“A few popular antibiotics affect DNA, similar to some chemotherapy agents. If you’re sensitive to them, you could pay a neurological price that causes sudden and serious neuropathy and degrees of brain damage. The Food and Drug Administration is concerned about drugs in the fluoroquinolone class, and these already have a black box warning for an increased risk of tendon ruptures. But I’m telling you that more reports have come in with accusations of neurological damage. Personally, I would only use these for life-threatening infections that were unresponsive to older, regular antibiotics.” –Suzy Cohen, RPh
It is not appropriate to give people cell-destroying chemotherapy drugs when they don’t have cancer. That should be obvious. It shouldn’t even need to be said. But it’s happening every day when people are prescribed fluoroquinolone antibiotics – Cipro/ciprofloxacin, Levaquin/levofloxacin, Floxin/ofloxacin and Avelox/moxifloxacin – to treat ear, bladder, prostate, sinus and other infections. Fluoroquinolones are chemotherapy drugs. They have just been mass marketed as antibiotics by the FDA.
--> Help Support CE: Become a member of CETV and get access to exclusive news and courses to help empower you to become an effective changemaker. Also, help us beat censorship! Click here to join.
You may be thinking something along the lines of, “WHAT? Cipro isn’t a chemo drug, it’s an antibiotic. Everyone knows that.”
Here are several reasons why Cipro, Levaquin, Floxin, Avelox and all other fluoroquinolones should be recognized as cell-destroying chemotherapy drugs:
- In an article published in the journal Urology, it was noted that, “Ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin exhibit significant time and dose-dependent cytotoxicity against transitional carcinoma cells.” That’s great – excellent, actually – if you happen to have carcinoma cells in your bladder. But if you just happen to have a bladder infection, chemo drugs that exhibit toxicity toward human cells – cancer or otherwise – are inappropriate for use (1).
- The mechanism for action for fluoroquinolones is that they are topoisomerase interrupters (2). Topoisomerases are enzymes that are necessary for DNA replication and reproduction. All of the other drugs that are topoisomerase interrupters are approved only for use as chemotherapeutic agents. It is only appropriate to use drugs that disrupt the process of DNA replication and reproduction when someone’s cells are already so messed up that they have cancer.
- Fluoroquinolones have been found to interfere with the DNA replication process for human mitochondria (3, 4, 5). Mitochondria are vital parts of our cells, (cellular energy is produced in our mitochondria), and disrupting the process through which mitochondrial DNA replicates causes cellular destruction, oxidative stress and disease.
- Fluoroquinolones have been shown to be genotoxic and to lead to chromosomal abnormalities in immune system cells (6). Hmmm… perhaps the uptick in autoimmune diseases can be explained by the destruction of immune system cells by fluoroquinolone antibiotics. Even if not, destruction of immune system cells is not an appropriate response to an ear infection.
- Fluoroquinolones disrupt cellular tubulin assembly (7). All of the other drugs that disrupt tubulin assembly are chemotherapeutic drugs. Again, it is only appropriate to use drugs that profoundly damage cells in extreme cases, and it’s never appropriate to use them on healthy people.
- Drugs that are derived from fluoroquinolones are chemotherapeutic drugs. Qinprezo/vosaroxin is an anti-cancer drug that is derived from quinolones (fluoroquinolones without the added fluorine atom).
I could go on. There are many, probably hundreds, of journal articles noting the deleterious effects of fluoroquinolones on human cells. The biochem in them is daunting though, so rather than going further with a list with terms such as “topoisomerase interrupter” and “tubulin assembly,” I’ll point you toward this video that describes how fluoroquinolones work –
Fluoroquinolones do the same thing to human mitochondria that they do to bacteria. Mitochondria are structurally very similar to bacteria and it is generally accepted that mitochondria are ancient bacteria that adapted to live symbiotically within eukaryotic cells a few billion years ago. Mitochondrial destruction leads to oxidative stress which leads to all sorts of chronic diseases – including the diseases of modernity such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome / M.E., autism, Gulf War Syndrome, Alzheimer’s Disease,Parkinson’s, diabetes, cancer and others.
THE FDA KNOWS HOW DANGEROUS THESE DRUGS ARE
The FDA knows that fluoroquinolones are dangerous drugs that cause mitochondrial dysfunction and cellular destruction, but they turn the other cheek and do NOTHING to curb the use of these dangerous drugs.
In their April 27, 2013 Pharmacovigilance Review, “Disabling Peripheral Neuropathy Associated with Systemic Fluoroquinolone Exposure,” (8) the FDA notes that the mechanism for action through which fluoroquinolones induce peripheral neuropathy is mitochondrial toxicity. The report states:
“Ciprofloxacin has been found to affect mammalian topoisomerase II, especially in mitochondria. In vitro studies in drug-treated mammalian cells found that nalidixic acid and ciprofloxacin cause a loss of motichondrial DNA (mtDNA), resulting in a decrease of mitochondrial respiration and an arrest in cell growth. Further analysis found protein-linked double-stranded DNA breaks in the mtDNA from ciprofloxacin-treated cells, suggesting that ciprofloxacin was targeting topoisomerase II activity in the mitochondria.”
The FDA approved the clinical trial for Qinprezo/vosaroxin, so THEY KNOW that quinolone derivative drugs are chemotherapeutic agents.
DISREGARD OF THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH
But the FDA won’t change their prescribing guidelines based on the large amount of evidence that fluoroquinolones are cell-destroying chemo drugs. Instead, they let doctors prescribe these dangerous drugs to people who are healthy other than an infection. Cancer drugs – drugs that hurt people – are being given to formerly healthy people to get rid of prostate and sinus infections.
It’s a ridiculous and obscene violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
Because both doctors and the FDA refuse to acknowledge that fluoroquinolones are chemo drugs, not “just” antibiotics, the adverse effects of these dangerous drugs aren’t recognized. Like all cell-destroying chemo drugs, fluoroquinolone induced cellular destruction leads to increased oxidative stress which causes multi-symptom, often chronic, illnesses. Fluoroquinolone toxicity syndrome looks and feels a lot like rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome / M.E., etc. The damage done to a person’s cardiovascular system (9) by fluoroquinolones can lead to heart attacks long after exposure to the drug has stopped. The depletion of magnesium from cells by fluoroquinolones can lead to type-2 diabetes (10). Most ironically, drug induced cellular destruction can cause cancer.
IGNORANCE ISN’T BLISS
Cellular destruction by drugs leads to illness. When it’s recognized that fluoroquinolones destroy cells, the connection between them and the multi-symptom, chronic illnesses that fluoroquinolone toxicity mimics, isn’t that hard to recognize.
But rather than recognizing how fluoroquinolones work (it says right on the label that their mechanism for action is interruption of topoisomerases), they are thought of as “just” antibiotics and thus the only adverse reactions that are recognized as connected with them are allergic reactions that send people to the emergency room.
Chemo drugs have long-lasting adverse effects. Often, adverse reactions to chemo drugs are delayed. There is a tolerance threshold for chemo drugs. Adverse reactions to chemo drugs are systemic. All of these things are true for fluoroquinolones (11).
If you suffer from disabling peripheral neuropathy, or brain fog, or destroyed cartilage, or any of the other adverse effects of fluoroquinolones that can be explained by the fact that they are chemo drugs, you may think that justice and retribution for your pain and suffering may be gained through suing the doctor that inappropriately gave you a chemotherapeutic drug when you didn’t have cancer. Unfortunately, success with a lawsuit is unlikely because doctors are prescribing dangerous chemo drugs to generally healthy people who have infections (and even prophylactically for traveler’s diarrhea) because fluoroquinolones are approved for those uses. The FDA negligently allows cell-destroying drugs to be given to people to treat simple infections and traveler’s diarrhea. The FDA allows fluoroquinolone chemo drugs to be given to KIDS (ciprodex ear drops are approved for children as young as 6 months old).
THE FDA ISN’T PROTECTING YOU FROM CELL-DESTROYING DRUGS
Do you want to take a cell destroying chemo drug when a relatively benign antibiotic in the cephalosporin or penicillin class could get rid of your infection? Do you want to give your child a chemo drug? Of course not – that’s ridiculous.
But the FDA isn’t keeping it from happening. They are looking the other way while more than 20 million prescriptions for fluoroquinolones are written each year. They aren’t making the connection between cell-destroying drugs (fluoroquinolones are a big culprit, but they’re not the only dangerous, cell-destroying drug) and the chronic diseases that plague us. They are not protecting the people from the pharmaceutical companies that want REO for their investors, not health for the world’s citizens. They are allowing the absurd situation of an acute problem – an infection – being converted into a chronic illness (fluoroquinolone toxicity syndrome and all the other diseases related to cellular destruction) by a chemo drug masquerading as an antibiotic.
- CIPRO, LEVAQUIN AND AVELOX ARE CHEMO DRUGS
- FLUOROQUINOLONE ANTIBIOTICS DAMAGE MITOCHONDRIA – FDA DOES LITTLE
- http://floxiehope.com – The author’s web site
- Urology, “Quinolone antibiotics: a potential adjunct to intravesical chemotherapy for bladder cancer.”
- FDA Warning Label for Cipro/Ciprofloxacin
- Science Translational Medicine, “Bactericidal Antibiotics Induce Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Oxidative Damage in Mammalian Cells”
- Mutation Research, “Ciprofloxacin: mammalian DNA topoisomerase type II poison in vivo”
- Molecular Pharmacology, “Delayed cytotoxicity and cleavage of mitochondrial DNA in ciprofloxacin-treated mammalian cells”
- Nepal Medical College Journal, “Genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of antibacterial drug, ciprofloxacin, on human lymphocytes in vitro”
- Current Medicinal Chemistry, “Recent Advances in the Discovery and Development of Quinolones and Analogs as Antitumor Agents.”
- Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, Pharmacovigilance Review, April 17, 2013, “Disabling Peripheral Neuropathy Associated with Systemic Fluoroquinolone Exposure”
- Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, “Quinolone-induced QT interval prolongation: a not-so-unexpected class effect”
- Medical Hypotheses, “Fluoroquinolone antibiotics and type 2 diabetes mellitus”
- Journal of Investigative Medicine HIGH IMPACT CASE REPORTS, “Permanent Peripheral Neuropathy: A Case Report on a Rare but Serious Debilitating Side-Effect of Fluoroquinolone Administration”
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
CDC Director: ‘Masks May Offer More Protection From COVID-19 Than The Vaccine’
- The Facts:
CDC director Robert Redfield said on Wednesday that wearing a mask might be "more guaranteed" to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine.
- Reflect On:
Why is there so much conflicting information out there? Why is it so difficult to arrive at any concrete truth? How does the politicization of science play a role?
What Happened: Centers For Disease Control (CDC) Director Robert Redfield recently stated that wearing a mask may be “more guaranteed” to protect an individual from the coronavirus than a vaccine. This calls into question the efficacy of the vaccine, which is set to make its way into the public domain at the end of this year, or shortly after that. We thought we’d cover this story to bring up the efficacy of vaccines in general, and the growing vaccine hesitancy that now exists within a number of people, scientists and physicians across the world.
“I’m not gonna comment directly about the president, but I am going to comment as the CDC director that face masks, these face masks, are the most important powerful public health tool we have.” – Redfield
Not long ago, many scientists presented facts about vaccines and vaccine safety at the recent Global Health Vaccine Safety summit hosted by the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. At the conference, Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project emphasized the issue of growing vaccine hesitancy.
The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen… still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider…”
Redfield’s comments came after President Trump downplayed the effectiveness of wearing mask, and Trump also stated that Covid would probably go away without a vaccine, referring to the concept of ‘herd immunity’ as practiced in Sweden, but has also been quite outspoken about the fact that a vaccine may arrive by November.
When it comes to the COVID vaccine, multiple clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines have shown severe reactions within 10 days after taking the vaccine. You can read more about that here. The US government and Yale University also recently collaborated in a clinical trial to determine the best messaging to persuade Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine. You can read more about that here.
Are Masks Effective?
Multiple studies have claimed to show definitively that mask-wearing effectively prevents transmission of the coronavirus, especially recent ones. This seems to be the general consensus and the information that’s come from our federal health regulatory agencies. There are also multiple studies calling the efficacy of masks into question. For example, a fairly recent study published in the New England Medical Journal by a group of Harvard doctors outlines how it’s already known that masks provide little to zero benefit when it comes to protection a public setting. According to them,
We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.
You can read more about that story here and find other complimenting studies.
When it comes to masks, there are multiple studies on both sides of the coin.
Then we have many experts around the world calling into question everything from masks to lockdown. For example, The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) recently published a report titled “Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) Compares COVID-19 to Previous Seasonal and Pandemic Flu Periods.” According to them, the infection/fatality rate of COVID-19 is 0.26%.
They are one of many who have emphasized this point.
More than 500 German doctors & scientists have signed on as representatives of an organization called the “Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee” to investigate what’s happening on our planet with regards to COVID-19, and also make similar points. You can read more about that story here.
Again, there are many examples from all over the world from various academics, doctors and scientists in the field.
This is why there is so much confusion surrounding this pandemic, because there is so much conflicting information that opposes what we are hearing from our health authorities. Furthermore, a lot of information that opposes the official narrative has been censored from social media platforms, also raising suspicion among the general public.
How Effective Are Vaccines?
Vaccines have been long claimed to be a miracle, and the most important health intervention for the sake of disease prevention of our time. But as mentioned above, vaccine hesitancy is growing, and it’s growing fast.
According to a study published in the journal EbioMedicine,
Over the past two decades several vaccine controversies have emerged in various countries, including France, inducing worries about severe adverse effects and eroding confidence in health authorities, experts, and science. These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. These two dimensions are at the core of the vaccine hesitancy (VH) observed in the general population. VH is defined as delay in acceptance of vaccination, or refusal, or even acceptance with doubts about its safety and benefits, with all these behaviors and attitudes varying according to context, vaccine, and personal profile, despite the availability of vaccine services. VH presents a challenge to physicians who must address their patients’ concerns about vaccines..
In the United States, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) shows what vaccines have resulted in deaths, injury, permanent disabilities and hospitalizations. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury act has also paid out nearly $4 billion dollars to families of vaccine injured children.
According to a MedAlerts, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths. What is even more disturbing about these numbers is that VAERS is a voluntary and passive reporting system that has been found to only capture 1% of adverse events.
The measles vaccine has also been plagued with a lack of effectiveness, with constant measles outbreaks in heavily vaccinated population pointing towards a failing vaccine. You can read more about that in-depth and access more science on it here. In 2015, nearly 40 percent of measles cases analyzed in the US were a result of the vaccine.
It’s not just the MMR vaccine that shows a lack of effectiveness. For example, a new study published in The Royal Society of Medicine is one of multiple studies over the years that has emerged questioning the efficacy of the HPV vaccine. The researchers conducted an appraisal of published phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials in relation to the prevention of cervical cancer and their analysis showed “the trials themselves generated significant uncertainties undermining claims of efficacy” in the data they used. The researchers emphasized that “it is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination prevents cervical cancer as trials were not designed to detect this outcome, which takes decades to develop.” The researchers point out that the trials used to test the vaccine may have “overestimated” the efficacy of the vaccine.
It’s one of multiple studies to call into question the efficacy and safety of the HPV vaccine. It’s also been responsible for multiple deaths and permanent disabilities.
Another point to make regarding vaccine injury is that data was collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month. This data was presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. This data comes 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) that found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million. You can access that report and read more about it here.
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
1 Million + People Download Study Showing Heavy Aluminum Deposits In Autistic Brains
- The Facts:
A landmark paper published in 2018 showing high amounts of aluminum in autistic brains has not been dowloaded more than 1 million times.
- Reflect On:
Why are federal health regulatory agencies ignoring the emerging science showing concerns with regards to injected aluminum? Why don't they address the concerns and conduct safety studies?
What Happened: In 2018, Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University, who is considered one of the world’s leading experts in aluminum toxicology, published a paper in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine & Biology showing very high amounts of aluminum in the brain tissue of people with autism. Exley has examined more than 100 brains, and the aluminum content in these people is some of the highest he has ever seen and raises new questions about the role of aluminum in the etiology of autism. Five people were used in the study, comprising of four males and one female, all between the ages of 14-50. Each of their brains contained what the authors considered unsafe and high amounts of aluminum compared to brain tissues of patients with other diseases where high brain aluminum content is common, like Alzheimer’s disease, for example.
It’s now been downloaded by more than 1 million people. The photo below was posted recently via his Instagram account.
Here is a summary of the study’s main findings:
-All five individuals had at least one brain tissue with a “pathologically significant” level of aluminum, defined as greater than or equal to 3.00 micrograms per gram of dry brain weight (μg/g dry wt). (Dr. Exley and colleagues developed categories to classify aluminum-related pathology after conducting other brain studies, wherein older adults who died healthy had less than 1 μg/g dry wt of brain aluminum.)
-Roughly two-thirds (67%) of all the tissue samples displayed a pathologically significant aluminum content.
-Aluminum levels were particularly high in the male brains, including in a 15-year-old boy with ASD who had the study’s single highest brain aluminum measurement (22.11 μg/g dry wt)—many times higher than the pathologically significant threshold and far greater than levels that might be considered as acceptable even for an aged adult.
-Some of the elevated aluminum levels rivaled the very high levels historically reported in victims of dialysis encephalopathy syndrome (a serious iatrogenic disorder resulting from aluminum-containing dialysis solutions).
-In males, most aluminum deposits were inside cells (80/129), whereas aluminum deposits in females were primarily extracellular (15/21). The majority of intracellular aluminum was inside non-neuronal cells (microglia and astrocytes).
-Aluminum was present in both grey matter (88 deposits) and white matter (62 deposits). (The brain’s grey matter serves to process information, while the white matter provides connectivity.)
-The researchers also identified aluminum-loaded lymphocytes in the meninges (the layers of protective tissue that surround the brain and spinal cord) and in similar inflammatory cells in the vasculature, furnishing evidence of aluminum’s entry into the brain “via immune cells circulating in the blood and lymph” and perhaps explaining how youth with ASD came to acquire such shockingly high levels of brain aluminum.
Following up this paper, Exely recently published recently published a paper titled “The role of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines raises issues that deserve independent, rigorous and honest science.” In their publication, they provide evidence for their position that “the safety of aluminium-based vaccine adjuvants, like that of any environmental factor presenting a risk of neurotoxicity and to which the young child is exposed, must be seriously evaluated without further delay, particularly at a time when the CDC is announcing a still increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders, of 1 child in 54 in the USA.”
In the interview below, Exley answers a lot of questions, but the part that caught my attention was:
We have looked at what happens to the aluminum adjuvant when it’s injected and we have shown that certain types of cells come to the injection site and take up the aluminum inside them. You know, these same cells we also see in the brain tissue in autism. So, for the first time we have a link that honestly I had never expected to find between aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines and that same aluminum potentially could be carried by those same cells across the blood brain barrier into the brain tissue where it could deposit the aluminum and produce a disease, Encephalopathy (brain damage), it could produce the more severe and disabling form of autism. This is a really shocking finding for us.
The interview is quite informative with regards to aluminum toxicology in general, but if you’re interested in the quote above, you can fast forward to the twelve minutes and thirty seconds mark.
Why This Is Important: There are many concerns being raised about aluminum in vaccines, and where that aluminum goes when it’s injected into the body. Multiple animal studies have now shown that when you inject aluminum, it doesn’t exit the body but travels to distant organs and eventually ends up in the brain where it’s detectable 1-10 years after injection. When we take in aluminum from our food or whatever however, the body does a great job of getting rid of it.
When you inject aluminum, it goes into a different compartment of your body. It doesn’t come into that same mechanism of excretion. So, and of course it can’t because that’s the whole idea of aluminum adjuvants, aluminum adjuvants are meant to stick around and allow that antigen to be presented over and over and over again persistently, otherwise you wouldn’t put an adjuvant in in the first place. It can’t be inert, because if it were inert it couldn’t do the things it does. It can’t be excreted because again it couldn’t provide that prolonged exposure of the antigen to your immune system. – Dr Christopher Shaw, University of British Columbia. (source)
Furthermore, federal health regulatory agencies have not appropriately studied the aluminum adjuvants mechanisms of action after injection, it’s simply been presumed safe after more than 90 years of use in various vaccines.
It’s also important to note that A group of scientists and physicians known as The Physicians For Informed Consent (PIC) have discovered a crucial math error in a FDA paper regarding the safety of aluminum in vaccines.
If you want to access the science and studies about injected aluminum not exiting the body, and more information about aluminum in vaccines in general, you can refer to THIS article, and THIS article I recently published on the subject that goes into more detail and provides more sources, science and exampels.
The Takeaway: When it comes to vaccine safety, why does mainstream media constantly point fingers and call those who have concerns “anti-vax conspiracy theorists?” Why don’t they ever address the science and concerns being raised that paint vaccines in a light that they’ve never been painted in? What’s going on here? Would more rigorous safety testing of our vaccines not be in the best interests of everybody? Who would ever oppose that and why?
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
CDC Virologist: OP Vaccine Has Created Polio Outbreaks
- The Facts:
According to Mark Pallansch, a CDC virologist, the oral polio vaccine has created more disease outbreaks than they've stopped. The oral polio vaccine is now responsible for many outbreaks across multiple countries.
- Reflect On:
Can these outbreaks caused by the oral polio vaccine really be brought under control by another vaccine used to combat the oral polio vaccine outbreaks? Is that such a good idea or is more caution warranted here?
This article has been updated and corrected.
What Happened: In 2019 Mark Pallansch, a virologists with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, told sciencemag.org that by using mOPV2 (oral polio vaccine), “we have now created more new emergences of the virus than we have stopped.” This is known as “vaccine-derived poliovirus.” Yes, you read that correctly, and it’s one of multiple examples of vaccines causing disease outbreaks. For example, A study published in 2017 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology found that “During the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees. Of the 194 measles sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences…” This means 37 percent of the cases analyzed were a result of the vaccine. You can read more about the measles and the MMR vaccine specifically, here.
Why This Is Important: The spread of the virus due to the oral vaccine is plaguing Africa,
The global initiative to eradicate polio is badly stuck, battling the virus on two fronts. New figures show the wild polio virus remains entrenched in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, its other holdout, where cases are surging. In Africa, meanwhile, the vaccine itself is spawning virulent strains. The leaders of the world’s biggest public health program are now admitting that success is not just around the corner—and intensively debating how to break the impasse. (source)
Children’s Health Defense explains,
The oral polio vaccine (OPV) is in use around the world and constitutes the “workhorse” of global polio eradication efforts due to its low cost and ease of administration. The OPV contains live but weakened polioviruses that match up to wild polioviruses. Vaccine researchers have long known that these OPV-derived viruses can themselves cause polio, particularly when they get “loose in the environment.” In settings with poor sanitation and iffy hygiene, the vaccine viruses can easily “find their way into water sources, and onto contaminated hands or foods,” where they can then launch a self-perpetuating chain of transmission. Researchers concede that an OPV virus “can very rapidly regain its strength if it starts spreading on its own,” acquiring “mutations that make it basically indistinguishable from the wild-type virus.” In other words, there is no meaningful difference between a wild and OPV-derived poliovirus “in terms of virulence and in terms of how the virus spreads.”
The oral vaccine has been causing outbreaks in multiple countries for a long time, in fact, it has been responsible for close to 90% of the vaccine-derived polioviruses circulating since the year 2000, but it was only recently when the World Health Organization (WHO) brought more attention to the issue via their website in September of this year.
In fact, between August 2019 and August 2020, there were 400 recorded cases of vaccine-derived polio in more than 20 countries worldwide
The Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), headed by the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation had scientists actually predict predict that some vaccine-virus-derived outbreaks would indeed occur, but they thought they could handle these outbreaks with another vaccine.
The frequency with which type 2 vaccine-derived outbreaks are occurring has far exceeded projections—and the rush to administer the new monovalent type 2 vaccine appears to be exacerbating rather than stemming the problem. In an astonishing admission, a CDC virologist has stated that due to the stop-gap use of the new type-2-only vaccine, “We have now created more new emergences of the virus than we have stopped.” Another vaccine expert has remarked, “if you just keep trickling in with a little bit of [monovalent] vaccine every time you think you have a problem all you’re doing is reseeding [more transmission chains].”
There had been no cases of wild poliovirus on the African continent since September 2016, but by July 2019, the WHO was cautioning that there was a high risk of ongoing type 2 vaccine virus spreading across Africa. Outbreak investigators have been documenting an uptick in circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2 in both human and environmental samples since mid-2017 (two years after the “switch”), generally obtaining human samples either from children presenting with acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) or from “healthy community contacts.” Although the WHO describes polio as just one of AFP’s possible causes, African labs have been isolating type 2 vaccine virus in case after case of AFP.
To date, surveillance reports have noted the presence of the vaccine-derived type 2 poliovirus in Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, and Somalia. In Nigeria, type 2 has spread from the north of the country to Lagos—Nigeria’s largest and most densely populated city. In Ghana, soon after investigators found type 2 vaccine viruses in sewage in the capital of Accra, a toddler 400 miles away was diagnosed with vaccine virus paralysis—representing Ghana’s “first ever” reported outbreak of type 2 vaccine-derived poliovirus.
And to think in Pakistan they were jailing parents who were refusing to give their children the oral polio vaccine, perhaps they still are?
Something else to consider: According to fact-checker Health Feedback, “Vaccination has been effective in eradicating polio from the vast majority of developing countries, preventing an estimated 16 million cases and 1.5 million deaths worldwide. While vaccine-derived polio cases do occur, they are very rare and can be avoided by improving sanitation and vaccine coverage in vulnerable communities.”
They go on to state that
While vaccine-derived polio cases currently exceed wild poliovirus cases, this is only because polio vaccination campaigns have eradicated the wild virus from the vast majority of countries. Only one of the three original strains of wild poliovirus remains. In contrast to the estimated 350,000 children paralyzed by polio in 1988, which is the year when the GPEI launched the vaccination program, the WHO reported only 539 polio cases worldwide in 2019. In the absence of the oral vaccine, the virus could have paralyzed more than 6.5 million children in the past ten years.
You can read more about what they have to say, about polio and the polio vaccine here.
The Takeaway: Why is so much credible information about the safety concerns regarding vaccines never addressed by the mainstream media? Why do they never address and counter the concerns, and why instead do they constantly use ridicule and terms like “anti-vax conspiracy theorists?” Would more rigorous safety testing of our vaccines not be in the best interests of everybody? Who would ever oppose that and why?
Related CE Article: Scientists Call For Safety Testing of Aluminum Based Vaccine Adjuvants
Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!
A Complete List of Alternatives To The Google Search Engine
We are living in a very interesting time, one in where we have a ‘ministry of truth’ that is quite...
Media Dead Silent As Award-Winning Journalist Crumbles The Myths Surrounding Julian Assange
Mark Davis, a well-known award-winning Australian investigative journalist, best known for his work on Dateline, has said that it’s the journalists...