Untested Toxicity Found in Gardasil Vaccine

HPV DNA bound to insoluble aluminum adjuvant.

By NORMA ERICKSON | SANEVAX | OCTOBER 19, 2012

Genetic modification of food has come under severe criticism from the scientific community as new health risks are being discovered. Do genetically modified vaccines carry any less risk? The study below outlines just a few of the unanswered questions about one of the genetically engineered vaccines currently in use, namely Gardasil®.

Dr. Sin Hang Lee of Milford Hospital recently published an article in The Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry entitled, Detection of human papillomavirus (HPV) L1 gene DNA possibly bound to particulate aluminum adjuvant in the HPV vaccine Gardasil®.

According to Dr. Lee’s research (sponsored by SaneVax Inc.), during the manufacture of Gardasil, Merck may have inadvertently created a new chemical compound composed of HPV L1 gene fragments chemically bound to the aluminum nanoparticles of the AAHS adjuvant used in the vaccine.

If this is true, the toxicity of this chemical has not been tested. No one knows what the potential health consequences the injection of this ‘ingredient’ may be.

Consider some key points extracted from the article by Dr. Lee:

A total of 16 samples of Gardasil® received from Australia, Bulgaria, France, India, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Spain and the United States were found to contain fragments of HPV-18-L1 gene DNA which was readily detected in 15 of 16 samples tested, or HPV-11-L1 gene DNA, or a mixture of both. After submission of the manuscript, HPV-16-L1 gene fragments were also detected among these samples by a special protocol, Dr. Lee noted in his report.

Dr. Lee stated:

“Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently announced that Gardasil® indeed does contain recombinant HPV L1-specific DNA fragments, the physical condition(s) of these HPV DNA fragments in the final vaccine product has not been characterized.”

Dr. Lee presented experimental evidence to assert that the binding mechanism between the HPV L1 gene DNA and the amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS) nanoparticles in Gardasil® is of a chemical nature through ligand exchange of phosphate for hydroxyl, independent of the electrostatic forces. When aluminum (Al3+) and DNA interact, the binding site for Al3+ on the DNA chains is the phosphate groups on the DNA backbones.

For the average medical consumer, if the bond between the DNA and aluminum were electrostatic, it would be much like when you rub a balloon against your head until the static electricity builds up to the point where you can stick the balloon to a wall. As you may have noticed, given a short period of time, the balloon loses the static electric charge and falls off the wall. This is much the same as a vaccine in which the bond between the antigen and adjuvant is electrostatic. Once the vaccine is injected, the recipient’s normal pH level reduces the electrostatic attraction making the antigen and adjuvant separate from each other.

On the other hand, if the bond between the DNA and aluminum is chemical, it is more like taking a blob of super-glue and sticking the balloon to the wall. In this instance, no one knows how long the bond will remain intact.

In light of this substantial difference, Dr. Lee concluded:

“The short-term and long-term impact of the residual fragments of HPV L1 gene DNA, or plasmid DNA, if chemically bound to the mineral aluminum of AAHS nanoparticles is largely unknown and warrants further investigation.”

In Sept 2011, the SaneVax Team informed the FDA that HPV DNA fragments had been found firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant in 100% of Gardasil samples tested by Dr. Sin Hang Lee of Milford Hospital.

The FDA response included the following statement with no references to back it up:

“Recombinant technology has been used for many years to manufacture medicinal products. Gardasil does contain HPV L1-specific DNA fragments. This is expected, since DNA encoding the HPV L1 gene is used in the vaccine manufacturing process to produce the virus-like particles. The presence of these expected DNA fragments, which are inevitable in vaccine production, is not a risk to vaccine recipients, is not harmful, and this DNA is not a contaminant.”

As you can clearly see, there is no mention whatsoever is made about these fragments possibly being firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant. The SaneVax Team as well as many eminent scientists and medical professionals around the world believe this ‘tiny’ detail should not be ignored.

If this ‘ingredient’ is indeed an ‘inevitable’ component of recombinant technology, medical consumers have a right to know when, for how long and under what circumstances it was tested for safety.

After an entire year of multiple communication attempts receiving no scientific documentation from the FDA that this ‘ingredient’ did not pose a health threat, the SaneVax Team sent another letter to the FDA Commissioner with one simple request.

This letter asked for copies of documents from the FDA showing:

1)    The date when the FDA and the manufacturer first knew small quantities of residual recombinant HPV L1-specific DNA fragments remain in the vaccine.

2)    The physical condition of the HPV- L1-specific DNA fragments in the Gardasil® vaccine.

To date, the FDA has made no effort to respond to this request. Do they have any documentation? If so, why do they not provide this critical information to medical consumers?

Surely, considering the fact that these fragments are an ‘inevitable’ component of recombinant technology, they have requested safety studies to determine any potential health impact. After all, they are responsible for the health and safety of medical consumers – aren’t they?

One more critical point:

Why did Merck not detect the residues of HPV-18-L1 gene DNA during the production of Gardasil®?

Dr. Lee offered the following explanation:

“…all HPV-18 isolates can be classified into 3 subtypes based on alignments of the DNA sequences of the variants, (i.e. the European, the Asian-American and the African subtypes). In Europe, it has been reported that all of the HPV-18 isolates from patients are found to be of the European or Asian-American variants. In the U.S., 91% of the HPV-18 isolates from white women are reported to be of the European and Asian-American variants, and 64% of the HPV isolates from African American women belong to the African variant.

Since the prevalence of the African variants of HPV-18 among European patients is negligible, the Dutch researchers who originally developed the HPV INNO-LIPA kit naturally selected an HPV-18 probe targeting a homologous sequence shared by all European and Asian-American HPV-18 variants for the testing.

However, the HPV-18 L1 protein-coding gene chosen by the manufacturer for Gardasil® closely related to an African subtype. Failure to detect a target sequence of an African variant HPV-18 DNA in the vaccine Gardasil® with a hybridization probe specifically designed for the European and Asian-American DNA variants may simply reflect the diversity of the L1 protein amino acid sequences within the genotype of HPV-18.”

For medical consumers, this brings additional questions. Has Gardasil® been tested for efficacy against all three HPV-18 variants?

Are families in the United States and Europe putting their children at risk of unknown health consequences resulting from the injection of a new chemical with untested toxicity in order to obtain ‘protection’ against only one type of oncogenic HPV?

The time has come for medical consumers to hold their national health ‘authorities’ accountable. These questions must be answered before any more children become ‘one less.’

(Note: Dr. Lee’s study was commissioned and sponsored by SaneVax Inc. for a future payment not to exceed one U.S. dollar.)

Vaccine-Induced Antibodies not Necessary to Fight Viruses

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | MARCH 28, 2012

Historically, the medical-pharmaceutical establishment have pushed vaccines as the miraculous solution for every single health problem that humans face. The pharmaceutical power houses came to the conclusion that vaccines were necessary because the body needed to build antibodies in order to fight disease and that vaccines were the best tool to ensure that the human immune system would have the capacity to produce such antibodies. As we already know, vaccines are at the very least ineffective, toxic cocktails of heavy metals and live viruses that not only don’t prevent disease, but that actually cause it.

Countless studies — please do your own research — have shown the relationship between vaccine ingredients such as mercury, squalene, adjuvants and medical conditions such as autism, cancer, conditions of the nervous system, brain injury, and so on. Medical professionals like Rossell Blaylock and Andrew Wakefield have spoken endlessly about the dangers that vaccines pose — as they are now produced and administered — to human health. But despite the numerous studies and warnings from uncompromised medical professionals, health authorities and pharmaceutical companies have always worked in unison to impose a criminal standard that everyone must be vaccinated for their own good.

Although most official government policies indicate that vaccines are properly tested and continuously monitored for side effects and reactions, most of those vaccines are tested and monitored by the vaccine producer, who then sends its findings to the “vigilant authorities”. These authorities then give the makers thumbs up to mass produce it and later recommend it and add it to the ever growing number of inoculations that people, especially children, must take from birth.

There is only one problem; a new problem, for the medical-pharmaceutical cartel: The Human body does not need vaccine produced antibodies to fight disease such as viruses, bacteria or other pathogens. Our human immune system actually has the capacity to produce natural antibodies which then work as defenses against disease. The human immune system is composed by original and constructed elements — created after a person is born and grows up — that work together to keep the body safe from illnesses without the need for artificially, lab-made products. This may come as a surprise to many, but it is not new for others who freely and independently educate themselves about ways to prevent and cure disease.

Current official vaccine science establishes that when a person is injected with a vaccine, the ingredients in it cause the body to respond to the vaccine as if it were a real attack from a virus or any other pathogen. The body then responds to this supposed attack by creating antibodies to deal with it. In the future, if the virus or organism attacks the person again, the immune system will know how to react and defend from the attack. This is explained as the immune system “learning” how to act in case of an infection. The problem is that “learning” how to fight disease is something the body already knows how to do, it is a natural ability, as so is its capacity to produce antibodies. What vaccine-induced antibody creation does is actually alter the natural response the human immune system has which in fact impairs the body to react to a disease that is not exactly the same as the one injected in our body through a vaccine. This is the case if the seasonal flu.

The flu virus is, due to the use of vaccines — an ever morphing organism that is NEVER the same. When people inject themselves with the seasonal flu vaccine that contains last year’s strain of the virus, the new strain does not have any problem penetrating a degrade immune system that is not only defenseless against it, but also incapable of dealing with the new version of the virus by itself.

This is where the study published in the Journal Immunity comes in handy. The study shows that vaccine induced antibodies are not able to fight disease by themselves, a feature that is only present in naturally occurring antibodies generated by our immune system. This is the fact that absolutely debunks the myth that vaccines are necessary to remain free of pesky viruses and bacteria that may cause disease. As in many other cases, the supposed scientific theory is just that; theory. As cited by the study, vaccines do not help prevent or combat infections. “Our findings contradict the current view that antibodies are absolutely required to survive infection with viruses like VSV (vesicular stomatitis virus), and establish an unexpected function for B cells as custodians of macrophages in antiviral immunity,” says Dr. Uldrich H. von Andrian from Harvard Medical School.

Dr. von Andrian added that “It will be important to further dissect the role of antibodies and interferons in immunity against similar viruses that attack the nervous system, such as rabies, West Nile virus, and Encephalitis.”

So if vaccines do not work as the pharmaceutical power houses advertise and if they impair the natural immune system from actually fighting disease, why are government agencies always recommending that we all use them? According to brain surgeon Russell Blaylock, vaccines inhibit the immune system from producing TH2-type cytokines on top of suppressing cellular immunity. The result of a weakened, useless immune system is a weaker human body that will not only be more vulnerable to get sick, but that will also take longer to recover, if it does. What the results of this study represent is the last nail in the coffin of vaccine pseudoscience. Vaccines have gone from being the best invention since the appearance of the wheel, to becoming a dangerous but necessary evil, to an ineffective method to fight disease.

Incredible as it sounds, such a common-sense controlled study comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated children has never been done in America for any vaccination,” says Dr. Phillip Incao MD. Dr. Incao is backed by many independent medical professionals, such as doctor Harold Buttram. There have never been any studies of this nature, and apparently none have been attempted,” says Dr. Buttram MD.

In addition to the information above, it is important to say that the current mandatory vaccination systems — there is no law that legally obligates anyone to take a vaccine — in almost all countries violate the  Nuremberg Code, the set of rules that all medical professional must follow, but that few implement when dealing with the use of vaccines.According to the Vaccine Adverse Reporting Systems (VAERS), there were  at least 2,142, confirmed deaths and 3,177 people permanently disabled from 1991-2001 from vaccinations. See Surveillance for Safety After Immunization. But in actuality, complete statistics show that the consequences are significantly worse. Deaths amount to between 21,420 – 142,800 deaths if one takes into account that only 1.5-10% of adverse events are reported.

According to the Global Vaccine Institute, vaccinations are responsible for causing disease such as AIDS, Cancer, Diabetes, Hearing/Vision Loss, Hepatitis B, MMR, Mumps, Polio, Rubella and Autism, without anyone ever demonstrating that a single vaccine cured any existing disease.

If you are curious to learn what are some of the ingredients used in the production of vaccines — many of which make their way into your body — please be courageous and see the list provided by the CDC here.

Vaccines NEVER helped decrease the incidence of any disease, much less to cure anyone.

 

You may share our original content as long as you respect our copyright policy as shown on our website footer. Please don’t cut articles from The Real Agenda to redistribute by email or post to the web if you don’t follow our policies.

Luis Miranda is the founder and editor of The Real Agenda. For more of his stories, subscribe to our article feed. You can also follow him on Twitter and Facebook. Email article ideas and insights through the Contact page.


Bill Gates wants to vaccinate 90 percent of the world

NaturalNews.com
May 22, 2011

The infamous Bill Gates is on a crusade to vaccinate the entire world. In a recent speech, the Microsoft guru-turned-humanitarian put pressure on the governments of the world to “prevent four million deaths by 2015, [and] … ten million deaths” by 2020. He believes this will happen by vaccinating at least 90 percent of the world’s population.

Gates has been an outspoken proponent of vaccinations for years. His organization, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, is constantly promoting vaccines anywhere and everywhere it can. The group’s website, in fact, says one of its goals is to vaccinate every single child on the planet, claiming that vaccines are “one of the most effective health interventions ever developed” (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/vacc…).

Among his many speeches, however, Gates has given conflicting information concerning the agenda behind his vaccination push. In his most recent speech, he claims vaccines will save lives. But in a speech he gave at a TED conference last year, Gates clearly stated that vaccines and health care were part of an equation to reduce the world’s population by 15 percent (http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_v…).

“The world today has 6.8 billion people … that’s headed up to about nine billion,” he said to his audience. “Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps ten or 15 percent.”

You can watch the actual clip of Gates saying this at the following link:

http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A…

So which is it? Do vaccines help to save lives or end lives? When considering that vaccines are loaded with toxic adjuvants and chemical preservatives, many of which are known to cause serious health problems, sterility, and even death, the latter conclusion makes a lot more sense (http://www.naturalnews.com/031820_v…).

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032475_Bill_Gates_vaccines.html#ixzz1N7ocphlN

IDflu: Sanofi-Pasteur’s Vaccine Cocktail

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
September 7, 2010

As The Real Agenda reported a few weeks ago, the globalists who created the fraudulent H1N1 influenza pandemic, widely recorded as such, are back hungrier than ever for more fraud and more dollars. Recently, the newspaper La Nacion of Costa Rica published an article concerning the availability of the new vaccine from the pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Pasteur called IDFlu. The article, like almost everything this newspaper publishes is full of lies and half truths, so I was forced to write an article that talks about the details that Irene Rodriguez, the newspaper’s writer, omitted.

This is the tiny needle used to inject IDflu which is sold as one of the new "conveniences" because the pinch people feel is not so painful.

I wrote her an e-mail describing the details that were omitted, although I do not expect her to re-write it with the information documented in the e-mail. “I read your article on the new vaccine from Sanofi- Pasteur called IDFlu. I am concerned about omission of important details about the vaccine.” These details are precisely those that are never described to the public and for which many people still believe it’s a great idea to get vaccinated continuously.

First, the vaccine is the first of several types that will be offered to the public as a “cocktail” with various viruses including the infamous H1N1. With this, the consumer no longer has the option to choose which vaccine he wants to use, but will have to take them all; all in one. This eliminates the right to choose. In fact, the vaccine contains three viruses:
A / New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1) like strain (A / New Caledonia/20/99 (IVR-116)) 9 micrograms HA, A/Wisconsin/67/2005 (H3N2 ) like strain (A/Wisconsin/67/2005 (NYMC X-161), 9 micrograms HA, B / Malaysia/2506/2004 like strain (B/Malaysia/2506/2004) 9 micrograms HA. View the original document descriptive of the vaccine.Page 32

Second, the article does not highlight the list of side effects, which are as severe as in other types of vaccines: Blood and lymphatic system disorders,encephalomyelitis (inflammation of the brain and spinal cord), Neuritis, Guillain Barre Syndrome, Inflammation of blood vessels, seizures, neurological diseases and immunogenicity, or the appearance of immunological reactions that usually end in partial or complete paralysis. Page 39

In addition, the article does not say that the clinical studies were conducted only from the time the vaccine is injected up to three weeks later, a period during which it is difficult to detect serious side effects, such as those cited above, (especially immunogenicity) because they usually occur after that period. The pharmaceutical company follow ups conveniently end at the end of six months, meaning that it does not carefully observes side effects that appear later. Therefore, Sanofi-Pasteur cannot say it can rule out serious side effects caused by the use of the vaccine, because monitoring is not done. However, Sanofi-Pasteur says that these effects are rare or nonexistent (Bottom of Page 4). Based on what does it make this observation? Not through scientific studies.

Third, according to the descriptive document that details the origin, manufacture and composition of the vaccine, clinical studies were conducted in European populations. In other words, any result obtained in these studies can not be used to prove the vaccine’s effectiveness or safety in other populations. How is it that the sale of a product that has not been studied to see its efficacy or risk of side effects in specific populations is allowed on the market? This question should be asked to your Department of Health.

Fourth, the results obtained regarding the safety of the vaccine for human use are based on animal studies (5.3 on page 6) and these studies, according to the pharmaceutical company, DO show immunogenicity.

Fifth, safety studies were not conducted after the vaccine was placed on the market and neither were incompatibility or clinical studies on the effects the vaccine may have on human motor skills, for example, to operating a vehicle equipment or machines, etc.

Finally, the vaccine contains formaldehyde, or formalin -in its liquid form-, a toxic ingredient used in vaccines and whose cumulative effect weakens the immune system, causes genetic alterations, metabolic acidosis, circulatory shock, respiratory failure and acute renal failure. Formalin is also a sensitizer, which means it can make you sensitive or allergic to many other things. It is corrosive if ingested, and is a possible carcinogen. In addition to the above, vaccines usually contain other ingredients such as thimerosal, squalene, adjuvants, sodium chloride, potassium chloride, disodium phosphate dihydrate and potassium dihydrogen phosphate.

However, the news about this vaccine are not its ingredients, but its behavior in the body. According to details contained in the official document, the vaccine is not injected into the muscle as traditionally done. Sanofi uses a new method, the intradermal. The exact dose of 0.1 ml is injected just under the skin, for more immediate action. Is it possible that the same speed with which such acts in the supposed task of immunization can be seen in the appearance of side effects? The pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Pasteur does not detail anything about it.

Perhaps the only positive side, specifically for Costa Ricans, is that health authorities are not going to buy the vaccine from the pharmaceutical company, at least for now, so those who want to inject the cocktail of viruses and formalin will have to take 24 dollars out of their pockets to buy it from local pharmacies. In this case, there is no taxpayer money for enriching the bank accounts of the corporation Sanofi-Pasteur.

World Health Organization Distributing Anti-fertility Vaccines

Jurriaan Maessen

In addition to the recent PrisonPlanet-exclusive Rockefeller Foundation Developed Vaccines For “Mass-Scale” Fertility Reduction — which outlines the Rockefeller Foundation’s efforts in the 1960s funding research into so-called “anti-fertility vaccines”– another series of documents has surfaced, proving beyond any doubt that the UN Population Fund, World Bank and World Health Organization picked up on it, further developing it under responsibility of a “Task Force on Vaccines for Fertility Regulation”.

Just four years after the Rockefeller Foundation launched massive funding-operations into anti-fertility vaccines, the Task Force was created under auspices of the World Health Organization, World Bank and UN Population Fund. Its mission, according to one of its members, to support:

basic and clinical research on the development of birth control vaccines directed against the gametes or the preimplantation embryo. These studies have involved the use of advanced procedures in peptide chemistry, hybridoma technology and molecular genetics as well as the evaluation of a number of novel approaches in general vaccinology. As a result of this international, collaborative effort, a prototype anti-HCG vaccine is now undergoing clinical testing, raising the prospect that a totally new family planning method may be available before the end of the current decade.

In regards to the scope of the Task Force’s jurisdiction, the Biotechnology and Development Monitor reported:

The Task Force acts as a global coordinating body for anti-fertility vaccine R&D in the various working groups and supports research on different approaches, such as anti-sperm and anti-ovum vaccines and vaccines designed to neutralize the biological functions of hCG. The Task Force has succeeded in developing a prototype of an anti-hCG-vaccine.

One of the Task Force members, P.D. Griffin, outlined the purpose and trajectory of these Fertility Regulating Vaccines. Griffin:

“The Task Force has continued to coordinate its research activities with other vaccine development programmes within WHO and with other international and national programmes engaged in the development of fertility regulating vaccines.”

Griffin also admitted to the fact that one of the purposes of the vaccines is the implementation in developing countries. Griffin:

“If vaccines could be developed which could safely and effectively inhibit fertility, without producing unacceptable side effects, they would be an attractive addition to the present armamentarium of fertility regulating methods and would be likely to have a significant impact on family planning programmes.”

Also, one of the advantages of the FRVs over “currently available methods of fertility regulation” the Task Force states, is the following (179):

“low manufacturing cost and ease of delivery within existing health services.”

Already in 1978, the WHO’s Task Force (then called Task Force on Immunological Methods for Fertility Regulation) underlined the usefulness of these vaccines in regards to the possibility of “large scale synthesis and manufacture” of the vaccine:

“The potential advantages of an immunological approach to fertility regulation can be summarized as follows: (a) the possibility of infrequent administration, possibly by paramedical personnel; (b) the use of antigens or antigen fragments, which are not pharmacologically active; and (c) in the case of antigens of known chemical structure, there is the possibility of large-scale synthesis and manufacture of vaccine at relatively low cost.

In 1976, the WHO Expanded Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction published a report, stating:

“In 1972 the Organization (…) expanded its programme of research in human reproduction to provide an international focus for an intensified effort to improve existing methods of fertility regulation, to develop new methods and to assist national authorities in devising the best ways of providing them on a continuing basis. The programme is closely integrated with other WHO research on the delivery of family planning care by health services, which in turn feeds into WHO’s technical assistance programme to governments at the service level.”

Although the term “Anti-Fertility Vaccine”, coined by the Rockefeller Foundation, was replaced by the more bureaucratic sounding “Fertility Regulating Vaccine (FRV), the programme was obviously the same. Besides, The time line shows conclusively that the WHO, UN Population Fund and World Bank continued on a path outlined by the Rockefellers in the late 1960s. By extensions, it proves that all these organization are perfectly interlocked, best captured under the header “Scientific Dictatorship”. The relationship between the WHO and the Rockefeller Foundation is intense. In the 1986 bulletin of the World Health Organization, this relationship is being described in some detail. While researching the effectiveness of “gossypol” as an “antifertility agent”, the bulletin states:

“The Rockefeller Foundation has supported limited clinical trials in China and small scale clinical studies in Brazil and Austria. The dose administered in the current Chinese trial has been reduced from 20 mg to 10-15 mg/day during the loading phase in order to see if severe oligospermia rather than consistent azoospermia would be adequate for an acceptable, non-toxic and reversible effect. Meanwhile, both the WHO human reproduction programme and the Rockefeller Foundation are supporting animal studies to better define the mechanism of action of gossypol.

In August of 1992, a series of meetings was held in Geneva, Switzerland, regarding “fertility regulating vaccines”. According to the document Fertility Regulating Vaccines (classified by the WHO with a limited distribution) present at those meetings were scientists and clinicians from all over the globe, including then biomedical researcher of the American Agency for International development, and current research-chief of USAID, Mr. Jeff Spieler.

In 1986 Mr. Spieler declared:

“A new approach to fertility regulation is the development of vaccines directed against human substances required for reproduction. Potential candidates for immunological interference include reproductive hormones, ovum and sperm antigens, and antigens derived from embryonic or fetal tissue.(…). An anti-fertility vaccine must be capable of safely and effectively inhibiting a human substance, which would need somehow to be rendered antigenic. A fertility-regulating vaccine, moreover, would have to produce and sustain effective immunity in at least 95% of the vaccinated population, a level of protection rarely achieved even with the most successful viral and bacterial vaccines. But while these challenges looked insuperable just a few years ago, recent advances in biotechnology- particularly in the fields of molecular biology, genetic engineering and monoclonal antibody production- are bringing antifertility vaccines into the realm of the feasible.”

“Vaccines interfering with sperm function and fertilization could be available for human testing by the early 1990s”, Spieler wrote.

In order for widespread use of these vaccines, Spieler writes, the vaccine must conquer “variations in individual responses to immunization with fertility-regulating vaccines”.

“Research”, he goes on to say,”is also needed in the field of “basic vaccinology”, to find the best carrier proteins, adjuvants, vehicles and delivery systems.”

In the 1992 document, the problem of “variations in individual responses” is also discussed:

“Because of the genetic diversity of human populations”, states the document, “immune responses to vaccines often show marked differences from one individual to another in terms of magnitude and duration. These differences may be partly or even completely overcome with appropriately engineered FRVs (Fertility Regulating Vaccines) and by improvements in our understanding of what is required to develop and control the immune response elicited by different vaccines.”

The picture emerging from these facts is clear. The WHO, as a global coordinating body, has since the early 70s continued the development of the Rockefeller-funded “anti-fertility vaccine”. What also is becoming clear, is that extensive research has been done to the delivery systems in which these anti-fertility components can be buried, such as regular anti-viral vaccines. It’s a mass-scale anti-fertilization programme with the aim of reducing the world’s population: a dream long cherished by the global elite.