Current Childhood Vaccine Programs
Previously published parts of this “Vaccine Overview” series reviewed the U.S. Congressional Hearings on Vaccine Safety (1999-December, 2004) which revealed gross deficiencies in vaccine safety testing by federal health bureaucracies (FDA, CDC, NIH, etc.), as defined by Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) and Quality of Evidence Ratings (QER).(2,3) Because of these deficiencies, we have no means of proving adverse vaccine reactions when they do occur. Since the growing patterns of adverse childhood health patterns have run parallel with increasing numbers of vaccines being administered (now up to 32 inoculations before school), it is reasonable and responsible to suspect a possible or likely causal relationship, and test this hypothesis. It is conceivable that adverse childhood health trends are accompanied by corresponding genetic compromise and hybridization. One potential source of this being large-scale vaccine contamination with retroviruses and their reverse transcriptase enzymes, capable of imprinting viral DNA into the genetics of children and future generations.
ARE CURRENT CHILDHOOD VACCINE PROGRAMS COMPROMISING THE GENETICS
OF PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS?
Harold E. Buttram
Previously published parts of this “Vaccine Overview” series reviewed the steadily increasing patterns of physical and mental health problems which have taken place since the relatively innocent times of the 1930s, largely involving the “4-A Disorders” (i.e., Autism, ADHD, Asthma, Allergies), now afflicting roughly one third of America’s children.(1) They also reviewed the U.S. Congressional Hearings on Vaccine Safety (1999-December, 2004) which revealed gross deficiencies in vaccine safety testing by federal health bureaucracies (FDA, CDC, NIH, etc.), as defined by Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) and Quality of Evidence Ratings (QER).(2,3)
Because of surveillance and reporting deficiencies, we have no means of proving adverse vaccine reactions when they do occur. Since the growing patterns of adverse childhood health patterns have run parallel with increasing numbers of vaccines being administered (now up to 32 inoculations before school), common sense would have us suspect a causal relationship.
From a conceptual standpoint it is inconceivable that these adverse childhood health trends are not accompanied by corresponding genetic compromise and hybridization, the sources of which would be large-scale vaccine contamination with retroviruses and their reverse transcriptase enzymes, capable of imprinting viral DNA into the genetics of our children.
Although the human immune system is of almost inconceivable complexity in its detailed functions, the basic principles are quite simple, which might be compared with a medieval castle with an outer mote, an outer wall with parapets, and an inner defense wall, all of which serve to protect the king (brain and nervous system) and queen (genetic system).
Following this model, the human immune system is divided into two major classes: Cellular Immunity, located in the mucous membranes of the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts and their respective lymph nodes (outer defenses), and Humoral Immunity, with production of antigen-specific antibodies by plasma cells in the bone marrow (inner defenses). For eons of time the mucous membranes of the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts have been the primary sites of infectious microbe entry into the body so that, of necessity, mucosal immunity has evolved as the primary defense system, with humoral immunity serving a secondary or backup role. As reviewed earlier, vaccines are reversing these roles, (4) attempting to substitute vaccine-induced humoral immunity for the far more efficient mucosal immunity, the latter in turn undergoing a process of “atrophy of disuse” as a result of this role-switching.
The present article addresses some of the known pathways whereby some viral vaccines may be implanting their genetic material into the DNA of our children, and of the possible consequences.
Grossly Overlooked Mutational Risks
Viral vaccines, composed of mainly genetic material, may pose as much, or even greater, potential risk for causing genetic hybridization than other forms of vaccines (i.e., live viral or attenuated vaccines). This warning is supported by a study reported in Viral Research, in which a nuclear polyhedrosis virus was sent through 24 serial passages of culture media resulting in both “genetic insertions into and deletions from the virus,” (5) suggesting a propensity of viruses to accept, carry, and transfer genetic material from host to host.
This research and consideration takes on more gravity when we consider the extent of foreign genetic contamination in current vaccines:
“Among the 32 vaccines in current use, 7 contain chick embryo fluid or protein, 3 contain cells from monkeys, 1 contains sheep’s red blood cells, 1 contains mouse serum, 1 contains material from guinea-pig embryos, and 4 have cells from human aborted fetal tissue.”(6)
Additional research shows that vaccines containing aluminum, the mercury-based preservative (Thimerosal), and formaldehyde, pose additional risks for prompting genetic mutations following intoxications.(6a-d)
As reviewed by Roberts in “The Dangerous Impurities of Vaccines:”
“In 1998 and 1999 scientists representing the World Health Organization (WHO) met with the senior vaccine regulatory scientists from the USA and UK at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Washington D.C. to discuss the safety of the manufacturing methods employed to produce vaccines. No journalists were present, but official transcripts were kept. What they record is that all the many experts that spoke expressed grave concern over the safety of the manufacturing process currently employed to make the licensed vaccines, such as MMR, flu, yellow fever, and polio. It was reported by leading experts that the vaccines could not be purified, were “primitive,” made on “crude materials,” and the manufacturers could not meet lowered government standards. WHO specialists reported the widespread and continuing presence in the MMR vaccine of chicken leucosis virus. Others spoke about the presence of foamy virus, many other viruses, toxins, foreign proteins, enzymes and possibly prions and oncogenes, (which, being of equal or smaller size than the desired viral vaccines, cannot be filtered out). Grave concerns were expressed about the levels of foreign residual DNA and RNA contaminating the vaccines. It was feared that this (contamination) could be causing cancers and autoimmune diseases.” (7, 8)
Immune Suppression as a Co-Factor in Mutagenesis
In addition to the proneness of viral vaccines to exchange and transfer genetic material from host to host, another danger is that viral vaccines are inherently immunosuppressive, as reflected in the fact that viral infections tend to lower white blood cell (WBC) counts in contrast to bacterial infections, which raise WBC counts. Furthermore, in the field of chemical toxicology it is universally recognized that combinations of toxins may bring exponential increases of toxicity; that is a combination of two chemicals may bring a 10-fold increase in toxicity, three chemicals 100-fold increases. (9, 10) This same principle almost certainly applies to the immunosuppressive effects of viral vaccines when administered in combination, as with the MMR vaccine, among which the measles vaccine is exceptionally immunosuppresive. (11-13)
Returning to the medieval castle model of the human immune system, it is probable that the powerful, immune-suppressant effects of viral vaccines, when given in combination, may paralyze first-line cellular (mucosal) immune defenses sufficiently to allow viral DNA-grafting to take place into the genetics of many infants.
Considering that these vaccines will also be carrying elements of foreign bovine (from gelatin), chicken, monkey, and human proteins, which will also be transplanted into infant genetics, it might not be far amiss to consider viruses as nature’s ultimate polluters, all the more insidious because the process remains unrecognized.
Retroviruses and Reverse Transcriptase
“A retrovirus is a virus that does not enter host cells with a DNA genome, but an RNA genome. The most common way the RNA genome is replicated is via the enzyme reverse transcriptase to make DNA out if its RNA genome. The DNA is then incorporated into the host’s genome by an integrase enzyme. The virus thereafter replicates as part of the host cell’s DNA. Retroviruses are enveloped viruses that belong to the viral family, Retroviridae.” (14)
“Reverse transcriptase, also known as RNA-dependent DNA polymerase, is an enzyme that transcribes single-stranded RNA into double-stranded DNA…Normal transcription involves synthesis of RNA from DNA; hence,
reverse transcription is the reverse of this.” (15)
It is not necessary to understand these technical terms to know their underlying meanings. As outlined in Dr. Sherri Tenpenny’s scholarly text, Fowl! Bird Flu: It’s Not What You Think:
“Because of the way reverse transcriptase works in living cells, it is possible that genetic material from chicken viruses (and other retroviruses) is being woven into human DNA, especially that of our children.” (16)
Known sources of retrovirus/reverse transcriptase contaminations include the avian leukosis virus subgroup E and endogenous avian virus in measles and mumps vaccines (17) the influenza vaccine, (18) the sources being traced back to cultures in fertilized chicken eggs.
M.G. Montinari and Immunogenetics
Dr. Montinari and colleagues are best known for investigating the relationship between postvaccine central nervous system (CNS) diseases and mutation of human leukocyte antigens, (HLA) which essentially strip the body’s brain and nerve tissues of their outer coating of myelin. (19) The HLA system is one which aids an individual’s immune system to differentiate that which is “self” from that which is “nonself.” Although the mechanisms are complex, it is a system which, during embryonic life, learns to recognize healthy or normal cells of the body as “self” so that these cells will remain unmolested by the search and destroy mechanisms of the immune system, leaving the immune system free to eliminate foreign invaders. Of special concern is the fact that the HLA system also carries an increased proneness to mutations, which may result in an impairment of self-recognition. This process may be the fundamental cause underlying autoimmune disorders, in which the immune system attacks the cells of its own body.
Montinari found that certain alleles of HLA (A3 and DR7) were more frequent in patients with postvaccine-induced illness, which implicates an immunogenetic basis for such illnesses. What caused much concern was that Montinari and other researchers implicated vaccine adjuvants (additives), such as mercury-containing Thimerosal, as causing genetic mutations by modifying the amino acids in presenting antigen proteins. (20-22)
Herpes Virus Integration with DNA Transferred from Parents to Babies
Based on a public release of 2-Sept-2008 from the University of Rochester Medical Center, new research has shown that some parents pass on the human herpes virus 6 (HHV6) to their children because it is integrated into the parental chromosomes. This is the first time a virus has been shown to become a part of the human DNA and then get passed to subsequent generations.
This unique form of congenital infection may be occurring in as many as 1 in 116 newborns according to the report. The long-term consequences for a child’s development and immune system are unknown. (23)
Since it is known that viral DNA can be engrafted into parental DNA and then passed on to subsequent generations, should we not be investigating today’s live virus vaccines from this standpoint and looking into the possible consequences?
Summary and Conclusions
As outlined above, there are several factors indicating a possibility that the soaring incidence of physical and mental illnesses among today’s children are causally related to current childhood vaccine programs. Primary among these is the large-scale contamination of the measles, mumps, and influenza vaccines with retroviruses capable of engrafting their genetics into the DNA of childhood recipients. This is rendered more likely because of the cavalier regard with which combinations of viral vaccines are now being administered, primarily involving the MMR vaccines, but conceivably also in combination with chicken pox and influenza vaccines in today’s vaccine schedules, in spite of the toxicology principle that combinations of toxins may bring exponential (10-fold or 100-fold) increases in toxicity.
With some of today’s routine viral vaccines known to be contaminated with retroviruses and administered under conditions likely to bring varying degrees of immune paralysis in the recipient, these are conditions under which genetic hybridization would appear to be likely or inevitable.
Admittedly, this is indirect evidence which does not constitute proof, but consider this: The steadily increasing patterns of physical and/or mental illnesses among American children show no signs of abating. Unless this issue is definitively addressed, at some future time the process will pass a point of no return socially and economically from the sheer numbers of incapacitated children.
America unquestionably has the scientific technology to work out the proof that is needed to mandate a reduction and modification of current vaccine programs. The question is whether or not we have the necessary insights and determination to do so.
1.Bock K. Stauth C. Healing the New Childhood Epidemics, Autism, ADHD, Asthma, Allergies. New York: Ballantine Books, 2007.
2.Donohoe M. Evidence-based medicine and Shaken Baby Syndrome. Part I: Literature Review, 1966-1998. American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 2003; 24:239-242.
3.Guyatt GH, Haynes RB, Jaesche RZ, Cook DJ, Green L, Naylor CD, User’s guides to the medical literature, XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the users’ guides to patient care. JAMA, 2008; 284(10): 290-6.
4.Buttram H. Current childhood vaccine programs: An overview with emphasis on the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine and of its compromising of the mucosal immune system, Medical Veritas, 2008; 5:1820-1827.
5.Kumar S, Miller IK. Effects of serial passage of Autographa californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus to cell culture. Virus Research, 1987; 7:335-49.
6.Rense.com’s List of Vaccine Ingredients; Vaccination Liberation Index; Co-factors in mutagenesis, see: http://www.springerlink.com/content/reaqqy3re1wy9xdu/. For aluminum in mutagenesis in plants, see: http://www.springerlink.com/content/reaqqy3re1wy9xdu/ For formaldehyde mutagenesis, see: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2C-3YTCCB5-H&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1136849680&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7af93b19de77aaf45fa7365c2f074bc8. For mercury mutagenesis, see: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/111091091/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
7.Roberts J. The dangerous impurities of vaccines. Medical Veritas, 2008; 5:1897-1905.
8.Available online at http://www.fda.gov/Cher/advisory/vrbp/vrbpmain.htm.
9.Schubert J, Riley EJ, Tyler SA. Combined effects in toxicology: A rapid systematic testing procedure: cadmium, mercury, and lead. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 1978; 4: 763-776.
10.Abou-Donia MB, Wilmarth KR, Ochme F, Jensen KF, and TI Kurt. Neurotoxicity resulting from coexposure to Pyridostigmine bromide, DEET, and Permithrin: Implications of Gulf War chemical exposures. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 1996; 48: 35-56.
11. Overfield T, Hammes IM, Depression of tuberculin reaction by viral (measles) vaccines. New England Journal of Medicine, 1964; 711:1294-1296.
12.Karp C, Wysocka M, Wakefield AJ, Mechanism of suppression of cell-mediated immunity by measles virus, Science, 1996; 273:228-231.
13.Kerdiles YM, Sellin Cl, Druelle J, Harvat B. Immunosuppression by measles virus: Role of viral proteins. Rev Medical Virology, 2006; 16:49-63.
14.Retrovirus – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, on the internet.
15.Reverse Transcriptase – the free encyclopedia, on the internet.
16.Tenpenny, Sherri J. Fowl! Bird Flu: It’s Not What You Think, NMA Media Press (Private Company) , 2006: 78.
17.Tsang SX, Switzer WM, Shanmugam V, Johnson JA, Goldsmith C, Wright A et al, Evidence of avian leucosis virus subgroup E and endogenous avian virus in measles and mumps vaccines derived from chicken cells: Investigation of transmission to vaccine recipients. Journal of Virology, 1999; 73: 5843-51.
18.Weiss R, RNA tumor viruses, RNA Tumor Viruses. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1982. pp 1109 – 1203.
19.Montinari, M.G., Favoino, B., Roberto, A., Diagnostic role of immunogenetics in post-vaccine diseases of the CNS: preliminary results. Mediterranean Journal of Surgery and Medicine, 1996; 4(2):69-72.
20.Miglore, L., and Niere, M. Evaluation of twelve potential aneuploidogenic chemicals by the in vitro human lymphocyte micronucleus assay, Toxicity in Vitro, 1991; 5(4):325-336.
21.Miller, B.M. and Adler, I.D., Aneuploid induction on mouse spermatocyte mutogenesis, Mutogenesis, 1992; 7(1):69-76.
22.Shrana, I. Mitosis and numerical chromosome aberration analyses in human lymphocytes: 10 known or suspected spindle poisons. Mutation Research, 1993; 187:57-60.
23.Based on Public Internet release dated 2-Sept-2008, a report which was issued from the Rochester University Medical Center entitled, “Virus Weaves Itself into the DNA Transferred from Parents to Babies,” which can be accessed under this title.