May 22, 2012
By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | MAY 22, 2012
It is quite normal to hesitate every time a new scientific study is published on a Journal. If there is one thing the public has learned about science in the past decade or so, is that even when it is exact science, there is always room for error. Sometimes errors that are purposely committed, as in the case of climate science. Despite living in an era of great technological and scientific advancement one can never be too cautious when stating a fact. Today, more than ever before, journalists and the public who read news articles need to do their own homework in order to assure the validity of the facts presented.
One particularity about scientific information is that when it serves a commercial purpose it is rapidly and recklessly put out for everyone to see, but when such information is not commercially valuable or makes science and scientific discoveries devolve, it is either not published or it is hidden in the back of the newspapers and magazines; often typed in with miniscule fonts. This is the case of the most recent study regarding the dangers of the vaccine created to prevent contagion with the HIV virus. I know I had to dig deep to find any information on this subject.
Vaccines, regardless of what most of the scientific community says, are toxic products whose use often brings with them unwanted side effects and in numerous occasions cause the death of a patient. The debate on vaccine toxicity and the dangers these products present to users is usually centered on two points. First, how can a vaccine directly cause disease or death, and second, how can a vaccine indirectly cause disease and death. Note that none of the points includes questioning how can a vaccine treat or cure a disease or a condition, to use two terms originating from the medical establishment. That is because it has never been demonstrated that a vaccine has helped treat or cure disease. In fact, the medical-military establishments are ever more eager to use vaccines as weapons, as supposed to medical solutions to real disease.
Merck’s Vaccine Fails in Trials
In the case of the HIV vaccine produced by Merck, which was being subjected to human studies, the results of follow-up observations prompted scientist to warn the public about the link between the vaccine and the increase in likelihood for men to get infected with the HIV virus. According to the study published on the Journal of Infectious Disease, Merck’s vaccine makes it more likely, not less, that some men would become infected with H.I.V. At this point, scientists conducting the trials claim they cannot tell why the vaccine increases the chances of infection, and simply say that men who have not been circumcised and who previously caught the virus of the common cold are two to four times more likely to get infected with HIV. It seems that the cold virus is used by Merck to produce the vaccine, so anyone who catches the same strain of the cold virus increase their chances of infection when compared to other men.
I am not a scientist or a doctor, but it seems to me this is a case where the cure is more dangerous than the disease. The issue with Merck’s vaccine is an old and well-known situation. Most, if not all vaccines, are made with ingredients that are dangerous to humans. The list is long, and those ingredients fall into the categories mentioned above: vaccines that cause damage directly and vaccines that trigger a chain reaction which causes disease. In the case of the HIV vaccine, the second scenario seems like a good place for the scientists in charge of the trial to continue to study further.
The use of a cold virus that in theory is not able to cause people to feel sick with a cold, contains one of the three genes of the HIV virus, a combination that intends to use the widely debunked scientific principle that by injecting a pathogen into the human body, the human immune system can be ’educated’ to cope with future infections caused by the same virus. Most, if not all scientific research is based on this same principle, no matter how long have pharmaceutical companies failed to produce one single vaccine that actually does what they claim it does: cure or treat disease. What is even more worrisome, is that in addition to swindling the public into trusting a product that does not perform as advertised, the pharmaceutical industry actually injects genes of the dangerous viruses they supposedly intend to curtail in order to prevent or treat disease.
“I really wish I could tell you why, but I can’t,” said Dr. Ann Duerr, vaccine specialist at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and who also led the new study. In a previous study, Merck had given the vaccine to a total of 778 male volunteers, a number that included men who had strong immunity against the ad5 cold virus (used to make the vaccine) and others who did not have such immunity. At the conclusion of the study, — and this is going by Merck’s published results, not independent analysis — 21 men who received the vaccine resulted infected with HIV, whereas only 9 were infected in the group of men who received placebo. The vaccine known as V520 is made with type 5 adenovirus that was genetically modified not to reproduce, so Merck and its scientists believe that the virus is at fault for the infections. This is a common way to go by the pharmaceutical companies, that is, to blame an ingredient in their vaccines for the failure in delivering the promised results. It is less common for scientists who work on vaccine production to blame the disease causing genes — in this case the HIV genes — for the infection. Such concession, I suppose, would further erode the credibility of the business as usual policy used to create vaccines.
Merck’s latest failure to create a ‘safe’ vaccine has been prompted the medical establishment to go out as true firefighters to try to save face. Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the US National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease, resorted to good old lies to validate the failure of vaccine medical research: “Historically, vaccines have been the most effective weapon against infectious diseases such as polio, measles, mumps and smallpox .”
Another Merck trial that included 3000 people in 9 countries was abruptly terminated in 2007 after the results showed no positive effects after injecting volunteers with the vaccine, and instead raised suspicion that they were becoming more susceptible to infection with HIV.
The latest of Merck’s medical trials included 1836 people. A total of 172 men who participated in the study ultimately became infected. Those men were highly immune to the ad5 virus and just in previous studies were cited as uncircumcised. According to Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the results “add credence to the belief that the effect was real” as he explains that the infections seen in volunteers could have been biological in origin.
Dr. Duerr, who in the past had no explanation to people getting infected with HIV after being injected with the vaccine now believes that men who had caught the adenovirus and had antibodies to it and a set of CD4 cells (white blood cells) had immune systems capable of recognizing such antibodies and more CD4 cells present in their blood. Dr. Duerr says that although it is a good thing to have more CD4 cells, in this case those cells are exactly what the genes from HIV virus will attack.
Objectively speaking, and taking Dr. Duerr’s word at face value, this is an example of how the scientific community experiments with the health and well-being of humanity, carrying out experiments based on outdated premises and principles and in the process, sometimes purposely, creates pharmaceutical products that cause disease, instead of treating or curing people. Clear proof of what seems to be complete ignorance about the final result of their experiment is Dr. Deurr’s conclusion about what her experiment accomplished: “the vaccine could have been creating what the military calls a “target-rich environment.” What a great analogy, since we now know that the Pentagon intends to use vaccines to lobotomize people as shown in a State Department video we reported on back in April.
Human Experiments Despite the Risks
The continuous failure by the scientific community to produce a vaccine that can treat or cure AIDS seems to make scientists bolder in their pursue of a breakthrough, to the point they continue to ignore the dangers volunteers and patients are exposed to when a pharmaceutical product with zero science to support it as well as a dubious future is created and used in humans. It seems as if scientists were experimenting with the intention of “seeing what may come out of their trials”, as supposed to expecting a number of definite results which they may have thought about while doing their research. Another example to support this view is that now the scientists behind the HIV vaccine will begin looking at using a chimpanzee virus to create another version of their vaccine. But wasn’t a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) the one credited for originating the AIDS epidemic? That is what much of the main stream scientific community accepts today.
Of course others who have investigated further into the origin of the HIV virus have learned that the infection came about through the Polio Vaccine, which was concocted by using a Simian Immunodeficiency Virus strain. As reported by journalist Edward Hooper, HIV was traced to the testing of an oral polio vaccine called Chat. This vaccine was given to about a million people in the Belgian Congo, Ruanda and Urundi in the late 1950s. The vaccine needed to be cultivated in living tissue, and Chat was grown in kidney cells taken from local chimps infected with SIVcmz. The outcome was the contamination of the vaccine and as a consequence the contamination of humans with HIV-1.
Origins of HIV
Perhaps the most outspoken person when it comes to the real origin of the HIV virus is Dr. Boyd E. Graves, who filed a Freedom of Information Act Request for the US to make public its Special Virus program, which he claims contains details about the creation of HIV. Dr. Graves put out a 1971 Special Virus Flow Chart that seems to explain the origin of many of the viruses known today to cause disease in humans. Among them is HIV. Supporting Dr. Graves position is a book called Full Disclosure, authored by Dr. Gary Glum, published in 1994, but obstructed from selling in bookshops by the US government. An extract from the book’s first chapter describes the origin of HIV:
AIDS was the result of a decades-long research program carried out in Chemical and Bacteriological Warfare labs in this country (USA) and others. For those involved, it is a triumph of science and the answer to what they regard as the planet’s most pressing problem: population control. AIDS is the perfect biological weapon. It can be confined with some degree of success to certain specific groups, and since the incubation period can be more than seven years, millions can be infected before the first person in the chain displays any symptoms.
Read more from Dr. Glumm’s censored book here.
A point that is often overlooked by the public and little reported by the media is, how can the medical establishment propose to look for a cure or a treatment for a disease caused by a virus or any other pathogen without being sure about the origin of such? This situation is true for HIV and AIDS. One only needs to watch the film House of Numbers to notice the lack of consensus about the origin, diagnosis and treatment of HIV. Doesn’t such uncertainty render any purported vaccine or pill useless?