- Of particular note for anyone concerned about autism
are parental claims that the vaccines led immediately to intense reactions
in the children - screaming, severe diarrhea, seizures, etc.
-
- Work by Russell Blaylock, a neurosurgeon investigating
vaccination damage, points to cytokine reactivity as the inherent danger
in all vaccines and the responses he lists dovetail with autism (and other
disorders).
-
- "The flu virus is supposed to cause a "cytokine
storm," and this inflammatory overreaction is what causes the damage,
not the virus itself. This is interesting because all vaccines also cause
a cytokine storm, one that can last for decades. This is why vaccines are
linked to sudden death, joint pains, depression, weakness and fatigue,
mental cloudiness, seizures, neurological disorders, and autoimmune diseases.
(No one seems to be concerned about vaccine-caused cytokine storms, which
are, in fact, immunoexcitotoxicity.)"
-
- And yet developers of GMO-DNA vaccines applaud as a special
advantage, that GMO-DNA vaccines induce large cytokine reactions.
-
- Cytotoxic T-cell responses
-
- One of the greatest advantages of DNA vaccines is that
they are able to induce cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL) without the inherent
risk associated with live vaccines [creating the disease itself]. CTL responses
can be raised against immunodominant and immunorecessive CTL epitopes,[31] as
well as subdominant CTL epitopes,[21] in a manner which appears to
mimic natural infection. This may prove to be a useful tool in assessing
CTL epitopes of an antigen, and their role in providing immunity.
-
- Cytotoxic T-cells recognise small peptides (8-10 amino
acids) complexed to MHC class I molecules (Restifo et al., 1995).
These peptides are derived from endogenous cytosolic proteins which are
degraded and delivered to the nascent MHC class I molecule within the endoplasmic
reticulum (ER).[32] Targeting gene products directly to the ER
(by the addition of an amino-terminal insertion sequence)
should thus enhance CTL responses. This has been successfully demonstrated
using recombinant vaccinia viruses expressing influenzaproteins,[32] but
the principle should be applicable to DNA vaccines too. Targeting antigens
for intracellular degradation (and thus entry into the MHC class I pathway)
by the addition ofubiquitin signal sequences, or mutation of other
signal sequences, has also been shown to be effective at increasing CTL
responses.[16]
-
- CTL responses can also be enhanced by co-inoculation
with co-stimulatory molecules such as B7-1 or B7-2 for DNA vaccines against
influenza nucleoprotein,[31][33] or GM-CSF for DNA vaccines
against the murine malaria model P. yoelii.[34] Co-inoculation
with plasmids encoding co-stimulatory molecules IL-12 and TCA3 have also
been shown to increase CTL activity against HIV-1 and influenza nucleoprotein
antigens.[33][35]
-
- "Cytotoxic T cells usually kill virally infected
cells. However, they can also be stimulated to secrete antiviral cytokines
such as INF- and TNF-, which don't kill the cell but place severe limitations
on viral infection by down-regulating the expression of viral components.[45]
-
- "In general, co-administration of pro-inflammatory
agents (such as various interleukins, tumor necrosis factor, and GM-CSF)
plus TH2 inducing cytokines increase antibody responses, whereas pro-inflammatory
agents and TH1 inducing cytokines decrease humoral responses and increase
cytotoxic responses (which is more important in viral protection, for example).
Co-stimulatory molecules like B7-1, B7-2 and CD40L are also sometimes used.
-
-
- "... the potential toxicity of prolonged cytokine
expression has not been established, and in many commercially important
animal species, cytokine genes still need to be identified and isolated.
In addition, various plasmid encoded cytokines modulate the immune system
differently according to the time of delivery.
-
-
- "Plasmid DNA itself appears to have an adjuvant
effect on the immune system. Bacterially derived DNA has been found
to trigger innate immune defence mechanisms, the activation of dendritic
cells, and the production of TH1 cytokines.
-
-
- "DNA-primed immune responses can be boosted by the
administration of recombinant protein or recombinant poxviruses.
-
-
- As they stress the advantages of boosting cytokine production
in multiple areas, they admit not knowing THE most relevant thing they
must - the potential toxicity of what they are doing.
-
- Worse, any trust in their knowing the basic science behind
what they doing falls away in reading that "the actual mechanism
of DNA uptake is not known." But once must realize that GM0-DNA
vaccines are entirely about DNA uptake. This leaves their
complex, optimistic "scientific" assertions above under
a cloud since they admit not knowing the fundamental mechanism of what
they are attempting to achieve. They have gotten as far as genetically
engineered DNA which they want to insert into the body, to be taken up
by the body. But they have no idea how that would occur. And
all the methods for their introduction of the genetically engineered DNA
below show how crude their methods are to get that GMO material into the
cells, including a gun. (They use a "gene gun" in the same
primitive way to genetically engineer seeds, creating mutations.)
-
- It is important to realize that GMO-DNA vaccines arose
from a failed genetic experiment to begin with, and GMOs for food are associated
with diseases while the biotech developers said they were perfectly safe.
The companies involved have been lying, about safety, about great
humanitarian plans to feed the poor of the world. With GMO-DNA vaccines,
the promises are for health for the poor of the world, but health is drastically
declining, even in the US, and that decline may be related to vaccines.
-
- If one looks at the report of the basic methods of insertion,
one sees constant unknowns, along with dangers. Repeatedly they say
that the "response may not be the response required." And
if this is an industry article promoting GMO-DNA vaccines, one would reasonably
expect that dangers listed here are being minimized.
-
- Advantages and disadvantages of commonly used DNA vaccine
delivery methods
- Method of Delivery Advantage Disadvantage Intramuscular
or Intradermal injection
-
- No special delivery mechanism
- Permanent or semi-permanent expression
- pDNA spreads rapidly throughout the body
-
- Inefficient site for uptake due to morphology of muscle
tissue
- Relatively large amounts of DNA used
- Th1 response may not be the response required [What
response might it be? Might it be dangerous, bizarre, lethal?]
-
- Gene Gun
-
- DNA bombarded directly into cells
- Small amounts DNA
-
- Th2 response may not be the response required [What
response might it be? Might it be dangerous, bizarre, lethal?]
- Requires inert particles as carrier
-
- Jet injection
-
- No particles required
- DNA can be delivered to cells mm to cm below skin surface
-
- Significant shearing of DNA after high-pressure expulsion
[What do that mean about what gets into the body? Is it dangerous,
bizarre, lethal?]
- 10-fold lower expression, and lower immune response
- Requires large amounts of DNA (up to 300 g)
-
- Liposome-mediated delivery
-
- High levels of immune response can be generated
- Can increase transfection of intravenously delivered
pDNA
- Intravenously delivered liposome-DNA complexes can potentially
transfect all tissues
- Intranasally delivered liposome-DNA complexes can result
in expression in distal mucosa as well as nasal muscosa and the generation
of IgA antibodies
-
- Toxicity
- Ineffectiveness in serum
- Risk of disease or immune reactions
-
-
- However they attempt to get this material into the cells
of people and have DNA "uptake," and beyond their unknowns from
it, what is known is that they are shooting recombinant poxvirus, Mason-Pfizer
monkey virus, SV40, cytomegalovirus (CMV), synthetic introns, adenovirus, cationic liposome-DNA
preparations, biodegradablemicrospheres, attenuated Shigella or Listeria vectors
for oral administration to the intestinal mucosa, recombinant adenovirus
vectors, recombinant vaccinia viruses expressing influenza proteins
- mixtures of genetically engineered viruses and animal poxes.
-
-
- Advantages And Disadvantages Of Nucleic Acid-Based Immunization
-
- Advantages Disadvantages
-
- Subunit vaccination with no risk for infection[1]
- Antigen presentation by both MHC class I and class
II molecules[1]
- Able to polarise T-cell help toward type 1 or type 2[1]
- Immune response focused only on antigen of interest
- Ease of development and production[1]
- Stability of vaccine for storage and shipping
- Cost-effectiveness
- Obviates need for peptide synthesis, expression and purification
of recombinant proteins and the use of toxic adjuvants[8]
- Long-term persistence of immunogen[2]
- In vivo expression ensures protein more closely resembles
normal eukaryotic structure, with accompanying post-translational modifications[2]
-
- Limited to protein immunogens (not useful for non-protein
based antigens such as bacterial polysaccharides)
- Risk of affecting genes controlling cell growth
- Possibility of inducing antibody production against DNA
- Possibility of tolerance to the antigen (protein) produced
- Potential for atypical processing of bacterial and parasite
proteins[1]
-
-
- The table mention cost effectiveness, along with ease
of development, production, shipping and storage for the manufacturer along
with promises of what the vaccines can do, but the dangers are immense.
Three stand out.
-
- Risk of affecting genes controlling cell growth
- Possibility of inducing antibody production against DNA
- Potential for atypical processing of bacterial and parasite
proteins
-
-
- In the list of disadvantages (which they do not call
dangers), they mention immune reactions. That would include the cytokine
storm they are designing for maximum impact, an immune reaction that itself
can lead to "sudden death, joint pains, depression, weakness and fatigue,
mental cloudiness, seizures, neurological disorders, and autoimmune diseases."
(Blaylock)
|
