Nije o svinjskoj gripi i malo je podugačko
The Vaccination/Immunization Paradigm: News and Discoveries
Epidemic Diseases Linked to Early Polio Vaccines
At the 8th Annual Houston Conference on AIDS in America, Dr. Howard Urnovitz, Ph.D., a microbiologist, founder and chief science officer of Calypte Biomedical in Berkeley, California challenged medical science to prove wrong his theory that the human immunodeficiency virus Type-1 (HIV-1) is a monkey-human hybrid that was created after more than 320,000 Africans were injected between 1957 and 1959 with lots of experimental polio vaccines contaminated with different monkey viruses. The vaccines, said Urnovitz, may have contained live simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) or they were present environmentally as an opportunistic infection. The core of his theory of the origins of HIV-1 rests on the thesis that, in a certain number of African vaccine recipients, SIV combined with their own normal genes to create a monkey-human hybrid now known as HIV-1. Simultaneously, he forwarded the theory that early "inactivated" Salk vaccines given to some 98 million Americans were also contaminated with monkey viruses and may be one reason why there has been an explosion of cancer, new infectious agents and other new immune and neurological disorders among the baby boomers born between 1941 and 1961.
Although Dr. Urnovitz pointed to early experimental live oral polio vaccine trials in the Congo as the possible origin of HIV-1, he also pointed to inactivated Salk vaccine lots contaiminated with monkey viruses given to children in the United States between 1955 and 1961 as possibly having set this generation up for immune and neurological disorders after they were exposed to opportunistic infections and environmental toxins as adults. He pointed to the sudden emergence of human T-cell leukemia, epidemic Karposi's sarcoma, Burkitt's lymphoma, herpes (HHV-6,7,9), Epstein-Barr, cytomegalovirus, and chronic fatigue syndrome, as well as other disorders following early polio vaccine campaigns in the U.S. and around the world.
Building his case step by step and supporting it with evidence from 30 years of published literature as well as original research data, Urnovitz made his compelling argument to AIDS patients, physicians and medical researchers at the Houston AIDS conference, arguing that the proof that his theory is highly plausible lies in the high-tech world of microbiology, not in the mere speculative world of epidemiology.
Endogenous Viruses
Urnovitz pointed out that endogenous retroviruses (ERV's), which are also called "retrotransposons" or "jumping genes", are normal genes found in rodents, cows, birds and monkeys and, after the polio vaccine campaigns in the 1950's and 1960's, WERE IDENTIFIED IN HUMANS in the early 1980's (Bush administration). One of the key characteristics of "jumping genes" is that THEY CAN EASILY COMBINE WITH FRAGMENTS OF OTHER VIRUSES, BOTH HUMAN AND ANIMAL, AND FORM NEW HYBRID VIRUSES called CHIMERA's. This, maintains Urnovitz, is what happened after monkey viruses were introduced into humans in Africa via the experimental live oral polio vaccines.
Doctors who disagree with these findings say things like:
On the molecular level, Dr. Shah noted that although many researchers report finding SV40 sequences in human cancers, SV40 DNA is by no means present in every tumor cell.
This is a very disingenuous argument which discredits everything else doctors like him say. It is in fact a straw man argument. Nobody ever claimed that SV40 is the cause of "every tumor cell". Nobody ever claimed that SV40 needs to be "present in" a tumor cell for SV40 to be a part of the cancerous process. And if SV40 is responsible for only 1% of all cancer deaths in the US, that is STILL 5,400 deaths per year, which is 175 times as many cancer deaths as there were polio victims during the height of the polio "epidemic". The most probable mechanism by which SV40 disables the human immune system doesn't even suggest that the SV40 virus has to be present in ANY tumor cell.
There's another way to analyze this problem that avoids such disinformation from big government spending advocates and sociologists who insist on making the analysis so complicated that nobody can comprehend what they're saying. Comparing 1950 and 1990 cancer rates in countries who did not mass innoculate for polio in the early 1950s and 1960s to those who did reveals a remarkable five fold difference in cancer rates for men which cannot be explained by any other differences between countries, particularly in life expectancies which many media sources present as the sole factor. For example, Mexico's cancer rate in 1990 was 48 per 100,000 population, which was one seventh of the cancer rate for men in Hungary of 350, yet Mexican men have 2 year longer life expectancies than Hungarian men (69 years vs. 67 years). Paraguay and Uruguay, being right next to each other and of similar geography, climate, and culture, would be expected to have similar cancer rates and life expectancies, but Uruguay's cancer rate in 1990 was 5 times higher (270 vs 52) and life expectancy for men was 2.2 years longer (72.7 vs 70.2). It's impossible that a 2.2 year longer life expectancy could cause a five fold increase in the cancer mortality rate. The only explanation for Uruguay's higher cancer rate is that they mass innoculated their children for polio in the 1950s and Paraguay did not.
All of the following countries with cancer rates higher than Japan in 1990 (which includes Spain, Italy, Greece, Canada, Hungary, USA, Ireland, Netherlands, W. Germany, Norway, Sweden, Czechoslovakia, N. Ireland, Ukraine, Denmark, France, Uruguay, Russia, Switzerland, the UK, Scotland, and Belgium) did participate in the Salk and Sabin mass innoculation scheme. But none of the countries with cancer rates lower than Brazil in 1990 (including Sri Lanka, Suriname, Mexico, Mauritius, Venezuela, Belize, Paraguay, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Costa Rica, and Albania) did, at least not until too recently for the rise in cancer rates to be evident. Those countries which did recently mass innoculate for polio (for whom all the data is available) experienced a sharp increase in their cancer mortality rates between 1990 and 2001.
Perhaps the most egregious aspect of innoculating so many American children with such a risky vaccine is that the decision to do so was based on a study of only 50,000 children. How can this be? At the height of the "epidemic", there were only 33,300 cases of polio per year, which is only one case for every 5,000 people, which means you would expect there to be only 10 cases amongst 50,000 children. But there were only 33 cases per year of the most serious type, the paralytic polio that scared all parents across the country into accepting this mass innoculation of their children, which is only one case for every 4,636,364 people. You could run this study of 50,000 different children 93 times over and still not bump into a single case of paralytic polio.
Even if this was a much more serious "epidemic" than the NCHS statistics show and one child per 50,000 children got paralytic polio, if you ran the study on 50,000 children 20 different times, you would miss that one child with polio 5 times.
But Salk ran this study only once, and half of the 50,000 children received a "harmless liquid".
What could be proven by such a study?
Linearni mod
