[I]s anyone raising the question to our government about making something like a "mycoplasma weapon"? ... Why do we accept that they're doing this?

Given that Congress ratified the U.S.'s joining the Biological Weapons Convention back in 1989, why do you presume that they are?

A while back, I researched the mycoplasma/weapon idea as thoroughly as the internet allows and came to the conclusion that a mycoplasma weapon has indeed been pursued. Just my opinion on that - no first hand knowledge at all. Linda, I think people aren't protesting because they aren't aware of the possibility that our government is looking at a mycoplasma weapon. When news sources talked about the mycoplasma/GWS connection, they always discussed the probability that those traumatized PTSD veterans were just looking for someone to blame, and maybe the news people might have insinuated that there could have been toxic exposures on the ground at the time, but, of course those can be guarded against in the future. Some of the studies have pointed to toxic exposures on the ground as a possible explanation for GWS, but only a few researchers like Nicolson actually addressed the possibility of a mycoplasma weapon causing problems for veterans. Nicolson recounts the death of his boss by gunshot. He left Texas and his University research position because he didn't feel safe after that death. But, just like with the autism/vaccine conspiracy - the official government/media line is "nothing to see here other than what meets the eye, move along to issues that don't involve those crazy conspiracy theorists." The population doesn't want to know that they can't trust the government in matters of health, money, and power, so they actually do move along. Benedetta, I have been worried about genetically engineered viruses for years, but especially since I read Kent Heckenlively's and Judy Mikovitz' book on XMRV. It's a scary world, and I agree with Hawking that we should be worried about extermination due to advances in science and technology. Living arrangements in space won't help if we kill ourselves here on Earth first. We'll never make it to whatever cosmic disaster Hawking seems to be predicting in the future.

I forgot to mention that the suspicion about genetically modified mycoplasma and Gulf War Syndrome is that the Department of Defense was working on a mycoplasma weapon. It would be interesting to ask scientists who aren't involved in the vaccine issue to give us their thoughts on what they think Hawkings is referring to. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't say vaccines, but they might think he was referring to all the genetically modified viruses used in laboratory work. We all interpret from our own perspective.

Betty;
That was my thoughts too.

To David M Burd,

Thank you for your kind and encouraging words...they are greatly appreciated!

In my ongoing efforts to make a difference, I will be doing another interview with Jeanie Keltner next Wed., 1/27, from 12:00-1:00 PST. Last time, those who were not able to tune in to the radio station were able to listen in via a link on their website. Below is the information for anyone who would like to listen to the interview next week. Jeanie is an excellent interviewer who asks the questions and makes the connections we all long for MSM to ask and make.

KVMR FM 89.5
www.kvmr.org

Also, for those who would like to hear my 2 previous interviews with Jeanie Keltner, in Aug. and Sept. of 2015, here are those links here on AoA:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/09/laura-hayes-on-soapbox-about-mandatory-vaccines.html#comments (TV interview)

http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/10/radio-interview-with-laura-hayes-re-sb277-and-vaccine-mandates.html#comments (Radio interview, which was a few weeks before the TV interview)

Laura Hayes,

Some of your prior comments and major positions on vaccines' toxicities correctly cite how useless are the Vaccine Trials (all the Trials, that is) that compare a new-vaccine test cohort to a "placebo" cohort that do not use a true saline-only solution but actually employ another vaccine (or the new vaccine missing only the antigens but still having all the other chemical components, i.e. excipients).

Then the respective adverse outcomes are compared, and, Voila!, there is no difference.

Of course there is a clear rational conclusion to be reached: BOTH cohorts are equally poisoned. But the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of the CDC (or FDA) and Vaccine Advisory Council proceed to their rubber stamp approval after seeing negligible difference in the dead or crippled babies littering the two cohort floors. You can't make it up.

Thanks for your efforts and courage - you are indeed making a huge difference.

@CJG -"Vaccines are derived from INACTIVATED virus. They are designed to trigger an antibody response to protect the individual from future infection stemming from the actual virus. Maybe mention all of the facts next time."

Facts? CJG Your 'generalisation' is NOT 'factual' and is a blatant attempt to change the topic direction, away from the dangers of genetically engineered viruses in vaccines, and other potentially harmful substances and contaminants contained in vaccines.

For the record SOME vaccines, eg MMR vaccine, contain 'live' viruses. These are not 'inactivated' but 'attenuated' to weaken them, but they are still perfectly capable of infecting persons with weakened immune systems with diseases via 'shedding'.

Other vaccines, eg Meningococcal Meningitis and Pertussis vaccines are for bacterial infections; (bacteria and viruses are completely different micro-organisms). There is evidence Pertussis vaccine is no longer effective against evolving Pertussis bacteria. * See also Kapoore's post

Weirdly AIDS first appearedor became rampant in this same group that was targeted for the first hep b shots. . Wonder if getting the hepb shot somehow diminished the immune response to HIV in this group.

CJG,

The facts are there.

"Description:Rotarix is a genetically engineered vaccine made of LIVE ATTENUATED human rotaviruses."

"RotaTeq is a genetically engineered vaccine made of LIVE, ATTENUATED human-bovine hybridized reassortant rotaviruses."

The following is a page from Vaccines.gov, last updated July 2013:

"Types of Vaccines

Scientists take many approaches to designing vaccines against a microbe. These choices are typically based on fundamental information about the microbe, such as how it infects cells and how the immune system responds to it, as well as practical considerations, such as regions of the world where the vaccine would be used. The following are some of the options that researchers might pursue:

Live, attenuated vaccines
Inactivated vaccines
Subunit vaccines
Toxoid vaccines
Conjugate vaccines
DNA vaccines
Recombinant vector vaccines

LIVE, ATTENUATED VACCINES
Live, attenuated vaccines contain a version of the living microbe that has been weakened in the lab so it can’t cause disease. Because a live, attenuated vaccine is the closest thing to a natural infection, these vaccines are good “teachers” of the immune system: They elicit strong cellular and antibody responses and often confer lifelong immunity with only one or two doses.

Despite the advantages of live, attenuated vaccines, there are some downsides. It is the nature of living things to change, or mutate, and the organisms used in live, attenuated vaccines are no different. The remote possibility exists that an attenuated microbe in a vaccine could revert to a virulent form and cause disease. Also, not everyone can safely receive live, attenuated vaccines. For their own protection, people who have damaged or weakened immune systems—because they’ve undergone chemotherapy or have HIV, for example—cannot be given live vaccines.

Another limitation is that live, attenuated vaccines usually need to be refrigerated to stay potent. If the vaccine needs to be shipped overseas and stored by healthcare workers in developing countries that lack widespread refrigeration, a live vaccine may not be the best choice.

Live, attenuated vaccines are relatively easy to create for certain viruses. Vaccines against measles, mumps, and chickenpox, for example, are made by this method. Viruses are simple microbes containing a small number of genes, and scientists can therefore more readily control their characteristics. Viruses often are attenuated through a method of growing generations of them in cells in which they do not reproduce very well. This hostile environment takes the fight out of viruses: As they evolve to adapt to the new environment, they become weaker with respect to their natural host, human beings.

Live, attenuated vaccines are more difficult to create for bacteria. Bacteria have thousands of genes and thus are much harder to control. Scientists working on a live vaccine for a bacterium, however, might be able to use recombinant DNA technology to remove several key genes. This approach has been used to create a vaccine against the bacterium that causes cholera, Vibrio cholerae, although the live cholera vaccine has not been licensed in the United States.

INACTIVATED VACCINES
Scientists produce inactivated vaccines by killing the disease-causing microbe with chemicals, heat, or radiation. Such vaccines are more stable and safer than live vaccines: The dead microbes can’t mutate back to their disease-causing state. Inactivated vaccines usually don’t require refrigeration, and they can be easily stored and transported in a freeze-dried form, which makes them accessible to people in developing countries.

Most inactivated vaccines, however, stimulate a weaker immune system response than do live vaccines. So it would likely take several additional doses, or booster shots, to maintain a person’s immunity. This could be a drawback in areas where people don’t have regular access to health care and can’t get booster shots on time.

SUBUNIT VACCINES
Instead of the entire microbe, subunit vaccines include only the antigens that best stimulate the immune system. In some cases, these vaccines use epitopes—the very specific parts of the antigen that antibodies or T cells recognize and bind to. Because subunit vaccines contain only the essential antigens and not all the other molecules that make up the microbe, the chances of adverse reactions to the vaccine are lower.

Subunit vaccines can contain anywhere from 1 to 20 or more antigens. Of course, identifying which antigens best stimulate the immune system is a tricky, time-consuming process. Once scientists do that, however, they can make subunit vaccines in one of two ways:

They can grow the microbe in the laboratory and then use chemicals to break it apart and gather the important antigens.
They can manufacture the antigen molecules from the microbe using recombinant DNA technology. Vaccines produced this way are called “recombinant subunit vaccines.”
A recombinant subunit vaccine has been made for the hepatitis B virus. Scientists inserted hepatitis B genes that code for important antigens into common baker’s yeast. The yeast then produced the antigens, which the scientists collected and purified for use in the vaccine. Research is continuing on a recombinant subunit vaccine against hepatitis C virus.

TOXOID VACCINES
For bacteria that secrete toxins, or harmful chemicals, a toxoid vaccine might be the answer. These vaccines are used when a bacterial toxin is the main cause of illness. Scientists have found that they can inactivate toxins by treating them with formalin, a solution of formaldehyde and sterilized water. Such “detoxified” toxins, called toxoids, are safe for use in vaccines.

When the immune system receives a vaccine containing a harmless toxoid, it learns how to fight off the natural toxin. The immune system produces antibodies that lock onto and block the toxin. Vaccines against diphtheria and tetanus are examples of toxoid vaccines.

CONJUGATE VACCINES
If a bacterium possesses an outer coating of sugar molecules called polysaccharides, as many harmful bacteria do, researchers may try making a conjugate vaccine for it. Polysaccharide coatings disguise a bacterium’s antigens so that the immature immune systems of infants and younger children can’t recognize or respond to them. Conjugate vaccines, a special type of subunit vaccine, get around this problem.

When making a conjugate vaccine, scientists link antigens or toxoids from a microbe that an infant’s immune system can recognize to the polysaccharides. The linkage helps the immature immune system react to polysaccharide coatings and defend against the disease-causing bacterium.

The vaccine that protects against Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib) is a conjugate vaccine.

DNA VACCINES
Thumbnail of The Making of a DNA Vaccine Against West Nile Virus
The Making of a DNA Vaccine Against West Nile Virus.
View the illustration.
Credit: NIAID
Once the genes from a microbe have been analyzed, scientists could attempt to create a DNA vaccine against it.

Still in the experimental stages, these vaccines show great promise, and several types are being tested in humans. DNA vaccines take immunization to a new technological level. These vaccines dispense with both the whole organism and its parts and get right down to the essentials: the microbe’s genetic material. In particular, DNA vaccines use the genes that code for those all-important antigens.

Researchers have found that when the genes for a microbe’s antigens are introduced into the body, some cells will take up that DNA. The DNA then instructs those cells to make the antigen molecules. The cells secrete the antigens and display them on their surfaces. In other words, the body’s own cells become vaccine-making factories, creating the antigens necessary to stimulate the immune system.

A DNA vaccine against a microbe would evoke a strong antibody response to the free-floating antigen secreted by cells, and the vaccine also would stimulate a strong cellular response against the microbial antigens displayed on cell surfaces. The DNA vaccine couldn’t cause the disease because it wouldn’t contain the microbe, just copies of a few of its genes. In addition, DNA vaccines are relatively easy and inexpensive to design and produce.

So-called naked DNA vaccines consist of DNA that is administered directly into the body. These vaccines can be administered with a needle and syringe or with a needle-less device that uses high-pressure gas to shoot microscopic gold particles coated with DNA directly into cells. Sometimes, the DNA is mixed with molecules that facilitate its uptake by the body’s cells. Naked DNA vaccines being tested in humans include those against the viruses that cause influenza and herpes.

RECOMBINANT VECTOR VACCINES
Recombinant vector vaccines are experimental vaccines similar to DNA vaccines, but they use an attenuated virus or bacterium to introduce microbial DNA to cells of the body. “Vector” refers to the virus or bacterium used as the carrier.

In nature, viruses latch on to cells and inject their genetic material into them. In the lab, scientists have taken advantage of this process. They have figured out how to take the roomy genomes of certain harmless or attenuated viruses and insert portions of the genetic material from other microbes into them. The carrier viruses then ferry that microbial DNA to cells. Recombinant vector vaccines closely mimic a natural infection and therefore do a good job of stimulating the immune system.

Attenuated bacteria also can be used as vectors. In this case, the inserted genetic material causes the bacteria to display the antigens of other microbes on its surface. In effect, the harmless bacterium mimics a harmful microbe, provoking an immune response.

Researchers are working on both bacterial and viral-based recombinant vector vaccines for HIV, rabies, and measles.

LAST SYNDICATED: JULY 23, 2013
This content is brought to you by: The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)"

http://www.vaccines.gov/more_info/types/

Most Children did not need or benefit from a Hepatitis B vaccine but it was and is a big money maker. To this day parents have no idea that their newborn infant got this vaccine the very day they were born. I cannot tell you how many times I hear that a child developed Autism and never had vaccines. When I inform some parents that their child did have the vaccine, they are dismayed and shocked especially when they learn that the child has No Risks for it. The question is "How can a parent tell that the child was vaccinated (Without the medical records in front of them?) You can tell if your newborn was born with a 9 or 10 on the Apgar Scale and suddenly develops Jaundice and has to go under the lights. You can tell if all of a sudden your infant forgets how to suck the milk and tongue-thrusts instead, which means that they push the tongue out and cannot properly feed. If the baby screams, vomits, arches their back-these are potential early signs of a bad vaccine reaction-a predecessor to full blown Autism. Autism is most often Brain Encephalitis where the brain has swelled and leads to Physical Illnesses such as Hypotonia, gut and digestion problems, eye tracking problems, sensory problems and up to 50 different layers of illness.

Feyerabend.
"How to Defend Society Against Science".

Even when philosophers are wrong, they always fall closer to the truth than scientists.

Thank you, Linda 1, for this excellent article.

Reminds me (for the umpteenth time) of the complete lack of informed consent I received prior to ALL of my children's vaccinations...including whether they were receiving vaccines made from someone else's tainted and infected blood, or from some gruesome manmade mystery concoction produced by an immoral, profit-driven pharmaceutical company.

Of course doctors know that if they ever told patients/parents what's actually in the vaccines, how they are made, how they are not tested properly, how the powers that be have never bothered to compare the vaccinated to the unvaccinated, and how neither they nor the pharmaceutical companies are liable for the harm and/or death that will result from injecting poisons, toxins, human and animal viruses and retroviruses, etc., into them, that NO THINKING PERSON would say, "Yes, please. Poison me/my child."

What you write about today corresponds with an article on Dr. Mercola's website today:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/01/20/sugar-top-cause-cancer-surge.aspx?e_cid=20160120Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20160120Z1&et_cid=DM95420&et_rid=1321754716

In this article, there are 2 quotes commenting on the shamefulness and wrongness of not fully informing patients about the risks of cancer screenings and how minimal the touted benefits actually are from such screenings. I have copied them here:

"[T]hese tests avert just 1 breast cancer death for every 1,000 women screened. 'There used to be ads saying if a woman hadn't had a mammogram, she needed more than her breasts examined,' Prasad said. 'The fact that the medical profession promoted screening so strongly, when it was always a balancing act, when it was always a personal choice, is really shameful.'"

And, another by Gerd Gigerenzer, director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development notes that:

"Rather than pouring resources into 'megatrials' with a small chance of detecting a minimal overall mortality reduction, at the additional cost of harming large numbers of patients, we should invest in transparent information in the first place. It is time to change communication about cancer screening from dodgy persuasion into something straightforward."

Sound familiar, "dodgy persuasion" versus "something straightforward". Well, maybe it doesn't sound too familiar to those of us here, because in the world of vaccines, it's progressed from "dodgy persuasion" to FORCED VACCINATIONS WITH NO OPT OUT IN EXTORTION TO ATTEND SCHOOL AND/OR REMAIN EMPLOYED in a number of states, for a number of occupations, and for all military personnel. And in places that still allow for exemptions (as though we should have to formally opt out of risk-laden, potentially-fatal medical procedures for ourselves and/or our children, in a "free" country no less!), the "dodgy persuasion" is more often than not verbal abuse, loud berating, endless badgering, and people being told how stupid they are, and that they are in essence killing their children by not vaccinating them (the irony there is incredibly painful for those of us who have or know vaccine-injured and vaccine-killed children, family members, or friends).

Thank you, Linda1, for shining a spotlight on how we humans are doing ourselves in, including via the genetically engineered viruses used in vaccines. I will end by posting this spot-on comment by Dr. Andrew Moulden:

"What we have done to each other [with vaccines] has produced the most profound damage to humankind by humankind in the history of humanity."

He forgot to say antibiotic resistant bacteria... Sometimes I think those people way up high in the CDC have to be idiots. Every day they go to work to protect the American people from multiple threats of viruses and bacteria. They also make sure that these viruses are injected directly into the blood streams of infants and young children in order to go to school. They well know that one of the reasons that there are antibiotic resistant bacteria is overuse of antibiotics. So they overuse vaccines that contain bacteria like tetanus and whooping cough so the bacteria becomes resistant and the vaccines ineffective. Then they lie, lie, lie... and cite their lies as truth in front of Congressional inquiries. In the meantime the majority of doctors still must be living in some kind of cartoon land because they buy wholesale into whatever the CDC recommends...Despite the massive contradiction coming out of real science. SCREAM!

Genetic engineered viruses was just one on his kind of long list of things that will do us in.

"Hawking said most of the threats humans now face come from advances in science and technology, such as nuclear weapons and genetically engineered viruses"

I don't fear advances in "science and technology" as much as I fear the "scientists" and "bureaucracies" that see those "advances in science and technology" .. such as .. "genetically engineered viruses" ..as opportunities to serve their own vested interests .. most notably fame and fortune .. callously indifferent to the potential damage done to future generations to come.

The "bureaucratic" decision to "widen the market" for HEP B by recommending and approving it be given to infants within 12 hours of their birth .. is a perfect example of corporate and public health "bureaucracies" .. seizing the "opportunity" to act in their own vested interests .. deliberately introducing every newborn infant to a RISK .. up to and including death .. they ought never had faced.

This is LUNACY .. masquerading as SCIENCE .. the infants be damned.