. Deepinder, Makker, et al. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 15(3):266-270 (2007).
  23. Evaluation of the Effect of Using Mobile Phones on Male Fertility. Wdowiak, Wiktor, et al. Annals of Agricultural and Medicine14(1):169-172 (2007).
  24. Effect of Cell Phone Usage on Semen Analysis in Men Attending Infertility Clinic: An Observational Study. Agarwal, Deepinder, et al. American Society for Reproductive Medicine 89(1):124-8 (2008). 


IX. Electromagnetic Sensitivity
 

  1. Becoming Electro-Hypersensitive: A Replication Study. Dieudonne, M. Bioelectromagnetic 40: 188-200 (2019).
  2. Functional Brain MRI in Patients Complaining of Electrohypersensitivity After Long Term Exposure to Electromagnectic Fields. Heuser, G. & Heuser, S. Reviews on Environmental Health 32(3):291-299 (2016).
  3. Hot Nano Spots” as an Interpretation of So-Called Non-Thermal Biological Mobile Phone Effects. Pfutzner, Helmut. Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications 8(3):62-69 (2016).
  4. Analysis of the Genotoxic Effects of Mobile Phone Radiation Using Buccal Micronucleus Assay: A Comparative Evaluation.Banerjee, Singh, et al. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10 (3):ZC82-ZC85 (2016).
  5. Tinnitus and Cell Phones: The Role of Electromagnetic Radiofrequency Radiation. Medeiros and Sanchez. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 82(1):97-104 (2016).
  6. Microwave Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Produce Widespread Neuropsychiatric Effects Including Depression. Pall, Martin L. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy (2015).
  7. Subjective Symptoms Related to GSM Radiation from Mobile Phone Base Stations: a Cross- Sectional Study. Gomez-Perretta, Navarro, et al. BMJ Open 3.12 (2013).
  8. Green Communication- A Stipulation to Reduce Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity from Cellular Phones. Kumar, Khan, et al. Procedia Technology 4:682-686 (2012).
  9. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Fact or Fiction? Genius and Lipp. Science of the Total Environment 414(1):103-112 (2012).
  10. Radiofrequency (RF) Sickness in the Lilienfeld Study: An Effect of Modulated Microwaves? Liakouris, A. Archives of Environmental Health 236-238 (2010). 
  11. Neurobehavioral Effects Among Inhabitants Around Mobile Phone Base Stations. Abdel-Rassoul, El-Fateh, et al. NeuroToxicology28(2):434-440 (2007).
  12. Electrohypersensitivity: State-Of-The-Art of A Functional Impairment. Johansson, O. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(4): 245-258 (2006).
  13. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Biological Effects of Dirty Electricity With Emphasis on Diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis. Havas, M. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(4): 259-268 (2006).
  14. Establishing the Health Risks of Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields Requires Multidisciplinary Research. Hietanen, Maila. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment, and Health 32(3):169-170 (2006).
  15. Hypersensitivity of Human Subjects to Environmental Electric and Magnetic Field Exposure: A Review of the Literature.Levallois, Patrick. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(4):613-8 (2002).
  16. Electric Hypersensitivity and Neurophysical Effects of Cellular Phones – Facts or Needless Anxiety? Harma, Mikko Ilmari. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment and Health 26(2):85-86 (2000). 


X. Effects On Implanted Medical Devices
 

  1. Ad Hoc Electromagnetic Compatibility Testing of Non-Implantable Medical Devices and Radio Frequency Identification.Seidman and Guag. Biomedical Engineering OnLine 12:71 (2013).
  2. Electromagnetic Interference of Pacemakers. Lakshmanadoss, Chinnachamy, et al. Interchopen 229-252 (2011).
  3. Interference Between Mobile Phones and Pacemakers: A Look Inside. Censi, Calcagnini, et al. Annali dell’Istituto superiore di sanità 43(3):254-259 (2007).
  4. Electromagnetic Interference on Pacemakers. Erdogan, Okan. Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal 2(3):74-78 (2002).
  5. Electromagnetic Interference in Patients with Implanted Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Implantable Loop Recorders. Sousa, Klein, et al. Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal 2(3):79-84 (2002).
  6. Radiofrequency Interference with Medical Devices. A Technical Information Statement. IEEE Committee on Man and Radiation, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 17(3):111-4 (1998).
  7. Cellular Telephones and Pacemakers: Urgent Call or Wrong Number? Ellenbogen and Wood. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 27(6):1478-9 (1996).

 
XI. 5G Effects
 

  1. Model of Steady-state Temperature Rise in Multilayer Tissues Due to Narrow-beam Millimeter-wave Radiofrequency Field Exposure. Gajda, G., et al. Health Physics 117(3):254-266 (2019).
  2. Untargeted Metabolomics Unveil Alterations of Biomembranes Permeability in HumanHaCaT Keratinocytes Upon 60 HGz Milimeter-Wave Exposure. Pogam, Pierre., et al. Scientific Reports 9(9343) (2019).
  3. Ocular Response to Millimeter Wave Exposure Under Different Levels of Humidity. Kojima, M., et al. Journal of Infrared Milli Terahz Waves 40: 574–584 (2019).
  4. Millimeter Wave Radiation Activates Leech Nociceptors via TRPV1-Like Receptor Sensitization. Romanenko, S., et al. Biophysical Journal 116(12): 2331-2345 (2019).
  5. Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose. Neufeld, E., and Kuster, N. Health Physics Society (2018).
  6. Towards 5G Communication Systems: Are There Health Implications? Ciaula, AD. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 367-375 (2018). 
  7. 5G Wireless Telecommunications Expansion: Public Health and Environmental Implications. Russell, C.L. Environmental Research 165:484-495 (2018).
  8. The Human Skin As A Sub-THz Receiver – Does 5G Pose a Danger To It or Not? Betzalel, N., Ishai, P.B., and Feldman, Y. Environmental Research163:208-216 (2018).
  9. The Modeling of the Absorbance of Sun-THz Radiation by Human Skin. Betzalel, N., Feldman, Y., and Ishai, P.B. IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology 7(5):521-528 (2017).
  10. Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink. Nasim, I. and Kim, S. Georgia Southern University (2017).
  11. The Human body and Millimeter-Wave Wireless Communication Systems: Interactions and Implications. Wu, T., Rappaport, T., and Collins, C. IEEE International Conference on Communications (2015).
  12. State of Knowledge on Biological Effects at 40-60 GHz. Drean, Y., et al. Comptes Rendus Physique (2013).
  13. Effects of millimeter waves radiation on cell membrane-A brief review. Ramundo-Orlando, Alfonsina. Journal of Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves 31(12): 1400-1411 (2010)
  14. Human Skin as Arrays of Helical Antennas in Millimeter and Submillimeter Wave Range. Feldman, Y., et al. The American Physical Society (2008).


XII. Miscellaneous Articles
 

  1. Untargeted Metabolomics Unveil Alterations of Biomembranes Permeability in Human HaCaT Keratinocytes Upon 60 HGz Millimeter-Wave Exposure. Pogam, Pierre., et al. Scientific Reports  9(9343) (2019).
  2. Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. Miller, A., et al. Frontiers in Public Health 7(223) (2019).
  3. Computational Simulations of The Penetration of 0.30 THz Radiation into the Human Ear. Vilaagosh, Z., et al. Biomedical Optics Express 10(3) (2019).
  4. Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Risk Perception: A Pilot Experimental Study. Zeleke, B., et al. Environmental Research 170: 493-499 (2019).
  5. Commentary on The Utility of The National Toxicology Program Study on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Data for Assessing Human Health Risks Despite Unfounded Criticisms Aimed at Minimizing the Findings of Adverse Health Effects. Melnick, R. Environmental Research 168:1-6 (2019).
  6. Pathological Findings Observed in the Kidneys of Postnatal Male Rats Exposed to the 2100 MHz Electromagnetic Field. Bedir, R., et al. Archives of Medical Research (2019).
  7. Genotoxic and Carcinogenic Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Fields. Kocaman, A., et al. Environmental Research 163:71-79 (2018). 
  8. Non-Ionizing EMF Hazard in the 21st Century. Koh, W.J., and Moochhala, S.M. IEEE (2018).
  9. Thermal and Non-Thermal Health Effects of Low Intensity Non-Ionizing Radiation: An International Perspective.  Belpomme, D., et al. Environmental Pollution 242(A):643-658 (2018).
  10. Comparison of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Levels in Different Everyday Microenvironments in an International Context. Sagar, S, et al. Environmental International 114:297-306 (2018).
  11. Wi-Fi is an Important Threat to Human Health. Pall, M. Environmental Research 405-416 (2018).
  12. Mobile-Phone Radiation-Induced Perturbation of gene-Expression Profiling, Redox Equilibrium and Sporadic-Apoptosis Control in the Ovary of Drosophila Melanogaster. Manta, A., et al. FLY 11(2): 75-95 (2017).
  13. World Health Organization, Radiofrequency Radiation and Health – A Hard Nut to Crack (Review). Hardell, L. International Journal of Oncology51:405-413 (2017). 
  14. Radiation from Wireless Technology Elevates Blood Glucose and Body Temperature in 40-Year-Old Type 1 Diabetic Male. Kleiber, C. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 36:3 259-264 (2017).
  15. Cardiovascular Disease: Time to Identify Emerging Environmental Risk Factors. Bandara, P. & Weller, S. European Journal of Preventative Cardiology (2017).
  16. Effects of Exposure to 2100MHz GSM-like Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field on Auditory System of Rats. Celiker, Ozgur, et al. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology (2017).
  17. An Investigation of the Effect of Extremely Low Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields on Human Electrocardiograms (ECGs). Fang, Mahmoud, et al. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13(11) (2016).
  18. Evaluation of the Protective Role of Vitamin C on the Metabolic and Enxymatic Activities of the Liver in the Male Rats After Exposure to 2.45 GHz of Wi-Fi Routers. Shekoohi-Shooli, F., et al. Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering 6(3):157-164 (2016).
  19. Exposure of ELF-EMF and RF-EMF Increase the Rate of Glucose Transport and TCA Cycle in Budding Yeast. Lin, Yan, et al. Frontiers in Microbiology (2016).
  20. Awareness Campaign Against Cell Phone Radiation Hazard: Case Study Oman. Osmen and Saar. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 205(9):381-385 (2015).
  21. Electromagnetic Energy Radiated from Mobile Phone Alters Electrocardiographic Records of Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease. Alhusseiny, Al-Nimer, et al. Annals of Medical and Health Science Research 2(2):146-151 (2012).
  22. Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation on Human Ferritin: An in vitro Enzymun Assay. Fattahi-asl, Baradaran-Ghahfarokhi, et al. Journal of Medical Signals and Sensors 2(4):235-240 (2012).
  23. Apoptosis is Induced by Radiofrequency Fields through the Caspase-Independent Mitochondrial Pathway in Cortical Neurons.Joubert, Bourthoumieu, et al. Radiation Research 169(1):38-45 (2008).
  24. Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies.Huss, Egger, et al. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(1):1-4 (2007).
  25. Epidemiology of Health Effects of Radiofrequency Exposure. Ahlbom, Green, et al. Environmental Health Perspectives 112(17):1741-1753 (2004).
  26. The Possible Role of Radiofrequency Radiation in the Development of Uveal Melanoma Stang, Anastassiou, et al. Journal of Epidemiology 12(1):7-12 (2001).
  27. Biological Effects of Amplitude-Modulated Radiofrequency Radiation. Juutilainen and Seze. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment and Health 24(2):245-254 (1998).

Source – https://www.5gcrisis.com/scientific-studies

Reagan Under Pressure From Doctors, Drug Makers to Sign Vaccine Bill

For those who’ve never heard of the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, here it is. This is the reason you cannot sue vaccine makers in event of injury or death. Big pharma’s vaccine makers are 100% exempt from liability, yet they push this agenda by lobbying (bribing) lawmakers to mandate these insidious injections.

The only way to fight this is by doing your homework, reading vaccine inserts, ferreting out information on those neurotoxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic biologics and REFUSING to comply. Do not let them trample on YOUR rights!

Strength, protection, perseverance and truth be with you.

~ Natural Nana ~

***************

MIKE ROBINSON October 28, 1986

WASHINGTON (AP) _ President Reagan is under heavy pressure from doctors, drug makers and parents to sign legislation that would bypass the courts and set up a federal fund for children injured by vaccinations.

Approved by Congress just before adjournment, the measure results from a nationwide campaign in 1978 that ushered in strict enforcement of state laws requiring immunization. It also resulted in increased injuries to children.

Fifty to 75 youngsters each year out of millions vaccinated suffer permanent neurological damage as a result of vaccines, mainly the variety aimed at pertussis, or whooping cough, the American Academy of Pediatrics says.

The Reagan administration has opposed proposals similar to the current one. But Justice Department spokesman Pat Korten said late Monday it is still deciding what recommendation to make to the president.

The measure would cost $67 million annually, and only part of that would be paid through a surcharge of 10 cents to $1.50 on vaccine doses.

In opposing earlier versions of the plan, the administration said the surcharge represented a new tax and therefore should be defeated. It also expressed fear that the proposal would bring makers of lawn mowers, hair driers and others involved in product liability legislation to Washington in quest of a victim compensation fund.

Doctor groups, pharmaceutical houses and parents supporting the legislation were planning a news conference today as they sought to build pressure on the administration.

Barbara Loe Fisher, head of Parents Dissatisfied Together, a group formed to push for the measure, said a 10-year-old Florida youngster, Stacey Scholl, who was injured by a vaccination, will appeal to President Reagan to sign the bill.

Parents also have mounted letter writing and telegram campaigns to urge Reagan to sign the bill co-sponsored in the Senate by Sens. Orrin Hatch, R- Utah, and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

″Parents are getting desperate,″ Mrs. Fisher said. ″They want to take care of their kids and they’re worried about what’s going to happen after they die, because, basically, there’s no way financially to get them into an institution.″

The measure would affect cases arising from immunization with DPT vaccine for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanustsis as well as polio vaccine and MMR vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella. They are the vaccines required in most states for entry into school.

According to Jackie Noyes, director of government relations for the American Academy of Pediatrics, the pertussis vaccine causes an adverse reaction once in each 310,000 doses. Polio vaccine results in damage in one in 5 million cases and measles, mumps in rubella vaccine even less frequently.

Under the bill, a no-fault system would be established under jurisdiction of federal courts. Compensation will be awarded for medical, rehabilitation costs and projected lost wages not covered by insurance.

The program will make a payment of up to $250,000 for pain and suffering or a fixed death benefit of the same amount. It also will pay ″reasonable″ attorneys fees.

Those who suffer injury, and their families, must enter the no-fault program before filing suit. If they are offered a payment under the program, they must then decide whether to accept or file suit. Those who accept will surrender their right to go to court.

Trials will be divided into three separate proceedings to determine liability, then compensatory damages and finally punitive damages.

The feature was designed ″so that the evidence on the extent of the plaintiff’s injury or on the actions of the defendant that allegedly justify punitive damages does not prejudice the findings as to causation and fault,″ according to a fact sheet provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports the legislation.

If families are dissatisfied with the offer under the no-fault system and go to court, they will face liability rules modified under the legislation.

Manufacturers will not be liable for unavoidable side effects of their vaccines if they are prepared properly and accompanied by adequate directions and warnings. The court will with some exceptions presume that directions and warnings are adequate if they have approval from the Food and Drug Administration.

Vaccine manufacturers cannot be held liable solely for failing to provide warnings directly to vaccine recipients rather than physicians. This would overrule a number of federal court findings.

Manufacturers will be protected against punitive damages if they show its product complied with FDA requirements unless the company engaged in wrongful or criminal misconduct involving the vaccine.

Source https://apnews.com/fdcc1171f2e916f6f616bb05802fa5cf

H.R.5546 – National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 99th Congress (1985-1986)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CDC Says It Erred in Measles Study

The push is on to cover up any and all negative information regarding vaccinations. The agencies who are pushing this agenda, are in it for the money, not for the health of the citizens of this nation.

Blind trust in government, big pharma and the medical establishment has ensured we’re one of the sickest nations on the planet.

Do your homework, protect yourself and protect your babies.

~ Natural Nana ~

~~~~~

CDC Says It Erred in Measles Study

By MARLENE CIMONS JUNE 17, 1996 12 AM TIMES STAFF WRITER WASHINGTON —  

A government-sponsored study of two measles vaccines, begun in 1989 during a major U.S. epidemic and conducted on nearly 1,500 minority infants in Los Angeles, failed to disclose to parents that one of the vaccines was experimental, federal health officials said Sunday.

“A mistake was made,” said Dr. David Satcher, director of the Atlanta-based federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one of the study sponsors. “It shocked me.”

Satcher said in an interview that the CDC plans to contact all the families involved. He said he was very concerned that the events not fuel suspicion in the minority community of government-sponsored medical research.

“Every little mistake like that seeds the concerns of people,” he said. “We need to move to a new level of assurance so people can really trust what we’re doing.”

None of the Los Angeles children, most of whom are now 5, was injured by the unlicensed vaccine, the CDC said. However, similar clinical trials conducted in Africa and Haiti with the vaccine raised questions about its relationship to an increased death rate among female infants who received the more potent of two dosages being studied. Those children died within two years after the vaccination. In light of the questions, the Los Angeles study was halted in 1991.

The inquiry into the measles research was conducted after a physician connected to a public-interest vaccine safety group raised questions. Satcher, who was not CDC director at the time the study began, said he concluded from his review that “there was no ill intent” on the part of the agency in not telling parents that the vaccine had not been licensed for use in the United States, which is why it is termed “experimental” in this country.

“But things sometimes fall through the cracks,” he said.

CDC officials acknowledged that the omission was serious and attributed it to researchers’ knowledge that the lesser doses of the unlicensed vaccine, known as Edmonston-Zagreb, or E-Z, had been used safely for decades outside the United States and that it had been recommended by the World Health Organization.

“Our doctors just didn’t think of it as being ‘experimental,’ ” said Barbara Reynolds, an agency spokeswoman.

The study was co-sponsored by Kaiser Permanente of California and was begun during a national measles epidemic, with California among the most stricken states.

The purpose was to compare E-Z with the Moraten vaccine, the standard vaccine used in this country. Researchers were trying to determine whether immunity could be obtained by vaccinating children younger than a year old and which of the dosage strengths should be used.

Both vaccines are made of live but weakened measles virus.

The trial involved children in communities hardest hit by the disease, including East and West Los Angeles and Inglewood. The majority of the children were African American and Latino.

These neighborhoods were recruited because “you have to study the area where the disease is occurring,” Reynolds said.

Worldwide, measles has been a devastating disease. Global health officials believe that 2.5 million lives are saved annually through vaccination. In the United States, before the era of vaccinations, an estimated 500,000 cases and 500 deaths occurred annually. From 1989 to 1991, 55,000 cases occurred across the nation, hospitalizing 11,000 people and killing more than 130 children and adults.

During the epidemic, 2,476 infants younger than 1 were hospitalized, and 35 died. At that time, the routine age for receiving the first dose of measles vaccine was 15 months, and 12 months in areas experiencing outbreaks. Today, the vaccine is routinely given 12-month-old children.

The “informed consent” papers signed by parents, which were reviewed and approved by institutional review boards at the CDC and Kaiser, said children would receive one of two vaccines and that two different doses of the E-Z vaccine would be studied.

The form did not say that E-Z was experimental or unlicensed. But a brochure that accompanied the form said: “This vaccine has been shown to be effective in younger children. Over 200 million children around the world have received this vaccine, but Los Angeles County is the first place in the United States where it is being offered.”

Researchers became concerned in 1990 and 1991, when data from studies in Senegal and Guinea-Bissau, and later from Haiti, suggested an increased death rate among female infants receiving the stronger dose of the E-Z vaccine.

Dr. Stephen Hadler, director of the epidemiology and surveillance division of the CDC’s national immunization program, said researchers have not confirmed a causal association between the more potent dose of E-Z vaccine and the deaths.

However, “it was enough to make [the World Health Organization] say that high [doses of the] vaccine should no longer be considered for use in kids,” he said.

He and others emphasized that the deaths occurred among children living in poor countries, many of whom were malnourished and did not have access to adequate health care.

Researchers speculate, but have not been able to prove, that the higher dose of the E-Z vaccine may have resulted in an immune dysfunction or impairment that left the children vulnerable to other infections. No form of the vaccine has been used in the United States since the Los Angeles trial, but the lower-dose vaccine is still used outside this country.

One death occurred among the Los Angeles children, but it is believed to be unrelated to the vaccine. A 22-month-old boy died of a bacterial infection. He had received the lower dose of E-Z vaccine.

A review by the Office for Protection from Research Risks, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, concluded that the study was scientifically justified but that the CDC and Kaiser had erred in not informing parents that one of the vaccines was experimental.

The OPRR recommended that all parents be informed of the current status of research and possible future risks. Satcher said his agency has drafted a letter that will be sent in the coming weeks.

Satcher said he will also take steps to ensure that episodes such as this do not occur again.

Original article can be read here – https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-06-17-mn-15871-story.html

**********************

Minority Report: A Covert CDC Program Inoculated Black Babies with Deadly, Experimental Measles Vaccines – (click link to read full report)

The Los Angeles study By Neil Z. Miller

Vaccine researchers were unwilling to abandon their deadly Edmonston-Zagreb high-titer measles vaccine. Instead, they set up a study base in Los Angeles, California. In 1990, three years after the Senegal study was initiated, the first American Black and Hispanic babies were inoculated with EZ-HT.(22)

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the CDC knew about the high mortality associated with EZ-HT but considered the data “preliminary.”(23) Thus, the Los Angeles trials were permitted to occur. However, Dr. Joanne Hatim, an active proponent of vaccine safety, questioned the experimental study and was able to muster public outrage.(22) In 1991, the Los Angeles trials were halted, but not before nearly 1500 minority babies were experimented on.(24)

The CDC was dishonest about the Los Angeles study on several points, both before and after it was conducted:

1) The “informed consent” form provided to parents violated U.S. and internationally accepted ethical codes of conduct regulating human experimentation. The mothers and fathers of the babies who were used as research subjects were not informed that EZ-HT was unlicensed in the U.S. It was registered as an investigational new drug to be used for experimental and research purposes only.(22) Nor were they informed of earlier studies in Guinea-Bissau, Senegal and Haiti where the EZ-HT measles vaccine had shown a significant increase in mortality.(22) The Los Angeles babies were used as sacrificial guinea pigs because it was well established before they were injected that this experimental vaccine was a killer.(22)

2) Parents were told that millions of doses of the Edmonston-Zagreb vaccine had already been used in Europe. But the Los Angeles, California babies were not receiving that vaccine; they were being injected with the significantly more potent, high-titer shot.(22)

3) The CDC claimed that the communities targeted for the experimental vaccine were hardest hit by a recent outbreak of measles. Babies in Inglewood, East Los Angeles, and West Los Angeles received the shots.(24) However, according to data obtained from the Los Angeles County Department of Health, 14 of 24 regions within Los Angeles County had a greater number of confirmed measles cases than East Los Angeles, and 16 of 24 regions had more measles than West Los Angeles. Inglewood was ranked fourth. In other words, communities targeted for the experimental shots were not hardest hit by the recent outbreak of measles.(22)

The three regions chosen to receive the experimental shots were predominantly Black and Hispanic. In fact, 88% of the babies were minorities. Several mixed-race and White communities harder hit by the recent outbreak of measles were not chosen to participate in the study.(22

4) The CDC claimed that no children were adversely affected by the experimental vaccines. However, one baby died from a rare bacterial disease.(24) Furthermore, according to investigative journalist Keidi Obi Awadu, several children “experienced what parents are describing as long-term immune system impairment, seizures and other acute conditions consistent with vaccine-induced injury.”(22)

5) Dr. Stephen Hadler, director of the epidemiology and surveillance division of the CDC’s national immunization program, claimed that babies died in the earlier studies because they were malnourished and did not have access to adequate health care.(24) However, the Senegal study emphasized that “the three vaccine groups were comparable as regards various social, family, and health characteristics.”(17) If the babies vaccinated with high-titer shots were malnourished, so were the babies in the control group, yet mortality was 80% higher in the group receiving EZ-HT.(17) Regarding the claim that babies did not have adequate health care, the Senegal study also noted that “intensive medical care [was] provided during the project.”(17) For example, “Free drugs and medical services were provided to all children. As a consequence, overall mortality was substantially lower than during the three preceding years.”(17)

6) The Los Angeles study might have had a hidden agenda. In Senegal, researchers established that “there was no significant difference within the study group in mortality by sex,”(17) yet scientists claimed the vaccine had a “mysterious gender bias,” with girls more likely to suffer from the vaccine-induced delayed mortality.(23) E. Richard Stiehm, an immunologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, speculated that girls mount a superior immune response to the measles vaccine, then suffer from a hypersensitivity that leaves them immunologically disadvantaged later on. Kenneth Bart, director of the National Vaccine Program Office in Rockville, Maryland, provided a sociological explanation: boys and girls probably get sick equally in the years after vaccination, but girls receive less adequate health care causing them to die at greater rates. However, Lauri Markowitz, an epidemiologist with the CDC, thought there might be a biological explanation, and claimed there is no evidence that boys in the earlier studies were treated better than girls. To shed light on this gender enigma, Markowitz planned to measure antibody levels and immune cell counts in Los Angeles children who received the high-titer vaccine.(23) Is it possible that these babies’ lives were placed in jeopardy to satisfy scientific curiosity and settle an academic debate?

In 1990, WHO requested 250 million doses of the deadly EZ-HT measles vaccine to be dispensed throughout the world.(22) However, data from Guinea-Bissau, Senegal, and Haiti continued to confirm that EZ-HT doesn’t save lives — it increases mortality.(23) By June of 1992, the link was irrefutable; WHO called for a moratorium on use of the disputed vaccine.(23) By some estimates, this might have prevented 18 million baby deaths.(22) Four years later, the CDC issued a tepid letter of regret by declaring, “a mistake was made.”(24) Yet, the entire debacle was unnecessary. In the Senegal study conclusion, the authors refer to a Togo study that used a low-titer measles vaccine and produced a good immunogenic response at six months.(20)

Researchers also discussed another Senegal study where standard measles vaccines “were safe, even when given at 4-6 months.”(17) Furthermore, “since most complications of measles occur during the 2nd and 3rd weeks after onset, early treatment is possible.”(17) In fact, “a systematic treatment of complications in [the other Senegal study] reduced the case-fatality rate among children below three years of age by 78%.”(17) Thus, non-fatal options were available.

Summary

A top scientist at the CDC recently admitted that he and his co-authors omitted crucial information from a study that was published 10 years ago. The excluded information showed that “African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism.”(1,2) Less than 20 years before their study was published, the CDC tested deadly, experimental measles vaccines on African infants and then again on inner-city American babies. These examples provide strong evidence that the CDC is engaged in a pattern of cavalier, unethical and potentially criminal behavior whereby the human rights of Black families and minority children are being violated. You should trust the CDC and their measles vaccines, including MMR, at your own peril.

Minority Report: A Covert CDC Program Inoculated Black Babies with Deadly, Experimental Measles Vaccines

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MRC-5: Know What That Is?

If you’ve never heard about MRC-5, here’s a little info to get you started on doing your homework.

~ Natural Nana ~

~~~~~

New Data Shows DNA From Aborted Fetal Cell Lines in Vaccines

The Italian vaccine research and advocacy organization Corvelva recently released new data regarding the use of aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines. The research reports the results produced from the MRC 5 cell line analysis, particularly the one contained in GlaxoSmithKline’s tetravalent measles-mumps-rubella-chickenpox (MMRV) vaccine.

The Corvelva team summarized their findings as follows:

1- The fetal cell line was found to belong to a male fetus.

2- The cell line presents itself in such a way that it is likely to be very old, thus consistent with the declared line of the 1960s.

3- The fetal human DNA represented in this vaccine is a complete individual genome, that is, the genomic DNA of all the chromosomes of an individual is present in the vaccine.

4- The human genomic DNA contained in this vaccine is clearly, undoubtedly abnormal, presenting important inconsistencies with a typical human genome, that is, with that of a healthy individual.

5- 560 genes known to be associated with forms of cancer were tested and all underwent major modifications.

6- There are variations whose consequences are not even known, not yet appearing in the literature, but which still affect genes involved in the induction of human cancer.

7- What is also clearly abnormal is the genome excess showing changes in the number of copies and structural variants.

…the DNA contained in these vaccines is potentially TUMORIGENIC…
Corvelva notes that, according to the guidelines (which are found in the report), the presence of fetal DNA from cell lines MRC-5 and WI-38, as diploids, does not provide for upper limits: there is no limit to the amount they can find inside a vaccine. The motivation lies in the fact that these lines are not considered tumors because they have a “finite” (not immortalized) replicative cycle.

But the reference literature is obsolete. The first genetic anomalies were found on these lines, considered negligible for the safety of vaccines 40 years ago and, as reported in the WHO guidelines, since then no updates have been made with new sequencing technologies, particularly in Next Generation Sequencing (NGS); the consequence is that inside the vaccines that have been administered for decades is the presence of a progressively more genetically modified DNA and uncontrolled quantities has been allowed. The Next NGS is the methodology used by Corvelva for metagenomic analysis and the laboratory we used is located in the United States. Our analyses are constantly confirmed by several laboratories, the continuous verification of the initially obtained data is leading to consolidate not only the data itself, but the methods themselves.

What are we saying? We are saying that the DNA contained in these vaccines is potentially TUMORIGENIC and that the guidelines to which the supervisory bodies are appealing are NOT ADEQUATE. Moreover, we are publicly denouncing a SERIOUS OMISSION in taking those PRECAUTIONAL measures which, on the other hand, are urgently requested for antacid drugs.

…this vaccine should be considered defective and potentially dangerous to human health…
Our results greatly reinforce the experimental observations of Dr. Theresa Deisher and especially the fact that the contaminant fetal DNA present in all samples analyzed in varying quantities (thus uncontrolled) is up to 300 times higher than the limit imposed by the EMA for carcinogenic DNA (10 ng/dose, corresponding to DNA contained in approximately 1000 tumor cells, derived from a statistical calculation, while the precautionary limit is 10 pg/dose), a limit that must also be applied to MRC-5 fetal DNA which inevitably contaminates Priorix tetra.

As a consequence, this vaccine should be considered defective and potentially dangerous to human health, in particular to the pediatric population which is much more vulnerable to genetic and autoimmune damage.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/…/new-data-shows-aborte…/

MRC-5
https://www.clsgmbh.de/pdf/mrc-5.pdf

Optimization of a MRC-5 cell culture process for the production of a smallpox vaccine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/…/…/10616_2005_Article_4022.pdf

Isolation and replication in human fibroblast cells (MRC-5) of a microsporidian from an AIDS patient
https://www.academia.edu/…/Isolation_and_replication_in_hum…

Selected Profiles of Cell Cultures
http://www.soundchoice.org/…/Appendix-J-MRC-5-derivation-an…

Vaccinegate: MRC-5 contained in Priorix Tetra – Complete genome sequencing (MMR)
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/…/CORVELVA-MRC-5-contain…

Comparison of WI-38, MRC-5, and IMR-90 cell strains for isolation of viruses from clinical specimens.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC274969/

EXPERT COMMITTEE ON BIOLOGICAL STANDARDIZATION
Geneva – 8 to 12 October 2007
Replacement Seed Stock for MRC-5 cells
https://www.who.int/biologicals/BS%202077%20MRC-5.pdf

MRC-5 (ATCC® CCL-171)
https://www.atcc.org/products/all/CCL-171.aspx

Listen to Christopher Key speak to the CDC about MRC-5 in vaccines – https://gopro.com/v/621ngR73w9NLv

Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court – Now What?

Know what Alzheimer’s and autism have in common? Heavy aluminum deposits in the brain. Know what contains a significant amount of aluminum?

Vaccines.

The human body is not designed to handle heavy metal injections and vaccine makers who use aluminum as adjuvants, know this.

Do your homework. Protect yourself and protect your babies.

~ Natural Nana ~

~~

by JAKE CROSBY

Note: Autism Investigated is running the breaking story on Hannah Poling’s landmark concession by the government in 2008. Huffington Post took it down along with dozens of other articles to help its client GlaxoSmithKline cover up vaccine injury.

After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder, the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

By David Kirby, Contributor

The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff’s identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.

The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal “Vaccine Court,” was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the “defendant” in all Vaccine Court cases.

The child’s claim against the government — that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism — was supposed to be one of three “test cases” for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court.

Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and “concluded that compensation is appropriate.”

The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).

Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of “relatedness;” insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and “watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination.”

Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children’s Hospital Neurology Clinic, with “regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development.” The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism.

In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was “aggravated” by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

“The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder,” the concession says, “which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD.”

This statement is good news for the girl and her family, who will now be compensated for the lifetime of care she will require. But its implications for the larger vaccine-autism debate, and for public health policy in general, are not as certain.

In fact, the government’s concession seems to raise more questions than it answers.

1) Is there a connection between vaccines, mitochondrial disorders and a diagnosis of autism, at least in some cases?

Mitochondria, you may recall from biology class, are the little powerhouses within cells that convert food into electrical energy, partly through a complex process called “oxidative phosphorylation.” If this process is impaired, mitochondrial disorder will ensue.

The child in this case had several markers for Mt disease, which was confirmed by muscle biopsy. Mt disease is often marked by lethargy, poor muscle tone, poor food digestion and bowel problems, something found in many children diagnosed with autism.

But mitochondrial disorders are rare in the general population, affecting some 2-per-10,000 people (or just 0.2%). So with 4,900 cases filed in Vaccine Court, this case should be the one and only, extremely rare instance of Mt disease in all the autism proceedings.

But it is not.

Mitochondrial disorders are now thought to be the most common disease associated with ASD. Some journal articles and other analyses have estimated that 10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders, which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD than the general population.

Another article, published in the Journal of Child Neurology and co-authored by Dr. Zimmerman, showed that 38% of Kennedy Krieger Institute autism patients studied had one marker for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, and 47% had a second marker.

The authors — who reported on a case-study of the same autism claim conceded in Vaccine Court — noted that “children who have (mitochondrial-related) dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time.”

An interesting aspect of Mt disease in autism is that, with ASD the mitochondrial disease seems to be milder than in “classic” cases of Mt disorder. In fact, classic Mt disease is almost always inherited, either passed down by the mother through mitochondrial DNA, or by both parents through nuclear DNA.

In autism-related Mt disease, however, the disorder is not typically found in other family members, and instead appears to be largely of the sporadic variety, which may now account for 75% of all mitochondrial disorders.

Meanwhile, an informal survey of seven families of children with cases currently pending in Vaccine Court revealed that all seven showed markers for mitochondrial dysfunction, dating back to their earliest medical tests. The facts in all seven claims mirror the case just conceded by the government: Normal development followed by vaccination, immediate illness, and rapid decline culminating in an autism diagnosis.

2) With 4,900 cases pending, and more coming, will the government concede those with underlying Mt disease — and if it not, will the Court award compensation?

The Court will soon begin processing the 4900 cases pending before it. What if 10% to 20% of them can demonstrate the same Mt disease and same set of facts as those in the conceded case? Would the government be obliged to concede 500, or even 1,000 cases? What impact would that have on public opinion? And is there enough money currently in the vaccine injury fund to cover so many settlements?

When asked for a comment last week about the court settlement, a spokesman for HHS furnished the following written statement:

“DVIC has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the claim. Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination.”

3) If the government is claiming that vaccines did not “cause” autism, but instead aggravated a condition to “manifest” as autism, isn’t that a very fine distinction?

For most affected families, such linguistic gymnastics is not so important. And even if a vaccine injury “manifested” as autism in only one case, isn’t that still a significant development worthy of informing the public?

On the other hand, perhaps what the government is claiming is that vaccination resulted in the symptoms of autism, but not in an actual, factually correct diagnosis of autism itself.

4) If the government is claiming that this child does NOT have autism, then how many other children might also have something else that merely “mimics” autism?

Is it possible that 10%-20% of the cases that we now label as “autism,” are not autism at all, but rather some previously undefined “look-alike” syndrome that merely presents as “features” of autism?

This question gets to the heart of what autism actually is. The disorder is defined solely as a collection of features, nothing more. If you have the features (and the diagnosis), you have the disorder. The underlying biology is the great unknown.

But let’s say the government does determine that these kids don’t have actual “autism” (something I speculated on HuffPost a year ago). Then shouldn’t the Feds go back and test all people with ASD for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, perhaps reclassifying many of them?

If so, will we then see “autism” cases drop by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people? Will there be a corresponding ascension of a newly described disorder, perhaps something like “Vaccine Aggravated Mitochondrial Disease with Features of ASD?”

And if this child was technically “misdiagnosed” with DSM-IV autism by Dr Zimmerman, how does he feel about HHS doctors issuing a second opinion re-diagnosis of his patient, whom they presumably had neither met nor examined? (Zimmerman declined an interview).

And along those lines, aren’t Bush administration officials somewhat wary of making long-distance, retroactive diagnoses from Washington, given that the Terry Schiavo incident has not yet faded from national memory?

5) Was this child’s Mt disease caused by a genetic mutation, as the government implies, and wouldn’t that have manifested as “ASD features” anyway?

In the concession, the government notes that the patient had a “single nucleotide change” in the mitochondrial DNA gene T2387C, implying that this was the underlying cause of her manifested “features” of autism.

While it’s true that some inherited forms of Mt disease can manifest as developmental delays, (and even ASD in the form of Rhett Syndrome) these forms are linked to identified genetic mutations, of which T2387C is not involved. In fact little, if anything, is known about the function of this particular gene.

What’s more, there is no evidence that this girl, prior to vaccination, suffered from any kind of “disorder” at all- genetic, mitochondrial or otherwise. Some forms of Mt disease are so mild that the person is unaware of being affected. This perfectly developing girl may have had Mt disorder at the time of vaccination, but nobody detected, or even suspected it.

And, there is no evidence to suggest that this girl would have regressed into symptoms consistent with a DSM-IV autism diagnosis without her vaccinations. If there was such evidence, then why on earth would these extremely well-funded government attorneys compensate this alleged injury in Vaccine Court? Why wouldn’t they move to dismiss, or at least fight the case at trial?

6) What are the implications for research?

The concession raises at least two critical research questions: What are the causes of Mt dysfunction; and how could vaccines aggravate that dysfunction to the point of “autistic features?”

While some Mt disorders are clearly inherited, the “sporadic” form is thought to account for 75% of all cases, according to the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation. So what causes sporadic Mt disease? “Medicines or other toxins,” says the Cleveland Clinic, a leading authority on the subject.

Use of the AIDS drug AZT, for example, can cause Mt disorders by deleting large segments of mitochondrial DNA. If that is the case, might other exposures to drugs or toxins (i.e., thimerosal, mercury in fish, air pollution, pesticides, live viruses) also cause sporadic Mt disease in certain subsets of children, through similar genotoxic mechanisms?

Among the prime cellular targets of mercury are mitochondria, and thimerosal-induced cell death has been associated with the depolarization of mitochondrial membrane, according to the International Journal of Molecular Medicine among several others. (Coincidently, the first case of Mt disease was diagnosed in 1959, just 15 years after the first autism case was named, and two decades after thimerosal’s introduction as a vaccine preservative.)

Regardless of its cause, shouldn’t HHS sponsor research into Mt disease and the biological mechanisms by which vaccines could aggravate the disorder? We still do not know what it was, exactly, about this girl’s vaccines that aggravated her condition. Was it the thimerosal? The three live viruses? The two attenuated viruses? Other ingredients like aluminum? A combination of the above?

And of course, if vaccine injuries can aggravate Mt disease to the point of manifesting as autism features, then what other underlying disorders or conditions (genetic, autoimmune, allergic, etc.) might also be aggravated to the same extent?

7) What are the implications for medicine and public health?

Should the government develop and approve new treatments for “aggravated mitochondrial disease with ASD features?” Interestingly, many of the treatments currently deployed in Mt disease (i.e., coenzyme Q10, vitamin B-12, lipoic acid, biotin, dietary changes, etc.) are part of the alternative treatment regimen that many parents use on their children with ASD.

And, if a significant minority of autism cases can be linked to Mt disease and vaccines, shouldn’t these products one day carry an FDA Black Box warning label, and shouldn’t children with Mt disorders be exempt from mandatory immunization?

8) What are the implications for the vaccine-autism debate?

It’s too early to tell. But this concession could conceivably make it more difficult for some officials to continue insisting there is “absolutely no link” between vaccines and autism.

It also puts the Federal Government’s Vaccine Court defense strategy somewhat into jeopardy. DOJ lawyers and witnesses have argued that autism is genetic, with no evidence to support an environmental component. And, they insist, it’s simply impossible to construct a chain of events linking immunizations to the disorder.

Government officials may need to rethink their legal strategy, as well as their public relations campaigns, given their own slightly contradictory concession in this case.

9) What is the bottom line here?

The public, (including world leaders) will demand to know what is going on inside the US Federal health establishment. Yes, as of now, n=1, a solitary vaccine-autism concession. But what if n=10% or 20%? Who will pay to clean up that mess?

The significance of this concession will unfortunately be fought over in the usual, vitriolic way — and I fully expect to be slammed for even raising these questions. Despite that, the language of this concession cannot be changed, or swept away.

Its key words are “aggravated” and “manifested.” Without the aggravation of the vaccines, it is uncertain that the manifestation would have occurred at all.

When a kid with peanut allergy eats a peanut and dies, we don’t say “his underlying metabolic condition was significantly aggravated to the extent of manifesting as an anaphylactic shock with features of death.”

No, we say the peanut killed the poor boy. Remove the peanut from the equation, and he would still be with us today.

Many people look forward to hearing more from HHS officials about why they are settling this claim. But whatever their explanation, they cannot change the fundamental facts of this extraordinary case:

The United State government is compensating at least one child for vaccine injuries that resulted in a diagnosis of autism.

And that is big news, no matter how you want to say it.

NOTE: Full text of the government’s statement is posted here.

David Kirby is the author of “Evidence of Harm – Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy” (St. Martins Press 2005.)

Source – https://www.autisminvestigated.com/government-concedes-autism/

The Truth About Gardasil

Thanks to Coyote Kazarinoff for sharing this information.

Parents, DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

Blessings,

~ Natural Nana ~

********************************

After Gardasil was licensed and three doses recommended for 11-12 year old girls and teenagers, there were thousands of reports of sudden collapse with unconsciousness within 24 hours, seizures, muscle pain and weakness, disabling fatigue, Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS), facial paralysis, brain inflammation, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, blood clots, optic neuritis, multiple sclerosis, strokes, heart and other serious health problems, including death, following receipt of Gardasil vaccine.

The Japanese government stopped giving the Gardasil vaccine in 2013 after health officials recorded nearly 2,000 adverse reactions, according to the Tokyo Times. http://www.tokyotimes.com/side-effects-in-young-girls-take…/

There is the MIT and Stanford educated medical doctor who also has a Master’s Degree in Public Health? The one who is a vaccine developer and has worked for Merck, the manufacturers of the Gardasil vaccine? Dr. Harper has repeatedly spoken out against the HPV vaccine and raised serious concerns about whether it is safe. As reported by CBS News in 2009:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gardasil-researcher-speaks-out/

The thousands of parents who belong to this non-profit, the parents who followed their doctor’s orders and got the “cervical cancer jab,” as they like to call it in the U.K. http://sanevax.org/uk-association-of-hpv-vaccine-injured-d…/

Dr. Russell Blaylock – (medical doctor and board certified neurosurgeon) explains the complete scientific fraud of the HPV Gardasil cervical cancer vaccine – http://bit.ly/1V9DHa9

Denmark Documentary – exposing the deaths and permanent injuries that the Gardasil HPV cervical cancer vaccine is doing to young women there – http://bit.ly/1AJI0dx

Teen boy dies immediately after HPV cervical cancer vaccine – http://bit.ly/29A7jY6

Video of teen girl struck down by Gardasil cervical cancer vaccine poison – http://bit.ly/1CpDd7g

Japanese medical experts issue warning against HPV cervical cancer vaccine – http://bit.ly/29CdEmo

Group of parents in Ireland form the support group REGRET after being lied to by the Irish government about the HPV Gardasil cervical cancer vaccine – http://bit.ly/2bV6eQC

The most prestigious medical review board in the world is also questioning the HPV cervical cancer vaccine, which guarantees the science behind this vaccine is fraudulent on all levels – http://bit.ly/1XRFqAf

Lead developer of the HPV vaccine testifies that it’s not safe nor effective. NOT SAFE OR EFFECTIVE. http://bit.ly/1SME57B

Dr. Suzanne Humphries on Gardasil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkyjgY70yPA

Dark side of the HPV vaccine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq0wgaZzkcE

Marcella on Gardasil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPIH9amZ2yc

Gardasil kills
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkUkaKk_pG8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWDKvXkEJFY

Gardasil injuries….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr-Qi9UBOYc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHYmb9Hwj4A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54qSggykqKc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaBXoOwmuoc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwa_0ZTALI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8CL8hu6C-U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xd3AarW0bo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npan3q3dJtY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnSNTo9P85g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtbPHftara4

Of course if that’s not enough…here’s over 50 studies showing its dangers….

American College of Pediatrics warns of ovarian failure linked to the HPV (Gardasil) cervical cancer vaccine. Side effect or working exactly as designed? You already know the answer. http://bit.ly/2kwyX2A

Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis Following Immunization with Human Papillomavirus Vaccines
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/…/55/21/55_55.7217/_article

Adolescent Premature Ovarian Insufficiency Following Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: A Case Series Seen in General Practice
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26425627/

Adverse events following HPV vaccination, Alberta 2006-2014
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26921782/

Ampiginous choroiditis following quadrivalent human papilloma virus vaccine
http://bjo.bmj.com/content/94/1/137.long

Association of acute cerebellar ataxia and human papilloma virus vaccination: a case report
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23378179/

Autoimmune hepatitis type 2 following anti-papillomavirus vaccination in a 11-year-old girl
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21596082/

Behavioral abnormalities in female mice following administration of aluminum adjuvants and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27421722/

Bivalent HPV vaccine safety depending on subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis
http://ard.bmj.com/content/73/12/e75.long

Brachial plexus neuritis following HPV vaccination
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18602437/

A case-control study of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine-associated autoimmune adverse events
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25535199/

Cervical cancers after human papillomavirus vaccination
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19155953/

CNS demyelination and quadrivalent HPV vaccination
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18805844/

Current Safety Concerns with Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: A Cluster Analysis of Reports in VigiBase® (2017)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40264-016-0456-3

Demyelinating disease and polyvalent human papilloma virus vaccination
http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/82/11/1296.long

Demyelinating disease and vaccination of the human papillomavirus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21425100/

Development of unilateral cervical and supraclavicular lymphadenopathy after human papilloma virus vaccination
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18752390/

Erythema multiforme following vaccination for human papillomavirus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19887766/

Fibromyalgia-Like Illness in 2 Girls After Human Papillomavirus Vaccination
http://journals.lww.com/…/Fibromyalgia_Like_Illness_in

HPV-negative Gastric Type Adenocarcinoma In Situ of the Cervix: A Spectrum of Rare Lesions Exhibiting Gastric and Intestinal Differentiation
http://insights.ovid.com/crossref

HPV vaccination syndrome. A questionnaire-based study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26354426/

Human papilloma virus vaccine and primary ovarian failure: another facet of the autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23902317/

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines as an option for preventing cervical malignancies: (how) effective and safe?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23016780/

Human papillomavirus vaccine and systemic lupus erythematosus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23624585/

Human papilloma virus vaccine associated uveitis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24191906/
Human papillomavirus vaccines, complex regional pain syndrome, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, and autonomic dysfunction – a review of the regulatory evidence from the European Medicines Agency
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27867145/

Hypersensitivity reaction to human papillomavirus vaccine due to polysorbate 80
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22605841/

Hypersensitivity reactions to human papillomavirus vaccine in Australian schoolgirls: retrospective cohort study
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19050332/

Hypothesis: Human papillomavirus vaccination syndrome–small fiber neuropathy and dysautonomia could be its underlying pathogenesis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25990003/

Immune thrombocytopenic purpura following human papillomavirus vaccination
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19464550/

Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease following vaccination against human papilloma virus infection and Japanese encephalitis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22476507/

Lichenoid Drug Eruption After Human Papillomavirus Vaccination
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pde.12516/full

A link between human papilloma virus vaccination and primary ovarian insufficiency: current analysis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26125978/

Neurologic Complications in HPV Vaccination
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26160812/

Neurologic Complications in HPV Vaccination
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26160812/

On the relationship between human papilloma virus vaccine and autoimmune diseases
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24468416/

Orthostatic intolerance and postural tachycardia syndrome as suspected adverse effects of vaccination against human papilloma virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25882168/

Pancreatitis after human papillomavirus vaccination: a matter of molecular mimicry
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27421720/

Pancreatitis following human papillomavirus vaccination
https://www.mja.com.au/…/pancreatitis-following-human

Panuveitis With Exudative Retinal Detachments After Vaccination Against Human Papilloma Virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26469238/
Peripheral sympathetic nerve dysfunction in adolescent

Japanese girls following immunization with the human papillomavirus vaccine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25274229/

Pharmaceutical Companies’ Role in State Vaccination Policymaking: The Case of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483914/

Postural tachycardia syndrome following human papillomavirus vaccination
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24102827/

Potential cross-reactivity between HPV16 L1 protein and sudden death-associated antigens
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21699023/

Premature ovarian failure 3 years after menarche in a 16-year-old girl following human papillomavirus vaccination
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23035167/

Severe manifestations of autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants (Shoenfeld’s syndrome).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27412294/

Severe somatoform and dysautonomic syndromes after HPV vaccination: case series and review of literature
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27503625/

A 16-year-old girl with bilateral visual loss and left hemiparesis following an immunization against human papilloma virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20189933/

Small Fiber Neuropathy Following Vaccination
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27552388/

Syncope and seizures following human papillomavirus vaccination: a retrospective case series
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21449862/

Telogen effluvium following bivalent human papillomavirus vaccine administration: a report of two cases
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22584489/

Two Cases of Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis Following Vaccination Against Human Papilloma Virus
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5140871/

Two unclear cases of death. Can we still recommend HPV vaccination?].
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18361151/

An unmasking phenomenon in an observational post-licensure safety study of adolescent girls and young women
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22580356/

Vaccine-related serious adverse events might have been under-recognized in the pivotal HPV vaccine randomized trial
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10067-017-3575-z

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

List of 100 US Patents Related to Weather Modification

Once you look up and wake up, you’ll never be able to erase the images of those lines criss-crossing our skies.

Do your homework, protect yourself and your loved ones.

~ Natural Nana ~
~~~~~~~~~

The Sirius Report Technology 10 Courtesy of Jim Willie (www.goldenjackass.com)

  • 0462795 – July 16, 1891 – Method Of Producing Rain-Fall
  • 1103490 – August 6, 1913 – Rain-Maker
  • 1225521 – September 4, 1915 – Protecting From Poisonous Gas In Warfare
  • 1338343 – April 27, 1920 – Process And Apparatus For The Production of Intense Artificial Clouds, Fogs, or Mists
  • 1619183 – March 1, 1927 – Process of Producing Smoke Clouds From Moving Aircraft
  • 1665267 – April 10, 1928 – Process of Producing Artificial Fogs
  • 1892132 – December 27, 1932 – Atomizing Attachment For Airplane Engine Exhausts
  • 1928963 – October 3, 1933 – Electrical System And Method
  • 1957075 – May 1, 1934 – Airplane Spray Equipment
  • 2097581 – November 2, 1937 – Electric Stream Generator – Referenced in 3990987
  • 2409201 – October 15, 1946 – Smoke Producing Mixture
  • 2476171 – July 18, 1945 – Smoke Screen Generator
  • 2480967 – September 6, 1949 – Aerial Discharge Device
  • 2550324 – April 24, 1951 – Process For Controlling Weather
  • 2582678 – June 15, 1952 – Material Disseminating Apparatus For Airplanes
  • 2614083 – October 14, 1952 – Metal Chloride Screening Smoke Mixture
  • 2633455 – March 31, 1953 – Smoke Generator
  • 2688069 – August 31, 1954 – Steam Generator – Referenced in 3990987
  • 2721495 – October 25, 1955 – Method And Apparatus For Detecting Minute Crystal Forming Particles Suspended in a Gaseous Atmosphere
  • 2730402 – January 10, 1956 – Controllable Dispersal Device
  • 2801322 – July 30, 1957 – Decomposition Chamber for Monopropellant Fuel – Referenced in 3990987
  • 2881335 – April 7, 1959 – Generation of Electrical Fields
  • 2908442 – October 13, 1959 – Method For Dispersing Natural Atmospheric Fogs And Clouds
  • 2986360 – May 30, 1962 – Aerial Insecticide Dusting Device
  • 2963975 – December 13, 1960 – Cloud Seeding Carbon Dioxide Bullet
  • 3126155 – March 24, 1964 – Silver Iodide Cloud Seeding Generator
  • 3127107 – March 31, 1964 – Generation of Ice-Nucleating Crystals
  • 3131131 – April 28, 1964 – Electrostatic Mixing in Microbial Conversions
  • 3174150 – March 16, 1965 – Self-Focusing Antenna System
  • 3234357 – February 8, 1966 – Electrically Heated Smoke Producing Device
  • 3274035 – September 20, 1966 – Metallic Composition For Production of Hydroscopic Smoke
  • 3300721 – January 24, 1967 – Means For Communication Through a Layer of Ionized Gases
  • 3313487 – April 11, 1967 – Cloud Seeding Apparatus
  • 3338476 – August 29, 1967 – Heating Device For Use With Aerosol Containers
  • 3410489 – November 12, 1968 – Automatically Adjustable Airfoil Spray System With Pump
  • 3429507 – February 25, 1969 – Rainmaker
  • 3432208 – November 7, 1967 – Fluidized Particle Dispenser
  • 3441214 – April 29, 1969 – Method And Apparatus For Seeding Clouds
  • 3445844 – May 20, 1969 – Trapped Electromagnetic Radiation Communications System
  • 3456880 – July 22, 1969 – Method Of Producing Precipitation From The Atmosphere
  • 3518670 June 30, 1970 – Artificial Ion Cloud
  • 3534906 – October 20, 1970 – Control of Atmospheric Particles
  • 3545677 – December 8, 1970 – Method of Cloud Seeding
  • 3564253 – February 16, 1971 – System And Method For Irradiation Of Planet Surface Areas
  • 3587966 – June 28, 1971 – Freezing Nucleation
  • 3601312 – August 24, 1971 – Methods of Increasing The Likelihood oF Precipitation By The Artificial Introduction Of Sea Water Vapor Into The Atmosphere Winward Of An Air Lift Region
  • 3608810 – September 28, 1971 – Methods of Treating Atmospheric Conditions
  • 3608820– September 20, 1971 – Treatment of Atmospheric Conditions by Intermittent Dispensing of Materials Therein
  • 3613992 – October 19, 1971 – Weather Modification Method
  • 3630950 – December 28, 1971 – Combustible Compositions For Generating Aerosols, Particularly Suitable For Cloud Modification And Weather Control And Aerosolization Process
  • USRE29142 – May 22, 1973 – Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process
  • 3659785 – December 8, 1971 – Weather Modification Utilizing Microencapsulated Material
  • 3666176 – March 3, 1972 – Solar Temperature Inversion Device
  • 3677840 – July 18, 1972 – Pyrotechnics Comprising Oxide of Silver For Weather Modification Use
  • 3722183 – March 27, 1973 – Device For Clearing Impurities From The Atmosphere
  • 3769107 – October 30, 1973 – Pyrotechnic Composition For Generating Lead Based Smoke
  • 3784099 – January 8, 1974 – Air Pollution Control Method
  • 3785557 – January 15, 1974 – Cloud Seeding System
  • 3795626 – March 5, 1974 – Weather Modification Process
  • 3808595 – April 30, 1974 – Chaff Dispensing System
  • 3813875 – June 4, 1974 – Rocket Having Barium Release System to Create Ion Clouds In The Upper Atmosphere
  • 3835059 – September 10, 1974 – Methods of Generating Ice Nuclei Smoke Particles For Weather Modification And Apparatus Therefore
  • 3835293 – September 10, 1974 – Electrical Heating Apparatus For Generating Super Heated Vapors
  • 3877642 – April 15, 1975 – Freezing Nucleant
  • 3882393 – May 6, 1975 – Communications System Utilizing Modulation of The Characteristic Polarization of The Ionosphere
  • 3896993 – July 29, 1975 – Process For Local Modification of Fog And Clouds For Triggering Their Precipitation And For Hindering The Development of Hail Producing Clouds
  • 3899129 – August 12, 1975 – Apparatus for generating ice nuclei smoke particles for weather modification
  • 3899144 – August 12, 1975 – Powder contrail generation
  • 3940059 – February 24, 1976 – Method For Fog Dispersion
  • 3940060 – February 24, 1976 – Vortex Ring Generator
  • 3990987 – November 9, 1976 – Smoke generator
  • 3992628 – November 16, 1976 – Countermeasure system for laser radiation
  • 3994437 – November 30, 1976 – Broadcast dissemination of trace quantities of biologically active chemicals
  • 4042196 – August 16, 1977 – Method and apparatus for triggering a substantial change in earth characteristics and measuring earth changes
  • RE29,142 – February 22, 1977 – Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process
  • 4035726 – July 12, 1977 – Method of controlling and/or improving high-latitude and other communications or radio wave surveillance systems by partial control of radio wave et al
  • 4096005 – June 20, 1978 – Pyrotechnic Cloud Seeding Composition
  • 4129252 – December 12, 1978 – Method and apparatus for production of seeding materials
  • 4141274 – February 27, 1979 – Weather modification automatic cartridge dispenser
  • 4167008 – September 4, 1979 – Fluid bed chaff dispenser
  • 4347284 – August 31, 1982 – White cover sheet material capable of reflecting ultraviolet rays
  • 4362271 – December 7, 1982 – Procedure for the artificial modification of atmospheric precipitation as well as compounds with a dimethyl sulfoxide base for use in carrying out said procedure
  • 4402480 – September 6, 1983 – Atmosphere modification satellite
  • 4412654 – November 1, 1983 – Laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying of liquids
  • 4415265 – November 15, 1983 – Method and apparatus for aerosol particle absorption spectroscopy
  • 4470544 – September 11, 1984 – Method of and Means for weather modification
  • 4475927 – October 9, 1984 – Bipolar Fog Abatement System
  • 4600147 – July 15, 1986 – Liquid propane generator for cloud seeding apparatus
  • 4633714 – January 6, 1987 – Aerosol particle charge and size analyzer
  • 4643355 – February 17, 1987 – Method and apparatus for modification of climatic conditions
  • 4653690 – March 31, 1987 – Method of producing cumulus clouds
  • 4684063 – August 4, 1987 – Particulates generation and removal
  • 4686605 – August 11, 1987 – HAARP Patent / EASTLUND PATENT – Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth’s atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere
  • 4704942 – November 10, 1987 – Charged Aerosol
  • 4712155 – December 8, 1987 – Method and apparatus for creating an artificial electron cyclotron heating region of plasma
  • 4744919 – May 17, 1988 – Method of dispersing particulate aerosol tracer
  • 4766725 – August 30, 1988 – Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
  • 4829838 – May 16, 1989 – Method and apparatus for the measurement of the size of particles entrained in a gas
  • 4836086 – June 6, 1989 – Apparatus and method for the mixing and diffusion of warm and cold air for dissolving fog
  • 4873928 – October 17, 1989 – Nuclear-sized explosions without radiation
  • 4948257 – August 14, 1990 – Laser optical measuring device and method for stabilizing fringe pattern spacing
  • 1338343– August 14, 1990 – Process and Apparatus for the production of intense artificial Fog
  • 4999637 – March 12, 1991 – Creation of artificial ionization clouds above the earth
  • 5003186 – March 26, 1991 – Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming
  • 5005355 – April 9, 1991 – Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
  • 5038664 – August 13, 1991 – Method for producing a shell of relativistic particles at an altitude above the earths surface
  • 5041760 – August 20, 1991 – Method and apparatus for generating and utilizing a compound plasma configuration
  • 5041834 – August 20, 1991 – Artificial ionospheric mirror composed of a plasma layer which can be tilted
  • 5056357 – October 15, 1991- Acoustic method for measuring properties of a mobile medium
  • 5059909 – October 22, 1991 – Determination of particle size and electrical charge
  • 5104069 – April 14, 1992 – Apparatus and method for ejecting matter from an aircraft
  • 5110502 – May 5, 1992 – Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
  • 5156802 – October 20, 1992 – Inspection of fuel particles with acoustics
  • 5174498 – December 29, 1992 – Cloud Seeding
  • 5148173 – September 15, 1992 – Millimeter wave screening cloud and method
  • 5242820 – September 7, 1993 – Army Mycoplasma Patent Patent
  • 5245290 – September 14, 1993 – Device for determining the size and charge of colloidal particles by measuring electroacoustic effect
  • 5286979 – February 15, 1994 – Process for absorbing ultraviolet radiation using dispersed melanin
  • 5296910 – March 22, 1994 – Method and apparatus for particle analysis
  • 5327222 – July 5, 1994 – Displacement information detecting apparatus
  • 5357865 – October 25, 1994 – Method of cloud seeding
  • 5360162 – November 1, 1994 – Method and composition for precipitation of atmospheric water
  • 5383024 – January 17, 1995 – Optical wet steam monitor
  • 5425413 – June 20, 1995 – Method to hinder the formation and to break-up overhead atmospheric inversions, enhance ground level air circulation and improve urban air quality
  • 5434667 – July 18, 1995 – Characterization of particles by modulated dynamic light scattering
  • 5441200 – August 15, 1995 – Tropical cyclone disruption
  • 5486900 – January 23, 1996 – Measuring device for amount of charge of toner and image forming apparatus having the measuring device
  • 5556029 – September 17, 1996 – Method of hydrometeor dissipation (clouds)
  • 5628455 – May 13, 1997 – Method and apparatus for modification of supercooled fog
  • 5631414 – May 20, 1997 – Method and device for remote diagnostics of ocean-atmosphere system state
  • 5639441 – June 17, 1997 – Methods for fine particle formation
  • 5762298 – June 9, 1998 – Use of artificial satellites in earth orbits adaptively to modify the effect that solar radiation would otherwise have on earth’s weather
  • 5800481 – September 1, 1998 – Thermal excitation of sensory resonances
  • 5912396 – June 15, 1999 – System and method for remediation of selected atmospheric conditions
  • 5922976 – July 13, 1999 – Method of measuring aerosol particles using automated mobility-classified aerosol detector
  • 5949001 – September 7, 1999 – Method for aerodynamic particle size analysis
  • 5984239 – November 16, 1999 – Weather modification by artificial satellite
  • 6025402 – February 15, 2000 – Chemical composition for effectuating a reduction of visibility obscuration, and a detoxifixation of fumes and chemical fogs in spaces of fire origin
  • 6030506 – February 29, 2000 – Preparation of independently generated highly reactive chemical species
  • 6034073 – March 7, 2000 – Solvent detergent emulsions having antiviral activity
  • 6045089 – April 4, 2000 – Solar-powered airplane
  • 6056203 – May 2, 2000 – Method and apparatus for modifying supercooled clouds
  • 6110590 – August 29, 2000 – Synthetically spun silk nanofibers and a process for making the same
  • 6263744 – July 24, 2001 – Automated mobility-classified-aerosol detector
  • 6281972 – August 28, 2001 – Method and apparatus for measuring particle-size distribution
  • 6315213 – November 13, 2001 – Method of modifying weather
  • 6382526 – May 7, 2002 – Process and apparatus for the production of nanofibers
  • 6408704 – June 25, 2002 – Aerodynamic particle size analysis method and apparatus
  • 6412416 – July 2, 2002 – Propellant-based aerosol generation devices and method
  • 6520425 – February 18, 2003 – Process and apparatus for the production of nanofibers
  • 6539812 – April 1, 2003 – System for measuring the flow-rate of a gas by means of ultrasound
  • 6553849 – April 29, 2003 – Electrodynamic particle size analyzer
  • 6569393 – May 27, 2003 – Method And Device For Cleaning The Atmosphere
  • 0056705 A1 – March 17, 2005 – Weather Modification by Royal Rainmaking Technology
  • 6890497 – May 10, 2005 – Method For Extracting And Sequestering Carbon Dioxide
  • 7965488 – November 9, 2007 – Methods Of Removing Aerosols From The Atmosphere
  • 8048309 – August 28, 2008 – Seawater-Based Carbon Dioxide Disposal
  • 8012453 – October 27, 2008 – Carbon Sequestration And Production Of Hydrogen And Hydride
  • 7645326 – January 12, 2010 – RFID environmental manipulation
  • 7655193 – February 2, 2010 – Apparatus For Extracting And Sequestering Carbon Dioxide
  • 8079545 – December 20, 2011 – Ground based Manipulation and Control of Aerial Vehicle during nonflying operations
  • 0117003 – October 5, 2012 – Geoengineering Method Of Business Using Carbon Counterbalance Credits – alternate link
  • 8373962 – February 12, 2013 – Charged seed cloud as a method for increasing particle collisions and for scavenging airborne biological agents and other contaminants

Source

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg53007/pdf/CHRG-111hhrg53007.pdf

GeoVax Announces Publication of Lassa Fever Vaccine Study Results

..

Buckle up, y’all. There’s another vaccine in the works. Is anyone really surprised, considering the blatant violations of human, civil and constitutional rights currently ongoing in California and New York?

Do your homework and protect your babies!

~ Natural Nana ~

*****************

100% Single-Dose Protection Observed in Lethal Challenge Model

GlobeNewswireSeptember 4, 2019

ATLANTA, GA, Sept. 04, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — via NEWMEDIAWIRE — GeoVax Labs, Inc. (GOVX), a biotechnology company developing human vaccines, today announced publication of its article entitled “A Single Dose of Modified Vaccinia Ankara Expressing Lassa Virus-like Particles Protects Mice from Lethal Intra-cerebral Virus Challenge.” The paper appears in the open access journal Pathogens published by MDPI, based in Basel, Switzerland, and can be viewed at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/8/3/133.

GeoVax’s Lassa fever vaccine (GEO-LM01) is based on the Company’s novel Modified Vaccinia Ankara (MVA) Virus-Like Particle (VLP) platform, which generates noninfectious VLPs in the individual being vaccinated. VLPs mimic a natural infection, triggering the body to produce a robust and durable immune response with both antibodies and T cells. The paper published in Pathogens reports research showing that a single intramuscular (IM) dose of GEO-LM01 provided 100% protection in mice challenged with a lethal dose of ML29 (a Mopeia/Lassa reassortant virus) delivered directly into the brain. This is the first report showing that a single dose of a replication-deficient MVA vector can confer full protection against a lethal challenge.

Lassa fever surpasses Ebola, Marburg, and all other hemorrhagic fevers except Dengue in its public health impact. Caused by LASV, the disease is a scourge on populations in endemic areas of West Africa, where reported incidence is higher. GEO-LM01 is one component of a multivalent hemorrhagic fever virus vaccine being developed by GeoVax. The other vaccine components are for protection against Sudan virus (SUDV), Marburg virus (MARV), and Ebola virus (EBOV). These vaccines are envisioned as either individual monovalent vaccines in epidemic situations or combined as a multivalent vaccine for the protection of the millions of individuals who live in at-risk areas, travelers, military personnel, healthcare workers, and others.

Farshad Guirakhoo, PhD, GeoVax’s Chief Scientific Officer, commented, “GEO-LM01 uses GeoVax’s proven MVA-VLP vaccine platform that has been shown to be safe and to induce durable antibody and T-cell responses in multiple human clinical trials for GeoVax’s prophylactic HIV vaccine. Using the same platform, we have shown our Zika vaccine (GEO-ZM02) provided single-dose 100% protection in mice against intracranial challenge, and that our Ebola vaccine (GEO-EM01) provided single-dose 100% protection in rhesus macaques. It is remarkable that a replication deficient vector can induce full protection after a single dose as soon as 2 weeks post vaccination. Although we did not attempt to measure protection at earlier timepoints, it is possible that the full protection can be achieved even sooner. We are looking forward to further development of this vaccine so it can be reached to people who need it most.”

According to Maria Salvato, a co-author of the paper and a Professor of Medicine at the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, “We expect MVA-LM01 to be safe for pregnant women and offer a greater breadth of coverage than simple subunit vaccines.”

About GeoVax

GeoVax Labs, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing human vaccines against infectious diseases and cancer using a novel patented Modified Vaccinia Ankara-Virus Like Particle (MVA-VLP) based vaccine platform. On this platform, MVA, a large virus capable of carrying several vaccine antigens, expresses proteins that assemble into VLP immunogens within (in vivo) the person receiving the vaccine. The production of VLPs in the person being vaccinated mimics virus production in a natural infection, stimulating both the humoral and cellular arms of the immune system to recognize, prevent, and control the target infection. The MVA-VLP derived vaccines elicit durable immune responses in the host similar to a live-attenuated virus, while providing the safety characteristics of a replication-defective vector.

GeoVax’s current development programs are focused on preventive vaccines against HIV, Zika Virus, hemorrhagic fever viruses (Ebola, Sudan, Marburg, and Lassa), and malaria, as well as therapeutic vaccines against chronic Hepatitis B infections and multiple cancers. The Company has designed the leading preventative HIV vaccine candidate to fight against the subtype of HIV prevalent in the larger commercial markets of the Americas, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia; this program is currently undergoing human clinical trials managed by the HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) with the support of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  GeoVax’s HIV vaccine is also part of collaborative efforts to develop an immunotherapy as a functional cure for HIV.  For more information, visit www.geovax.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements in this document are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. These statements are based on management’s current expectations and are subject to uncertainty and changes in circumstances. Actual results may differ materially from those included in these statements due to a variety of factors, including whether:  GeoVax can develop and manufacture its vaccines with the desired characteristics in a timely manner, GeoVax’s vaccines will be safe for human use, GeoVax’s vaccines will effectively prevent targeted infections in humans, GeoVax’s vaccines will receive regulatory approvals necessary to be licensed and marketed, GeoVax raises required capital to complete vaccine development, there is development of competitive products that may be more effective or easier to use than GeoVax’s products, GeoVax will be able to enter into favorable manufacturing and distribution agreements, and other factors, over which GeoVax has no control. GeoVax assumes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements and does not intend to do so. More information about these factors is contained in GeoVax’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission including those set forth at “Risk Factors” in GeoVax’s Form 10-K.

GeoVax Labs, Inc.
678-384-7220
investor@geovax.com

Original article – https://finance.yahoo.com/news/geovax-announces-publication-lassa-fever-130000117.html

Combining Childhood Vaccines at One Visit Is Not Safe by Neil Z. Miller

↑ This is what they would have you believe. However, if you do your homework, you’ll find it’s about as far from the truth as one could get.

Protect yourself, protect your babies and DO YOUR HOMEWORK! It’s the difference between empowerment and regret.

Blessings,

~ Natural Nana ~

******************

Information accessed via –Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 21 Number 2 Summer 2016

ABSTRACT

Although health authorities including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) claim that childhood vaccines are safe and recommend combining multiple vaccines during one visit, a review of data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows a dose-dependent association between the number of vaccines administered simultaneously and the likelihood of hospitalization or death for an adverse reaction. Additionally, younger age at the time of the adverse reaction is associated with a higher risk of hospitalization or death.

Background

In the 1980s vaccine manufacturers were frequently sued by the parents of children who were permanently disabled or died following vaccination. After paying out millions of dollars in these lawsuits, vaccine manufacturers were prepared to stop producing vaccines unless the federal government provided them with immunity from jury verdicts. In response to pharmaceutical manufacturers’ threat to close their own vaccine factories, in 1986 Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), protecting vaccine manufacturers from most financial liability associated with their products. Under NCVIA, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) was created to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims. Vaccine manufacturers can no longer be sued in a state or federal court for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death unless a petition for compensation under the new program is filed and denied. Compensation under the program is paid for by a 75-cent excise tax on every vaccine purchased. (MMR contains three vaccines, so the tax is $2.25.) The money goes into a Trust Fund managed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. As of Mar 1, 2016, more than $3.2 billion had already been paid out, most of it to compensate parents whose children were severely disabled or died after receiving vaccines.1 Today, vaccine manufacturers not only make millions of dollars annually from their lucrative business, but they have been disincentivized from producing safer vaccines, since they are shielded from liability when their mandatory products harm consumers.

Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)

The new federal law also required medical workers to report suspected vaccine reactions to a centralized reporting system. As a result, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), jointly operated by CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), was established in 1990. VAERS is a national vaccine safety surveillance program that collects information about possible adverse reactions to vaccines. This large database is accessible to the general public, including independent researchers who may use it to look for patterns in the data that might indicate vaccine safety concerns or problems.2

VAERS is a passive surveillance system, which means that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected. VAERS relies on doctors and nurses to voluntarily submit reports, although vaccine recipients and parents may also file reports. Vaccine manufacturers are required to report all adverse events of which they become aware.

Since 1990, the VAERS database has received more than 500,000 reports of suspected adverse reactions to vaccines. Although this represents a large number of people who may have been hurt by vaccines, under-reporting is a known limitation of passive surveillance systems. This means that VAERS only captures a small fraction of actual adverse events. In fact, shortly after VAERS was established, a large vaccine manufacturer, Connaught Laboratories, estimated “about a 50- fold under-reporting of adverse events in the passive reporting system.”3 Perhaps 98% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are not included in the VAERS database, and up to 25 million U.S. citizens could have been adversely affected by vaccines in the past 25 years. This well-known disadvantage of a passive reporting system, as opposed to an active surveillance system in which medical workers are trained to systematically collect all cases of suspected adverse vaccine reactions, is rarely acknowledged by health authorities when vaccine safety is discussed.

Although VAERS collects information about adverse events that occur after vaccines are administered, it should be noted that a report is not a confirmation that a vaccine caused the event. Health authorities like to emphasize this point whenever VAERS data are used in a study with findings that are critical of vaccines. The implication is that studies using VAERS are unreliable and should be disregarded. However, CDC considers VAERS an important vaccine safety assessment tool and regularly conducts its own studies using VAERS data, often to justify maintaining national vaccination campaigns.

CDC Studies Utilizing VAERS

In May 2015, the CDC published a study in Clinical Infectious Diseases that analyzed the VAERS database for reports of serious adverse events after MMR vaccination in adults. CDC researchers found that the vaccine was often administered to pregnant women, a group in whom the vaccine is contraindicated, “suggesting the need for continued provider education on vaccine recommendations and screening.” Although 5% of reports were serious, including several deaths, CDC researchers concluded that “in our review of VAERS data, we did not detect any new or unexpected safety concerns for MMR vaccination in adults.”4

In November 2014, CDC published a study in the journal Vaccine that analyzed VAERS reports associated with the live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV3). Although 8.9% of reports were classified as serious (e.g., cardiovascular events, neurological debilities, and fatalities) CDC researchers concluded that “review of VAERS reports are reassuring, the only unexpected safety concern for LAIV3 identified was a higher than expected number of Guillain-Barré syndrome reports in the Department of Defense population, which is being investigated [sic].”5

In June 2013, the CDC published a study in the journal Pediatrics that analyzed the VAERS database to assess intussusception events in recipients of two rotavirus vaccines, RotaTeq and Rotarix. (Intussusception is a serious intestinal condition that may require emergency surgery and can be fatal.) Although there were hundreds of confirmed intussusception events after vaccination, and a statistically significant clustering of intussusception events 3 to 6 days after the first dose of RotaTeq vaccination, CDC researchers concluded that an increased risk of intussusception “is outweighed by the benefits of rotavirus vaccination.”6 These studies and others confirm that CDC considers VAERS an important post-marketing vaccine safety surveillance tool. Therefore, nobody should be swayed into believing the VAERS database does not contain immensely valuable raw data to be used by independent researchers conducting studies that evaluate the safety of U.S. mandated vaccines.

For example, Mark Geier, M.D., Ph.D., independent researcher and former professional staff member at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), published several studies utilizing the VAERS database showing that vaccines containing thimerosal (mercury) significantly increase the odds of developing neurological disorders, including autism.7-9 Independent researchers Lai and Yew utilized the VAERS database and discovered that patients who received a Herpes zoster (shingles) vaccine were more than twice as likely to subsequently develop arthritis or alopecia compared to a nonvaccinated control group.10 Other independent researchers have used VAERS to document numerous vaccine safety concerns; some of their peer-reviewed papers are summarized in Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies. 11

The Safety of Simultaneous Vaccines

Although CDC recommends polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal vaccines for two-, four-, and six-month-old infants, this combination of eight vaccines administered during a single physician visit was never tested for safety in clinical trials. This is at odds with a CDC report that found that mixed exposures to chemical substances and other stress factors, including prescribed pharmaceuticals, may produce “increased or unexpected deleterious health effects.”

This CDC report also noted that “exposures to mixed stressors can produce health consequences that are additive, synergistic, antagonistic, or can potentiate the response expected from individual component exposures.”12

Thus, CDC is well aware that mixing several pharmaceutical products increases the likelihood of synergistic toxicity and unexpected adverse reactions. Nonetheless, CDC urges infants to receive multiple vaccines concurrently without scientific evidence to confirm the safety of this practice. Administering six, seven, or eight vaccine doses to an infant during a single physician visit is certainly more convenient for parents, as opposed to making additional trips to the doctor’s office, and increases the likelihood that the infant will receive all the vaccines, but vaccine safety must remain the highest priority.

In 2002, the journal Pediatrics published a paper by Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in which he claimed that based upon certain immunological and mathematical assumptions, “each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time.”13 Ten years later, in 2012, G.S. Goldman and I conducted a study that examined this astonishing claim.14

We started by downloading the complete VAERS database from 1990 through 2010. There were more than 325,000 VAERS reports. We then eliminated all case reports that were not associated with infants (babies aged up to one year). This left us with 38,801 VAERS reports in which infants had adverse events after receiving one or more vaccine doses. Next, we determined how many vaccine doses each infant received prior to the adverse event. (A computer program was written to make these calculations.)

For example, if an infant received a hepatitis B vaccine and a rotavirus vaccine prior to the adverse event, it was recorded as two vaccine doses. DTaP is administered with one injection but contains three separate vaccine doses, for diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis. Thus, if an infant received a polio vaccine, a pneumococcal vaccine, and DTaP prior to the adverse event, it was recorded as five vaccine doses. Some babies received six, seven, or eight doses prior to an adverse event. This was not unusual because of the CDC recommendations noted above, plus its recommendation for two doses of an influenza vaccine during infancy.

Finally, we isolated the “serious” adverse events— hospitalizations and death—from non-serious events, such as fever and local reactions. About 13% of all adverse events reported to VAERS are classified as serious, involving life-threatening conditions, hospitalization, permanent disability, or death. We sought to determine whether there were any trends or patterns associated with the number of vaccine doses an infant received and the likelihood that the adverse event reported to VAERS would require hospitalization or result in death.

Vaccine Doses and Hospitalizations

Of the 38,801 VAERS reports that we analyzed, 969 infants received two vaccine doses prior to the adverse event and 107 of those infants were hospitalized: a hospitalization rate of 11%. Of 1,959 infants who received three vaccine doses prior to the adverse event, 243 of them required hospitalization: 12.4%. For four doses, 561 of 3,909 infants were hospitalized: 14.4%.

Notice the emerging pattern: Infants who had an adverse event reported to VAERS were more likely to require hospitalization when they received three vaccine doses instead of two, or four vaccine doses instead of three. The pattern continues: Of 10,114 infants who received five vaccine doses prior to the adverse event, 1,463 of them required hospitalization: 14.5%. For six doses, 1,365 of 8,454 infants were hospitalized: 16.1%. For seven doses, 1,051 of 5,489 infants were hospitalized: 19.1%. And for eight doses, 661 of 2,817 infants were hospitalized: 23.5%. The hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% for two doses to 23.5% for eight doses. Linear regression analysis of hospitalization rates as a function of the number of reported vaccine doses yielded a linear relationship, with an R2 of 0.91.

Note: The hospitalization rate of infants who received just one vaccine dose was disproportionately high (16.3%) due to the hepatitis B vaccine administered at birth. As such, the hospitalization rate corresponding to one dose is an outlier and was excluded from the linear regression analysis.

Vaccine Doses and Mortality

Our study also calculated the case fatality ratio (mortality rate) among vaccinated infants, stratified by the number of vaccine doses they received. Of the 38,801 VAERS reports that we analyzed, 11,927 infants received one, two, three, or four vaccine doses prior to having an adverse event, and 423 of those infants died: a mortality rate of 3.6%. The remaining 26,874 infants received five, six, seven, or eight vaccine doses prior to the adverse event and 1,458 of them died: 5.4%.

The mortality rate for infants who received five to eight vaccine doses (5.4%) is significantly higher than the mortality rate for infants who received one to four vaccine doses (3.6%), with a rate ratio (RR) of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.4-1.7).

Of infants reported to VAERS, those who had received more vaccines had a statistically significant 50% higher mortality rate compared with those who had received fewer. Our study also calculated the case fatality ratio (mortality rate) among vaccinated infants, stratified by the number of vaccine doses they received.

The Age Effect on Hospitalizations and Death

Our study also analyzed whether the age at which an infant received vaccines had an effect on hospitalizations and death. Of the 38,801 VAERS reports that we analyzed, 765 concerned infants six-weeks-old or younger who received one or more vaccine doses prior to the adverse event, and 154 of those infants were hospitalized: a hospitalization rate of 20.1%. Of 5,572 infants aged six months at vaccination, 858 were hospitalized: 15.4%.

Of 801 infants who were nearly a year old when they were vaccinated, 86 were hospitalized: 10.7%. The hospitalization rate decreased linearly from 20.1% for neonates to 10.7% for older infants. Linear regression analysis of hospitalization rates as a function of patient age yielded an R2 of 0.95. In the 38,801 VAERS reports we analyzed, 26,408 infants were younger than six months. After receiving one or more vaccine doses, 1,623 of those infants died: a mortality rate of 6.1%.

The remaining 12,393 infants were between six months and one year of age. After receiving one or more vaccine doses, 258 of them died: 2.1%. The mortality rate for vaccinated infants younger than six months was significantly higher than the mortality rate for vaccinated infants aged between six months and one year, with an RR = 3.0 (95% CI, 2.6-3.4). Infants who had an adverse event reported to VAERS were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die if they were younger rather than older at the time of vaccination.

Summary of Results and Media Response

Our study showed that infants who receive several vaccines concurrently, as recommended by CDC, are significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die when compared with infants who receive fewer vaccines simultaneously. It also showed that reported adverse effects were more likely to lead to hospitalization or death in younger infants.

These findings are so troubling that we expected major media outlets in America to sound an alarm, calling for an immediate reevaluation of current preventive health care practices. But 4 years after publication of our study, this has not happened. Could it be because, according to Robert Kennedy, Jr., about 70% of advertising revenue on network news comes from drug companies? In fact, the president of a network news division admitted that he would fire a host who brought on a guest that led to loss of a pharmaceutical account. That may be why the mainstream media won’t give equal time to stories about problems with vaccine safety.15

Conclusion

The safety of CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule was never affirmed in clinical studies. Vaccines are administered to millions of infants every year, yet health authorities have no scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants are likely to receive. National vaccination campaigns must be supported by scientific evidence. No child should be subjected to a health policy that is not based on sound scientific principles and, in fact, has been shown to be potentially dangerous.

Undesirable outcomes associated with childhood vaccination can be reduced by requiring national vaccination policies to be supported by scientific evidence, holding vaccine manufacturers accountable when their products harm consumers, and urging major news outlets that rely on pharmaceutical advertising revenue to change their business models so that crucial scientific research, regardless of how controversial it may be, is widely disseminated into the public domain. Meanwhile, the evidence presented in this study shows that multiple vaccines administered during one visit, and vaccinating young infants, significantly increase morbidity and mortality.

Parents and physicians should consider health options associated with a lower risk of hospitalization or death.

Neil Z. Miller is a medical research journalist. Contact: neilzmiller@gmail.com.

Disclosures: No conflicts of interest were disclosed.

REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Available at: http://www.hrsa.gov/ vaccinecompensation. Accessed Feb 14, 2016.

2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Available at: https://vaers.hhs.gov. Accessed Feb 14, 2016.

3. Institute of Medicine (U.S.) Vaccine Safety Committee. Appendix B: Strategies for Gathering Information. In: Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality. Stratton KR, Howe CJ, Johnston RB Jr., eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press (U.S.); 1994. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236281. Accessed Mar 5, 2016.

4. Sukumaran L, McNeil MM, Moro PL, et al. Adverse events following measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine in adults reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 2003-2013. Clin Infect Dis 2015;60(10):e58-65.

5. Haber P, Moro PL, McNeil MM, et al. Post-licensure surveillance of trivalent live attenuated influenza vaccine in adults, United States, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), July 2005-June 2013. Vaccine 2014;32(48):6499-6504.

6. Haber P, Patel M, Pan Y, et al. Intussusception after rotavirus vaccines reported to U.S. VAERS, 2006-2012. Pediatrics 2013;131(6):1042-1049.

7. Geier DA, Hooker BS, Kern JK, et al. A two-phase study evaluating the relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccine administration and the risk for an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis in the United States. Transl Neurodegener 2013;2(1):25.

8. Geier DA, Kern JK, King PG, Sykes LK, Geier MR. The risk of neurodevelopmental disorders following a thimerosal-preserved DTaP formulation in comparison to its thimerosal-reduced formulation in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). J Biochem Pharmacol Res 2014;2(2):64-73.

9. Geier DA, Geier MR. An assessment of the impact of thimerosal on childhood neurodevelopmental disorders. Pediatr Rehabil 2003;6(2):97-102.

10. Lai YC, Yew YW. Severe autoimmune adverse events post Herpes zoster vaccine: a case-control study of adverse events in a national database. J Drugs Dermatol 2015;14(7):681-684.

11. Miller NZ. Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers. Santa Fe, N.M.: New Atlantean Press; 2016.

12. Castranova V, Graham J, Hearl F, et al. Mixed exposures research agenda: a report by the NORA Mixed Exposures Team. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-106; December 2004:vi. Available at: http:// http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-106/pdfs/2005-106.pdf. Accessed Feb 14, 2016.

13. Offit PA, Quarles J, Gerber MA, et al. Addressing parents’ concerns: do multiple vaccines overwhelm or weaken the infant’s immune system? Pediatrics 2002;109(1):124-129.

14. Goldman GS, Miller NZ. Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990-2010. Hum Exp Toxicol 2012;31(10):1012-1021. Available at: http://het.sagepub.com/ content/31/10/1012.full. Accessed Feb 14, 2016.

15. Jaxen, J. Kennedy drops bombshell: 70% news ad revenue from pharma. Before It’s News, May 22, 2015. Available at: http://beforeitsnews.com/ health/2015/05/kennedy-drops-bombshell-70-news-ad-revenue-frompharma-2574590.html. Accessed Feb 14, 2016.

Click to access miller.pdf