Posted on 09/16/2011 9:35:34 AM PDT by Scythian
September 11, 2001
By Leslie Carol Botha
SANE Vax Inc.
Gardasil victim found to have HPV DNA in her blood 2 Years Post-Vaccination
13 different vaccine vials – 13 different lots of Gardasil from around the world tested
Results – 100% contamination with HPV Recombinant DNA.
SANE Vax Inc. contracted with an independent lab to test for contamination and found HPV recombinant DNA (rDNA) in 13 vaccine vials. The Gardasil vials with different lot numbers were from New Zealand, Australia, Spain, Poland, France and three states in the U.S. 100% of the samples tested positive for the presence of the genetically modified HPV DNA.
Dr. Sin Hang Lee, a pathologist at the Milford Hospital pathology laboratory well-known for using cutting-edge DNA sequencing for molecular diagnoses, was initially contracted to examine a single sample of Gardasil for possible contamination. This sample tested positive for recombinant HPV-11 and HPV-18 residues, both of which were firmly attached to the aluminum adjuvant.
In a certified letter mailed to FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg on August 29, 2011, SANE Vax Inc. requested ‘the FDA investigate the extent of the HPV DNA contamination in the Gardasil HPV4 vaccine currently on the market and take appropriate actions to ensure public safety regarding future shipments.’ 1.
Why Did SANE Vax Inc. Investigate Possible Gardasil Contamination?
The mother of a sexually naïve adolescent girl who developed acute onset Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis within 24 hours of her last injection of the Gardasil™ series contacted SANE Vax Inc. looking for more information.
In an effort to help her now very sick daughter the mother went to an MD practicing naturopath who conducted a toxicity test that eventually found HPV DNA in the girl’s blood. The significance of this finding is that it is highly unusual to find HPV DNA in the blood. HPV, if present in the body, exists in the epithelial (skin and mucosa) membranes. HPV or its DNA, by itself does not survive for any great length of time in the bloodstream. Why was the HPV DNA in her bloodstream two years post-vaccination?
Natural vs. Recombinant DNA
According to Dr. Lee, “‘Natural HPV DNA does not remain in the bloodstream for very long. However, the HPV DNA in Gardasil™ is not ‘natural’ DNA. It is a recombinant HPV DNA (rDNA) – genetically engineered – to be inserted into yeast cells for VLP (virus-like-particle) protein production. rDNA is known to behave differently from natural DNA. It may enter a human cell, especially in an inflammatory lesion caused by the effects of the aluminum adjuvant, via poorly understood mechanisms.
“Once a segment of recombinant DNA is inserted into a human cell, the consequences are hard to predict. It may be in the cell temporarily or stay there forever, with or without causing a mutation. Now the host cell contains human DNA as well as genetically engineered viral DNA.”
“There are so many misinformed posters on FR posting things about Gardisil and the scientific method that make them look like fools. Of course, most of them are arguing in order to smear a political candidate, and have no interest (or are incapable) of understanding these things. I’m just trying to keep some reality on this board.”
this goes beyond Perry and Bachmann. Many Americans are clueless about science and just don’t care. “Don’t bother studying math and science and getting A’s. That’s for nerds! Oh...why are the asians taking away all our high paying jobs...”
If you did a little research before posting, you would realize that Lyme disease is not Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Arthritis is a general term for inflammation of the joints.
Rheumatoid arthritis is a specific autoimmune disease, which is multifactoral and appears to have a genetic component. It most certainly is not caused by Gardasil.
“erased many personal slurs about your real world intelligence”
OK. Thanks for telling us that personal epithetery is what really motivates you inside.
Vaccines were once a great thing. They are now being used by people who mean more harm than good.
I prefer to hear this information, even though some would like to see it censored.
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/02/002bookchin.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/06/us-merck-rotavirus-idUSTRE6456B020100506?feedType=RSS
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/15/8/08-1511_article.htm
"Safe" means that there is an "acceptable" level of complications. Neither Merk nor the Federal Government ever claimed that there were no complications from using Guardasil nor that some of the complications are not serious. Polarizing the two sides in this debate over complications is silly. Of course there are complications and some of them have been serious, just like all vaccinations including hepatitis B and polio vacines. The point is whether or not the government, in this case a governor, should be able to order the vaccination of all young girls against a disease that is only sexually transmitted.
There are ways to evaluate literature, research and individuals.
When an article contains as many flat out errors as this one does, and refers to naturopaths, it’s very easy to discount.
I do not disagree. Your expertise is making that assessment in regard to this article is a 'single' issue. I will not accept the notion that the scientific world is pure as the wind driven snow when I have life's experiences that demonstrate otherwise. I have personally encountered physicians who act like some of these Perry porters, if they could they would line everyone of US up and inject every vaccine available, to physicians who stay calm and recommend which vaccine they 'personally' consider the best interest for the child given the age and surrounding. SO my experience tells me it is NOT a settled science.
The good news is that none of your articles has anything to do with Gardasil production. Yeast growth medium will not contain animal viruses, as the monkey, pig, or human culture media would.
As someone who might have received those contaminated vaccine sugar cubes, I’m not concerned. (Ahem, I’m not really that old:) 50 years and 98 million accidental test subjects are reassuring. The latest research seems to indicate that there really is no direct correlation between SV40 and mesotheliomas.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16963733
“”Several recent studies suggest that older detection methodologies were flawed, and the limitations of these methods could account for most, if not all, of the positive correlations of SV40 in human tumors to date. Although many people may have been exposed to SV40 by polio vaccination, there is inadequate evidence to support widespread SV40 infection in the population, increased tumor incidence in those individuals who received contaminated vaccine, or a direct role for SV40 in human cancer.””
You can double check me with a search on PubMed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
Your cdc link is to an article about an apparent natural genetic change in wild pertussis. There’s nothing in the article concerning vaccination.
“”Drug companies immune from liability? Ummmmmm. No.
What makes you think drug companies are immune from liability. Did they take a liability vaccine? ;)””
In answer to your smarmy questions: Ummmmmmm - maybe because I pay attention to such things. It pays to be informed.
Christian Science Monitor 2/22/11 excerpted:
PARENTS CAN’T SUE DRUG FIRMS WHEN VACCINES CAUSE HARM, SUPREME COURT SAYS....
Washington
The family of an infant who allegedly suffered a severe reaction to a vaccine may not sue the drugmaker for failing to update the vaccine with a newer, safer version, the US Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.
In a 6-to-2 decision, the high court said Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz’s lawsuit was preempted under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. The law grants drug companies immunity from certain lawsuits from injuries or deaths tied to vaccinations.
“We hold that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs who seek compensation for injury or death caused by vaccine side effects,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in the majority decision.
How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.
In a dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that, by preempting all design defect lawsuits by vaccine victims, the high court was imposing “its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress.”
The decision “leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing and distributing their products,” Justice Sotomayor wrote.
Millions of infant vaccines are safely administered each year throughout the United States. But government officials acknowledge that a small percentage of infants experience a severe negative reaction from a vaccine. In some cases the reaction can be fatal.
Faced with open-ended damages from lawsuits filed on behalf of those who suffer severe reactions from vaccines, drug manufacturers considered avoiding the vaccine market altogether.
In passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, Congress sought to strike a balance that would protect vaccine manufacturers from open-ended liability from private lawsuits while also creating a special fund to compensate those who suffer side effects from vaccines.
Roughly 100 to 200 claims for compensation are submitted each year to a special vaccine court. To date, the compensation fund has paid out $1.8 billion to 2,500 petitioners. The average award is about $750,000.
But compensation is only part of the Vaccine Injury Act’s purpose. Congress also sought to preempt lawsuits seeking open-ended money damages against vaccine manufacturers.
The problem with the law is that Congress did not specifically spell out which lawsuits may move forward in the courts against vaccinemakers and which must be dismissed.
The law says in part that no vaccine manufacturer shall be held liable for a vaccine-related injury or death “if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.”
Products liability law establishes three grounds for potential liability – if there is a defect in the manufacture, if there were inadequate warnings, or if there is a defective design.
~~~~~~~~~~~Check the record of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and see how many cases they even accept under their rules. They will report FEW cases submitted when they don’t take but a tiny fraction of them.~~~~~~~~~~
“”Naturopaths are quacks, who are illegal in Texas and only licensed in 15 states and DC. Even most Dem, corrupted State governments won’t license them””
Naturopaths are quacks? In your opinion maybe. You probably aren’t old enough to remember that chiropractors couldn’t be licensed years ago either.
You said that drug companies were immune from liability.
Not that vaccine makers under particular circumstances were immune to OPEN ENDED liability for supplying vaccines that were properly made, but that some children will have (due to genetic differences) an adverse reaction to.
Quite a bit of difference between the two statements, don’t you think?
That remark was beneath you.
“”Governors, legislatures, hell, even school districts all over the country must be in favor a “sex vaccines” for kids.””
Find me a governor, a legislator or a school board member who will go against the establishment. Extend that to the greatest pushers of all - pediatricians...
There are freepers who have been told, after refusing vaccinations for their children that they are good parents. Freepers who will tell you their own doctors tell them they will not vaccinate their children.
I don’t think they’re all dinosaurs like me who is now one of the oldest surviving generations from the 1930’s with my own and sibling’s children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren - vaccine free! Our parents took the first step. In the years that followed, we each had to fight our battles (in different states) with the bureaucracy over this subject if we intended to send our kids to public schools so I’m not exactly a novice on the issue of vaccinations.
“”Quite a bit of difference between the two statements, don’t you think?””
Since we were on the subject of vaccines for children, I thought you might be able to follow my post.......
I did follow it. You stated something well beyond the truth even for the limited case under discussion.
Drug companies are not immune from liability.
Vaccine makers are immune from open ended liability IF the vaccine was properly manufactured and was as safe as possible.
Yep, as an MD, Board certified Family Physician and an ethicist, I feel very comfortable stating that, unless they’ve first attained an MD or a DO, naturopaths are at best, no better than granny with her herbs and comforting hands. Most are quacks.
Chiropractors are not physicians, they are not allowed to prescribe medications, do surgery, or even sew up a cut.
Even dentists and nurses may receive credit for their prior study and practice when they enter med school. Not so for naturopaths or chiropractors.
“”Chiropractors are not physicians, they are not allowed to prescribe medications, do surgery, or even sew up a cut.””
Why state the obvious? I don’t know anyone, myself included who would go to a DC for such things....
You were the one comparing naturopaths and chiropractors.
“”You were the one comparing naturopaths and chiropractors””
Good grief - this thread has done some strange things to people!! The comment I made was in regard to “licensing” the two professions.... Did I compare the two? NO!!!
See post #42
I don’t get any vaccines, never had a flu shot, never had the flu, but know plenty of people that got very sick from the shot. If I ever get the flu I’ll get my immunity the old fashioned way by going through it just like we do colds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.