Thursday, October 25, 2012

BREAKING NEWS: GARDASIL FINGERPRINTS FOUND IN POST-MORTEM SAMPLES










By Norma Erickson

For the first time in history, a biologically plausible mechanism of action has been discovered linking a vaccine to a serious adverse event. Gardasil has left behind its genetic fingerprint in post-mortem central nervous system samples of two girls who took this vaccine.

Two teenage girls from opposite ends of the world - both dead before their time have two additional things in common. They both took Gardasil to try and prevent cervical cancer and fragments of the HPV-16-L1 antigen used in Gardasil have been found in blood vessels within their brains.

The HPV-16-L1 protein is one of the antigens used in both Gardasil and Cervarix. An antigen is a toxin or other foreign substance that induces an immune response in the body. Theoretically, these antigens are not supposed to cross the blood brain barrier. However, according to a recently concluded case study this may not be the case.

Using a new immunohistochemical (IHC) protocol they developed, Drs. Chris Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic examined post-mortem samples taken from the cerebellum, hippocampus, choroid plexus and watershed cortex of a 19 year-old girl; as well as post-mortem samples of the cerebellum, hippocampus, choroid plexus, portions of the brainstem (medulla, midbrain, pons), right basal ganglia, right parietal and left frontal lobes of a 14 year-old girl. They tested for the presence of two of the specific antigens used in both Gardasil and Cervarix: HPV-16-L1 and HPV-18-L1.

They discovered the presence of HPV-16-L1 particles within the blood vessels in the brain (cerebral vasculature) with some of these particles adhering to the blood vessel walls. For the average medical consumer, this is the equivalent of a Gardasil fingerprint and it should not be in brain tissues.

Does the presence of HPV-16-L1 particles inside these girls’ cerebral vasculature provide evidence of a “Trojan Horse” mechanism by which these particles adsorbed to aluminum adjuvant gain access to human brain tissue? Remember, both Gardasil and Cervarix contain HPV-16-L1 virus-like particles (VLP’s) of the recombinant major capsid (L1) protein adsorbed onto aluminum adjuvants.

Tomljenovic and Shaw also discovered that the antibodies against HPV-16-L1, which were used to detect the presence of HPV-16-L1 particles, were also binding to the wall of cerebral blood vessels in the brain samples.

Their IHC analysis also showed increased T-cell signaling and marked activation of the classical antibody-dependent complement pathway in cerebral vascular tissues from both cases. This pattern of complement activation, in the absence of an active brain infection, indicates an abnormal triggering of the immune response in which the immune attack is directed towards the blood vessels of the brain, thus triggering an autoimmune cerebral vasculitis.

Cerebral vasculitis is a serious disease which typically results in fatal outcomes when undiagnosed and left untreated. The fact that many of the symptoms reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following HPV vaccination are indicative of cerebral vasculitis, but are unrecognized as such (i.e. intense persistent migraines, syncope, seizures, tremors and tingling, myalgia, locomotor abnormalities, psychotic symptoms and cognitive deficits) is a serious concern in light of Tomljenovic and Shaw’s findings.

Finally, there was clear evidence of brain hemorrhages in both cases which further demonstrated that a serious injury to the cerebral vasculature occurred.

For the average medical consumer, this evidence suggests that the antibodies produced in response to vaccination with the HPV-16-L1 may cause one’s immune system to attack its own blood vessels. HPV vaccines containing HPV-16-L1 antigens could therefore pose an inherent risk for triggering potentially fatal autoimmune vasculopathies.

There is little doubt that HPV vaccines are unsafe for some individuals. Who those individuals are and why they are more susceptible to serious adverse reactions than others remains unknown. More studies must be conducted to answer these questions.

The article by Drs. Chris Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic entitled Death after qHPV vaccination: causal or coincidental, published in Pharmaceutical Regulatory Affairs today provides evidence of a biologically plausible mechanism of action linking a particular vaccine to serious adverse outcomes, perhaps for the first time in history. Although this study may not conclusively ‘prove’ causality, it seriously demonstrates the need for additional investigation.

When reading this case study, one must understand the findings should be viewed with caution. This is a small sample size and there were no control samples available. However, the marked resemblance between the two cases strongly supports the present conclusions.

It is important to note that activation of the antibody-dependent complement pathway, as shown in Tomljenovic and Shaw’s analysis, typically occurs in neurodegenerative diseases which have an underlying immune trigger. This process is not a feature of a normal young brain.

Given that the autopsy in both cases revealed no major abnormality (anatomically, microbiologically or toxicologically) that might have been regarded as a potential cause of death; it appears plausible that the antigenic component of the HPV vaccine (HPV-16-L1) was indeed responsible for the fatal inflammation of the blood vessels.

Medical consumers need to know:

·        Vasculitis has long been recognized as a possible severe adverse reaction to vaccination.

·        Molecular mimicry (whereby the vaccine antigen resembles a host antigen) is generally accepted among medical professionals and scientists as a mechanism by which vaccines can trigger autoimmune diseases.


·        Tomljenovic & Shaw’s search of the VAERS database revealed numerous reports of post-HPV vaccination–associated vasculitis.

·        An analysis of these reports showed that post-HPV vaccination vasculitis-related symptoms most typically manifest within the first three to four months after vaccination, as was also reported in the two cases analyzed by Shaw and Tomljenovic.


·        Tomljenovic and Shaw also noted a striking similarity between the vasculitis-related symptoms reported to VAERS and those experienced by the two cases they examined.

Every vaccine carries some risk of adverse effects. Unlike most medications, vaccines are normally administered to healthy individuals. Therefore, it is all the more critical to identify those individuals who are at risk for serious adverse events after vaccines.

We consider ourselves a civilized society. The time has come to stop sacrificing the life and future of anyone for the greater good. The time has come to admit vaccine injuries occur, find out why and cure those already affected. Anything less is neither responsible, nor ethical.







Wednesday, October 10, 2012

FOR THE ATTENTION OF ALL IRISH/AMERICANS – THE MOTHERS AND FATHERS OF IRELAND NEED YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT


FOR THE ATTENTION OF ALL IRISH/AMERICANS – THE MOTHERS AND FATHERS OF IRELAND NEED YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT.  

THE PRESENT IRISH CONSTITUTION GIVES POWER AND AUTHORITY TO THE FAMILIES IN IRELAND OVER ALL MATTERS RELATING TO THEIR CHILDREN.  THE REFERENDUM TO BE HELD ON SATURDAY, 10TH NOVEMBER 2012, WHICH HAS BEEN SET UP BY THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT IN IRELAND, IS DESIGNED TO TAKE THIS PARENTAL ROLE AWAY FROM PARENTS.

IN ADDITION, A GOVERNMENT SPOKESPERSON HAS SPOKEN PUBLICLY THAT SHE DOES NOT WISH THE FAMILIES WHO WOULD VOTE NO TO BE GIVEN A VOICE IN THE MEDIA, EVEN ALTHOUGH THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW AS IT STANDS AT PRESENT.  THIS IS NO MORE THAN A DICTATORSHIP BUT ALSO OPENS UP THE REAL REASON WHY THEY DO NOT WANT PARENTS TO BE TOLD THE TRUTH – THEY WISH TO SILENCE THOSE WHO KNOW THE TRUTH AND DECEIVE THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND.


For further information please contact:
Alliance of Parents Against the State – 

The government wants a YES VOTE – THIS MEANS THAT THE GOVERNMENT WISHES TO CHANGE   ARTICLE 42.5 OF THE IRISH CONSTITUTION WHICH AT PRESENT GIVES PARENTS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE “BEST INTERESTS” FOR THEIR CHILDREN.   THE GOVERNMENT WISHES TO TAKE COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE CHILDREN IN IRELAND AND FOR THIS OFFICIAL BODY TO MAKE ALL IMPORTANT DECISIONS IN THE LIVES OF THESE CHILDREN AND THE PARENTS WILL BE REDUCED TO BEING CAREGIVERS UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (UNCRC). 

The concerned families want a NO VOTE – THE REASONS FOR THIS ARE DETAILED BELOW:

This leaflet was prepared by the Alliance of Parents against the State and gives detailed reasons why the NO VOTE has to win.

1. Your legal right under Article 42.5 of the Irish Constitution to decide "Best Interests" for your own child will be handed over to the State. Parents will be reduced to Caregivers under the UNCRC. 

2. Your child can be placed for adoption against your will. You will not need to be accused or convicted of any crime and the arbitrary decision can be made by one person. The entire process will take place in secret Family Courts and you will be gagged and prevented from speaking out.

3. The State can decide for example to vaccinate every child in Ireland, and the parent, and even the child have no say in the matter. You do not need to be consulted or give permission. Joan Burton (Minister for Social Protection) has already hinted that Child Benefit will be tied into vaccination records; this could be extended to school admission.

4. The State can decide to give Birth Control to children of any age, even if they are below the Age of Consent. The State can bring children to other countries for an abortion without parental consent and even if the child disagrees.

5. The UN and the EU can make any laws for children without consent of the Irish Government if it wishes. This allows unelected people in the EU and UN to write Irish Laws without prior notice. This removes what little Sovereignty Ireland has as a nation. 

6. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is no mere statement of altruism; it is a legally binding Human Rights Treaty which, if Article 42 is changed, will allow unelected people in the EU and UN to re-write Irish Law. Fully ratifying the UNCRC will now make every other treaty that we have ratified also apply to all Irish Children. The entire landscape of Irish Law may need to be rewritten.

7. The UNCRC does not give Irish children any privileges they did not possess before. Parents have always vindicated the rights for their child. As children are not autonomous, the State can decide anything even if the child disagrees. Effectively, this also removes children's rights. 

8. The "Best Interest Principle" of the UN is nothing more than a slogan. Was it in the "Best Interests" of the 260 who died in Irish State "Care", or the 500 who went missing and many were later found to have been trafficked into prostitution and slavery? We believe if Ireland is to have a World-Class Child Protection System that "Best Interests" should be replaced with "to the Measured and Demonstrated Benefit of the Child" and it will need to be measured and demonstrated. Despite 760 children missing or dead in a decade, nobody has ever been held accountable. In the Baby P case 2 doctors were struck off and 4 social workers fired, in Ireland 260 dead, 500 missing and nobody was punished.

9. The UNCRC only gives "Rights" to children but there is no obligation on the Government to comply. Children in developing nations whose Governments have ratified the UNCRC have the right to food and water and yet children are dying. Children are executed in some countries and the UNCRC does not protect them, only their "Rights". Many of the countries that have ratified the UNCRC allow for Child Soldiers, Child Forced Marriage, and the Death Penalty for Children and even Female Genital Mutilation. The UNCRC does not protect children, their parents protect them.

10. The question we are being asked here is "do you trust the Irish State, the UN and the EU to make decisions for your children when your parental rights have been eliminated?" If you are not 100% sure you must vote NO.

To compound the seriousness of this Referendum it has been noted that Senator Catherine Noone of Fine Gael (the government party) is doing her best to silence the voices of the families who oppose this referendum.  Please see her quote from the actual record in the Seanad debate of 19th September 2012.  This amounts to a dictatorship – do as we say or you will be silenced.  This is the quote:

“Senator Catherine Noone:  I too welcome the setting of a date for the referendum and the fact that it is on a Saturday, for all the reasons that have already been mentioned.  I also welcome the fact that Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin have confirmed in the House today their support for the referendum and the proposed wording.

One aspect of concern to me relates to the media.  Because of the McKenna judgement, various media organisations must give 50% coverage to both sides of an argument.  I hope that editorial discretion will be used in this instance so that an opportunity is not given to various nay-sayers or people who wish to raise their profiles in the media.  The McKenna judgement would allow them a voice.  I hope RTE and other media organisations will use editorial discretion to ensure that this campaign does not give a voice to NO campaigners whose main motivation is to raise their own profile.”

This is the reply sent by Irish mothers responding to the comments of the Senator’s quote above – this was sent to the media and to politicians but these comments were ignored:

Dear Sir

Senator Catherine Noonan should resign her Senate seat immediately, following her scandalous suggestion that the National Broadcaster and other media organizations should exercise “editorial discretion" and not give a voice to those on the NO side in the Children's rights referendum campaign. She has shown utter contempt for the democratic process and for the Irish electorate. What she is asking of the media is coercive and contemptible. 

It raises a very serious question? Why is the yes campaign so afraid to openly engage with those of us on the no side? This attempt by Catherine Noonan to stymie debate comes after former Judge Catherine McGuiness indicated her objection to a long debate. What has the Yes Side to hide? If they had nothing to hide they would be willing to debate openly and honestly.

Clearly those behind this Referendum do not want the full facts to emerge regarding the explosive nature of this referendum, and the consequences for society if it is passed. They know full well that when Irish people, especially parents, discover that they are effectively transferring total legal control over their children to the state, they will vote a resounding NO on referendum day.

Senator Noonan should resign immediately and Fine Gael should apologize to the Irish electorate for her discriminatory and offensive remarks. Government must now give a public assurance that the Media will honour the McKenna judgment and be fair and courteous to both sides in this debate. 

YOUR HELP IS DESPERATELY NEEDED FOR THE HOMELAND YOU LOVE.  PLEASE CIRCULATE THIS ROUND ALL IRISH FAMILIES AND FRIENDS TO HELP BRING THE TRUTH TO THEIR ATTENTION.  WE WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Your Morning Briefing: WHAT'S REALLY BEHIND THE JPMORGAN LAWSUIT (Plus)… Carter Slams U.S. Supreme Court For Its Endorsement Of Corruption: Carter Expressed His Hope That “The Supreme Court Will Reverse That Stupid Ruling” (More)…




Your Morning Briefing: WHAT'S REALLY BEHIND THE JPMORGAN LAWSUIT (Plus)… Carter Slams U.S. Supreme Court For Its Endorsement Of Corruption: Carter Expressed His Hope That “The Supreme Court Will Reverse That Stupid Ruling” (More)…


(MoneyWatch) This is what everybody wanted: Main Street's revenge on Wall Street. The 99 percent hitting the 1 percent where it hurts. Finally, somebody's going to bring those responsible for crashing our economy to justice. The first salvo's been fired and there's plenty more to come.

Hang on to your Occupy Wall Street banners, folks. This is going to be fun. Let's hear it for truth, justice and the American way. Let's hear it for the politicians and the regulators. The people have spoken and vengeance will be theirs.

With a joint task force of federal and state prosecutors standing united behind him, New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman sued JPMorgan Chase's (JPM) Bear Stearns unit, alleging massive fraud in the sale of mortgage-backed securities. And Schneiderman says, "there are more cases to come." Oh goodie.

Why the dripping sarcasm, you ask? Because we've been here before, folks. More times than I can count. And here's the thing. Nobody's bringing anyone to justice. Nobody's fighting for the little guy. Want to know what's really going on here? OK, then. Here's the truth about the JPMorgan lawsuit.




IN DEFENSE OF GOLDMAN SACHS

First of all, didn't JPMorgan actually rescue Bear Stearns at the behest of the federal government back in 2008? Wasn't there an eleventh-hour deal made to keep Bear Stearns from insolvency? Wasn't that part of the plan to prevent a wider collapse of the financial system? Yes, that is all, in fact, true.

So if JPMorgan leaders were the good guys back in 2008, if they helped save the integrity of the banking system by agreeing to acquire Bear Stearns and, most importantly, guaranteeing its trades, then why is everybody with a badge lining up for a good seat in the courtroom? Timing. Timing and politics.

You see, at a news conference yesterday, Tony West of the U.S. Attorney General's office "credited a coalition of law enforcement agencies created by President Barack Obama in 2009 with assembling evidence in the lawsuit brought by the New York attorney general's office." Get the connection? Timing and politics.

Ironically, the only people who ever win in these things are the lawyers and the politicians. As a remarkably similar example, let's go back to 2003 when then New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer negotiated a landmark $1.4 billion settlement with 10 of the nation's top investment banks for corruption during the dot-com bubble.

Sounds like everybody won, right? Wrong. No criminal charges were ever filed. None of the banks, executives or analysts in question ever admitted their guilt or anything else, for that matter. As for all the settlement money, I'm pretty sure it didn't do much good for investors who lost trillions when the tech bubble burst.

On the other hand, it did go a long way to putting Spitzer on a fast track to the governor's mansion. And who do you think gets paid to pore over the millions of pages of documents produced during discovery for these types of lawsuits? That's right, lots and lots of high-priced lawyers. And who pays for them? That's right, taxpayers, meaning you.

Lastly, as Bloomberg columnist Mark Gilbert explained so eloquently in his book Complicit: How Greed and Collusion Made the Credit Crisis Unstoppable, there's plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the subprime mortgage meltdown and the subsequent financial crisis.

Sure, the banks played a role, but so did just about everyone.

First, Congressional lawmakers pushed through 25 years of amendments, revisions and other legislation, related to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that systematically broke down every check and balance intended to ensure that lenders didn't write bad loans.

Then the Department of Housing and Urban Development forced Fannie Mae to dedicate 50 percent of its funds to back affordable housing for low-income families. We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars to back bad loans.


Not to mention former chairman of Countrywide Financial Angelo Mozilo, a number of CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and a long, long list of other culprits that either wittingly or unwittingly conspired to get us to where we are today. Ironically, I'm not aware of anyone at JPMorgan having anything to do with it at the time.




 

Editor

I thought we were supposed to stand together and united in times when our country is attacked. When our country was attacked in 2001on September 11, the right-wing extremists tried to make anyone who criticized George W. Bush out to be a traitor to America. The Democrats for the most part united behind President George W. Bush in a time of crisis as they should have.

Fast forward to Sept. 11, 2012. Our embassy in Egypt and an American consulate in Libya were attacked. In Libya our ambassador and three other brave Americans, including two decorated members of our armed forces lost their lives. The response by the right-wing wackos? Blame President Obama and try to use the attacks for political advantage. Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, and our own Sue Henry from WILK news radio are undermining our troops in a time of war. They are emboldening our enemies, and undermining President Obama as he tries to lead the free world as the United States of America should. Mitt Romney also jumped on the bandwagon attempting to use the deaths of these patriots to gain a political edge in his campaign for President. God forbid this man ever gets elected.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that these extremist right-wingers would stoop so low. After all, the Republicans in Congress have been trying to sabotage the economic recovery from the Bush great recession for years now. Two years ago President Obama proposed a jobs bill. The Republicans wouldn't even consider voting on it. President Obama proposed taking some of the corporate welfare received in billions of dollars paid in subsidies to Big Oil and giving those subsidies to companies that create family-sustaining jobs in manufacturing. The Republicans said "no."

President Obama also proposed ending tax breaks for companies who ship jobs out of the country. Again the Republicans wouldn't even vote on the proposal, I guess that's why Romney, the father of overseas outsourcing, is the Republican nominee.

And worst of all. Last month Republicans in the Senate of the United States of America blocked passage of President Obama's proposed law to help veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars get jobs. These hypocrites would rather throw our country, our veterans, and the whole middle class under the proverbial bus than lift one finger to create one job. And for what? To gain a political advantage for a guy who says he loves firing people? A guy who would take us back to the policies that caused the recession in the first place? A guy who would cut taxes yet again for millionaires and billionaires and raise taxes on the middle class? A guy who would protect the interests of oil companies over the interests of working families? A guy who would use the death of American citizens for political advantage?

God forbid. On Nov. 6, tell Romney and the Republicans "no," just like they have been telling the American people.

Vote Obama.

Vote Democrat.

Matt Balas,