Vaccination Is The Driving Force Behind The Destructive Evolution of Viruses and Pharma Knows It
The most common argument used by public health officials and the medical community to justify “no exceptions” on mandatory vaccination laws is that unvaccinated people pose a serious health threat to others who “cannot be vaccinated,” such as the immunocompromised. For them, unvaccinated children pose a big danger and even threaten the health of fully vaccinated children. These statements are more opinions than anything else since they are completely unsubstantiated and baseless from a scientific perspective. In reality, vaccination is the driving force behind the propagation of illness, shedding and mutation of viruses.
Can An Unvaccinated or Immune Compromised Child Get Sick From Coming in Contact With a Recently Vaccinated Person?
Absolutely, especially when it comes to live virus vaccines. Contrary to what Doctors tell their patients, during a viral infection, live virus is shed in the body fluids of those who are infected for varying amounts of time and can be transmitted to others. Vaccine strain live viruses also shed for varying amounts of time in the body fluids of vaccinated people and can be transmitted to others.
Although public health officials maintain that live attenuated virus vaccines rarely cause complications in the vaccinated person and that vaccine strain viral shedding rarely causes disease in close contacts of the recently vaccinated, it is important to be aware that vaccine strain live virus infection can sometimes cause serious complications in vaccinated persons and vaccine strain live viruses can be shed and transmitted to others with serious or even fatal consequences.
Vaccines Causing Both Viral and Bacterial Mutations
Evidence continues to mount from the scientific community who now admit that certain vaccines are in-fact causing both viral and bacterial mutations. Ironically, the same researchers assert that “better” vaccines are needed to offset the rise in persistent mutations.
One virologist observed that replicating and mutating viruses are the “world’s leading source of genetic innovation:”
“The huge population of viruses, combined with their rapid rates of replication and mutation, makes them the world’s leading source of genetic innovation: they constantly “invent” new genes. And unique genes of viral origin may travel, finding their way into other organisms and contributing to evolutionary change.”
Life-threatening pathogens are capable of evolving rapidly and developing genetic decoys that serve to disguise them from even the most powerful drugs. University of Oxford researcher Rory Bowden found that pathogens switch genetic material with other bacteria, but predominantly for the part of the genome responsible for making the cell coating, which is the area targeted by vaccines.
Discussing the co-evolution of viruses with humans and other living organisms, another virologist wrote in 2012 that during epidemics viruses evolve. Genetic and environmental co-factors make some individuals more or less likely to die from or survive the infection, producing an increase of the numbers of resistant individuals in the population:
“Viruses can become particularly dangerous when they evolve to acquire the possibility to infect new animal species. The defense systems of the new host may be generally unable to counteract the new pathogen and many individuals will die. In any epidemic, there are also individuals showing little sensitivity to or complete resistance to the particular pathogen. Both increased sensitivity and resistance to the infection are specified by the individual’s genetic makeup and various environmental factors. Accordingly, mass epidemics not only produce new virus variants but also alter the host population structure: highly sensitive individuals die, while the portion of resistant individuals in the population increases. Therefore, the coevolution of the virus and the host is a mutually dependent process.”
Former post-doctoral researcher of the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics, Grainne Long found that vaccination led to a 40-fold enhancement of B. parapertussis colonization in the lungs. His data suggested that the vaccine may be contributing to the observed rise in whooping cough incidence over the last decade by promoting B. parapertussis infection.
Bird Flu – A Prime Example of Viral Asymptomatic Viral Shedding
Bird flu is rampaging across the Midwestern US. So far 13 million chickens and turkeys have been culled or earmarked for destruction to stop the spread of H5N2, an offspring of Asia’s H5N1 bird flu.
Researchers at the US Department of Agriculture are starting tests, and US Department of Agriculture chief veterinary officer John Clifford said vaccine manufacturers are being contacted.
But vaccinated poultry spread the virus without getting sick, making its spread invisible. Vaccination has moreover driven the evolution of H5N1as these viruses adapt to the vaccinated birds.
In late 2009, virologists and influenza authorities were becoming increasingly concerned that the A-H1N1 flu virus could “reassort” with the highly virulent H5N1 avian flu that’s still prevalent in parts of the world like China, and that a mutation could occur resulting in a new strain that has the lethality of H5N1 and the human transmissibility of A-H1N1.
“H5N1 virus has never acquired the ability to transmit among humans, which is why we haven’t had a pandemic. The worry is that the pandemic H1N1 virus may provide that nature in the background of this highly pathogenic H5N1 virus,” says Kawaoka, a professor of pathobiological sciences at the UW-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine.
Two viruses infecting a single host cell can swap genetic material, or reassort, creating hybrid strains with characteristics of each parent virus.
Three vaccines used to prevent respiratory disease in chickens have swapped genes, producing two lethal new strains that have killed tens of thousands of fowl across two states in Australia
The creation of the deadly new variant was only possible because the vaccines contained live viruses, even though they were weakened forms, said Joanne Devlin, lead author of the paper published in the journal Science.
An acellular whooping cough vaccine actually enhances the colonization of Bordetella parapertussis in mice; pointing towards a rise in B. parapertussis incidence resulting from acellular vaccination, which may have contributed to the observed increase in whooping cough over the last decade.
Despite widespread vaccination, whooping cough incidence is on the rise worldwide, making it a disease virtually immune to vaccines.
Dangerous new strains of whooping cough bacteria are now evading Australia’s vaccine against the disease and entrenching a four-year epidemic that could soon spread overseas, Sydney scientists have found in research that raises questions about the national vaccine program.
Microbiologists from the University of NSW have found variants of the pertussis bacteria with a particular genetic signature have increased to 86 per cent of all samples taken from infected people after a continuing disease epidemic began in 2008.
Although the strains were present in Australia as early as 2000, they accounted for only 31 per cent of all samples collected between 2000 and 2007 — suggesting they have flourished alongside the current vaccine.
An acellular vaccine — introduced in Australia in 1997 after concerns about side-effects from the previous whole cell version — appeared to have promoted the spread of these variants, Dr Lan said, which overseas authorities had linked to “higher virulence on the basis of hospitalisation and case mortality data”.
He warned that other countries using similar vaccines should be alert for shifts in genetic features detected in the whooping cough bug.
In 2012, whooping cough, or pertussis, spread across the entire US at rates at least twice as high as those recorded in 2011 and epidemiologists and health officials were even admitting that the vaccine may be the cause.
In March 2012, dangerous new strains of whooping cough bacteria werereported in Australia. Researchers studying the strains said the vaccine itself was responsible. The reason for this is because, while whooping cough is primarily attributed to Bordetella pertussis infection, it is also caused by another closely related pathogen called B. parapertussis, which the vaccine does NOT protect against. Two years earlier, scientists at Penn State had already reported that the pertussis vaccine significantly enhanced the colonization of B. parapertussis, thereby promoting vaccine-resistant whooping cough outbreaks.
According to the authors:
“… [V]accination led to a 40-fold enhancement of B. parapertussis colonization in the lungs of mice. Though the mechanism behind this increased colonization was not specifically elucidated, it is speculated to involve specific immune responses skewed or dampened by the acellular vaccine, including cytokine and antibody production during infection. Despite this vaccine being hugely effective against B. pertussis, which was once the primary childhood killer, these data suggest that the vaccine may be contributing to the observed rise in whooping cough incidence over the last decade by promoting B. parapertussis infection.”
Pertussis whooping cough is a cyclical disease with natural increases that tend to occur every 4-5 years, no matter how high the vaccination rate is in a population using DTP or Tdap vaccines on a widespread basis. Whole cell DTP vaccines used in the U.S. from the 1950’s until the late 1990’s were estimated to be 63 to 94 percent effective and studies showed that vaccine-acquired immunity fell to about 40 percent after seven years.
In the study cited above, the researchers noted the vaccine’s effectiveness was only 41 percent among 2- to 7-year-olds and a dismal 24 percent among those aged 8-12
Smallpox, for example, is transmitted via body fluids. And, when you get a live attenuated smallpox vaccine, which contains live attenuated vaccinia virus, you can develop vaccinia virus (VACV or VV) strain infection, which you can then transmit to others. The same is true for polio and the live oral polio vaccine (OPV).
“In the days before [polio] vaccines in this country, many people got poliovirus infection. Most did not show any symptom or only mild symptoms. Their bodies dealt with it and they were immune. During the time they had an infection, whether they were symptomatic or asymptomatic, they could transmit it.
A tiny number of people went on to have complications from poliovirus infections; they became paralyzed or died. But the majority of people got polio, went through the disease, became immune, and did not suffer an injury.
The live polio vaccine, the Sabin vaccine, which followed the inactivated Salk vaccine, was given orally [and] contains live attenuated polioviruses.
Those polioviruses, when you take that [live] vaccine, you shed them in your body fluids–your saliva, urine, and stool. Vaccine-strain viruses like disease viruses or infections can be found also sometimes in tears and vomit. This is true for the Ebola virus as well.
Whether you have the viral infection or you get the live attenuated vaccine, you shed live virus in your body fluids and you are able to transmit the virus to other people who come in contact with your body fluids. I think this is a very important thing for people to understand,” said Barbara Loe-Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).
Hepatitis B Virus
In southern Italy, 44 contacts of hepatitis B virus carriers, including infants of carrier mothers, became HBsAg positive despite passive and active immunisation according to standard protocols. In 32 of these vaccinees infection was confirmed by the presence of additional markers of viral replication.
The circulation of HBV encoding envelope mutations selected by antiviral agents requires further investigation to determine whether they may be transmitted and therefore represent a public health concern. This issue may be of particular relevance in populations where genotype A is predominant.
HBV strains containing vaccine escape mutation patterns are replication competent and are shown to be infectious and pathogenic.
The phenomenon of measles infection spread by MMR (live measles-mumps-rubella vaccine) has been known for decades. In fact, 20 years ago, scientists working at the CDC’s National Center for Infectious Diseases, funded by the WHO and the National Vaccine Program, discovered something truly disturbing about the MMR vaccine: it leads to detectable measles infection in the vast majority of those who receive it.
Published in 1995 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology and titled, “Detection of Measles Virus RNA in Urine Specimens from Vaccine Recipients,” researchers analyzed urine samples from newly MMR vaccinated 15-month-old children and young adults and reported their eye-opening results as following:
Measles virus RNA was detected in 10 of 12 children during the 2-week sampling period.
In some cases, measles virus RNA was detected as early as 1 day or as late as 14 days after the children were vaccinated.
Measles virus RNA was also detected in the urine samples from all four of the young adults between 1 and 13 days after vaccination.
Additional Evidence That the Vaccinated Are Not Immune, Spread Disease
The National Vaccine Information Center has published an important document relevant to this topic titled “The Emerging Risks of Live Virus & Virus Vectored Vaccines: Vaccine Strain Virus Infection, Shedding & Transmission.” Pages 34-36 in the section on “Measles, Mumps, Rubella Viruses and Live Attenuated Measles, Mumps, Rubella Viruses” discuss evidence that the MMR vaccine can lead to measles infection and transmission.
Cases highlighted include:
- In 2010, Eurosurveillance published a report about excretion of vaccine strain measles virus in urine and pharyngeal secretions of a Croatian child with vaccine-associated rash illness. A healthy 14-month old child was given MMR vaccine and eight days later developed macular rash and fever. Lab testing of throat and urine samples between two and four weeks after vaccination tested positive for vaccine strain measles virus. Authors of the report pointed out that when children experience a fever and rash after MMR vaccination, only molecular lab testing can determine whether the symptoms are due to vaccine strain measles virus infection. They stated: “According to WHO guidelines for measles and rubella elimination, routine discrimination between aetiologies of febrile rash disease is done by virus detection. However, in a patient recently MMR-vaccinated, only molecular techniques can differentiate between wild type measles or rubella infection or vaccine-associated disease. This case report demonstrates that excretion of Schwartz measles virus occurs in vaccinees.”
- In 2012, Pediatric Child Health published a report describing a healthy 15-month old child in Canada, who developed irritability, fever, cough, conjunctivitis and rash within seven days of an MMR shot. Blood, urine and throat swab tests were positive for vaccine strain measles virus infection 12 days after vaccination. Addressing the potential for measles vaccine strain virus transmission to others, the authors stated, “While the attenuated virus can be detected in clinical specimens following immunization, it is understood that administration of the MMR vaccine to immunocompetent individuals does not carry the risk of secondary transmission to susceptible hosts.
- In 2013, Eurosurveillance published a report of vaccine strain measles occurring weeks after MMR vaccination in Canada. Authors stated, “We describe a case of measlesmumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine-associated measles illness that was positive by both PCR and IgM, five weeks after administration of the MMR vaccine.” The case involved a two-year-old child, who developed runny nose, fever, cough, macular rash and conjunctivitis after vaccination and tested positive for vaccine strain measles virus infection in throat swab and blood tests. Canadian health officials authoring the report raised the question of whether there are unidentified cases of vaccine strain measles infections and the need to know more about how long measles vaccine strain shedding lasts. They concluded that the case they reported “likely represents the existence of additional, but unidentified, exceptions to the typical timeframe for measles vaccine virus shedding and illness.” They added that “further investigation is needed on the upper limit of measles vaccine virus shedding based on increased sensitivity of the RT-PCR-based detection technologies and immunological factors associated with vaccine-associated measles illness and virus shedding.”
What is clear about vaccination is that it poses a threat that mainstream science does not want the public to know about. The imposition of mandatory vaccination (or its illusion) is perhaps the biggest mistake thatpublic health policy and government are currently pursuing. As more people become informed and pull away from the clutches of fear, anxiety and control that accompanies vaccination, more public health and government policy will enforce their position through aggression and threats. That alone is a clear indication of which stance holds true merit and which one doesn’t.