Cheesecake Factory Honors The Spirit of Christmas for Intellectually Disabled Young Adult
Why Doctors (and Newspaper Columnists) Rarely Dare to Question Vaccine Safety

CORVELVA VACCINEGATE: GSK's Infanrix Hexa Exposed

Corvelva vaccingateThe latest press release below from Italian organization that campaigns on vaccine rights,  which has just received a grant from the Italian National Order of Biologists to the fury of GSK funded scientists from Padua University.  Now read why.


###

When we started these analysis, from the metagenomics to the chemical ones, we had a lot of questions and we were only looking for answers… After these first results, more questions have arisen and so did the concerns!

The quali-quantitative analysis of organic compound is of great importance in the pharmacological field, as potential safety problems arise from the new production processes of biological drugs and from the complex structural and biological characteristics of these products.

In Infanrix Hexa we found

  • chemical contamination from the manufacturing process or cross-contamination with other manufacturing lines;
  • chemical toxins;
  • bacterial peptide toxins;
  • insoluble and indigestible macromolecule that reacts to the protein assay, but cannot be recognized by any protein databases.

We have not found:

  • Protein antigens of diphtheria toxoids, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, haemophylus influenzae B, Poliomyelitis 1-2-3;
  • Formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde, phenoxyethanol, antibiotic residues indicated in the composition;

In Infanrix Hexa there are six antigens

Tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis toxoids, D antigens of Poliomyelitis 1-2-3, hepatitis B proteins obtained with genetic engineering and Haemophylus polysaccharides chemically linked to tetanus toxoid as carrier. Toxoids are created by treatments with formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde that should remove toxicity keeping intact their ability to stimulate protective antibodies against original toxins.

We were expecting to find the three toxoids and the other antigens not modified by treatment with formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde, to separate the antigens from each other and to be digestible by the enzyme specific for proteins (trypsin). We have found instead a real polymer, insoluble and indigestible, that we supposed to be the set of antigens chemically bound together (has to be defined if this is present as an aggregate of the individual antigens or a single macromolecule), on which we can find in literature partial information regarding the single antigens.

This macromolecule could not be recognized in any way by the protein databases, and in fact it turned out to be a solid compound of an unknown chemical structure.

Proteins solubility and their digestion (i.e. the capacity to divide them into small peptide fragments) are two typical proteins characteristics that not only makes it possible to study them through some specific analysis methods but are also fundamental for the interaction with the immune system to create protective antibodies, because if the protein structure is heavily altered from the original one, the new antibodies result completely different from those that are able to attack the original antibodies causing illnesses.


Since this polymer we have encountered, derived from the antigenic mix, is not only different for its spatial conformation but it’s chemically different, so we can state that we are not facing antigens similar to the original ones but in the form of a compound with an unknown and unpredictable toxicity and efficacy.

Not only vaccine antigens have been not detected, there were also 65 signs of chemical contaminants of which only 35% is known, there are among these various processing residues and cross-contaminations from other manufacturing  lines, and their identification will be checked during the second level of the analytical study (i.e. with standard controls).

7 chemical toxins among these signals have also been identified, probably deriving from chemical contaminants of the manufacturing process or other manufacturing lines at the vaccine manufacturing site; these toxins have a structure that could probably be partially derived from the formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde and cyanogen bromide reaction with other chemical contaminants in the vaccine. We’d like to point out that the toxicity of many of these toxins have been confirmed and published in Pubchem or Toxnet and this poses important safety problems, issues and concerns.

From the protein and peptide fraction study, various free peptides of bacterial origin have been obtained probably coming from the bacterial culture cells used for the antigen extraction. Literature reports bacterial peptides as potential allergens 5 and also as capable of inducing autoimmune reactions 6 and these too put a safety issue that needs to be further clarified with the regulatory bodies.

Coming back to the two basic principles that have been our topic on this analysis path, we reaffirm what we have said in the recent interview on the scientific journal Nature: we are inquiring the vaccines efficacy and safety and we can't quite understand how it is possible to claim that this vaccine is even able to generate the 6 protective antibodies - reason why it is designed for - and furthermore to understand how this cluster made of 6 neurotoxic antigens bound together can be claimed as not toxic for newborns.

Infanrix Hexa hexavalent, as for the method we have commissioned, casts major doubts on both its effectiveness and on its safety…

One thing is for sure: we will not stop to proceed.

 Download: CORVELVA-Study-on-the-chemical-composition-profile-of-Infanrix-Hexa.pdf

References

  1. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2017 Jun 1;1054:80-92 - The combined use of analytical tools for exploring tetanus toxin and tetanus toxoid structures.
  2. Vaccine. 2007 Mar 8;25(12):2213-27. - Investigation of the detoxification mechanism of formaldehyde-treated tetanus toxin.
  3. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/
  4. https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/
  5. Int J Med Microbiol. 2018 Aug;308(6):738-750. - The quest for bacterial allergens.
  6. Front Microbiol. 2017 Oct 9;8:1938 - Morbid Sequences Suggest Molecular Mimicry between Microbial Peptides and Self-Antigens: A Possibility of Inciting Autoimmunity.

 

Comments

Morag

Official doubletalk hides serious problems with flu shot safety and effectiveness .
https/www.bmj.com/content/300/bmjk15/rr 5 Jan 2018

Rtp

I think Corvelva's analysis of the MMRV is more proof of the mystical magicalness of aluminium.

According to Eindecker, Al makes everything it touches invisible but the MMRV doesn't have Al so you would think that disproves his claim.

But I don't believe it does.

I think that Al is so mystical and magical it even makes vaccine ingredients invisible in vaccines that don't conatain aluminium.

One must always think like Eindecker. And Eindecker knows that no matter what we must always conclude vaccines are safe and effective

Jeannette Bishop

Apologies, I meant this to be the last paragraph copied, instead of duplicating:

"We repeat to better express the concept and we are begging you all to use our results very carefully: within Priorix Tetra vaccine the presence of the rubella virus has not been detected, except in one batch, but the quantity was so little as to make questionable it may give immunization. Instead if we consider that this vaccine is effective against Rubella, because 3 reads equal to 0.00008% of the total Rna are sufficient enough to determine a reaction in the organism, then this also applies to a long series of tumorigenic viruses, HIV, worms and bacteria, present in quantities equal to or greater than the Rubella virus."

Jeannette Bishop

https://www.corvelva.it/speciali-corvelva/analisi/vaccinegate-priorix-tetra-analysis-2nd-step-update.html

"It has been confirmed (as emerged in the previous phase) the presence of fetal DNA in large quantities, 1.7 μg in the first batch and 3.7 μg in the second batch, about 325 times higher than the maximum limit of 10 nanograms and 325,000 times higher than the minimum limit of 10 picograms...

"...there are no fragments of DNA inside this drug, but whole strands, with the presence of an entire genome.

"We have also confirmed that there is no presence of the rubella virus genome in the first batch and in the second batch; using a much more sensitive detection, we have found it in 3 reads, equal to 0.00008% of the total RNA viruses...

"...Can 3 reads, equal to 0.00008% of the total RNA viruses, create immunization? If so, then a very serious problem opens up on what you read below....

"Within the GlaxoSmithKline Priorix Tetra vaccine, Proteobacteria, Platyhelminthes worms and Nematoda, 10 more ssRNA viruses, Microviridae (bacterial viruses or phage) and numerous retroviruses including endogenous human and avian retroviruses, avian viruses, human immunodeficiency virus and immunodeficiency virus of monkeys (fragments that if inserted into the database turn out to be fragments of HIV and SIV), murine virus, horse infectious anemia virus, lymphoproliferative disease virus, Rous sarcoma virus. Other viruses like alphaendornavirus and hepatitis b virus, yeast virus.

"Within the GlaxoSmithKline Priorix Tetra vaccine, Proteobacteria, Platyhelminthes worms and Nematoda, 10 more ssRNA viruses, Microviridae (bacterial viruses or phage) and numerous retroviruses including endogenous human and avian retroviruses, avian viruses, human immunodeficiency virus and immunodeficiency virus of monkeys (fragments that if inserted into the database turn out to be fragments of HIV and SIV), murine virus, horse infectious anemia virus, lymphoproliferative disease virus, Rous sarcoma virus. Other viruses like alphaendornavirus and hepatitis b virus, yeast virus."

Susan Welch

https://vactruth.com/2018/05/30/fertility-regulating-vaccines-india/

Here is an article from May this year for you to refute, Eindecker.

Angus Files

Just forget the scientific facts that 15 year olds brains who lived and died autism, have more aluminium in their brains than 80 plus year old severe chronic Alzheimer's brains.
According to the pharma double speak Orwellian book of Eindecker Autism,Aluminium antigens in brains,are not to be found because aluminium vanishes its a vanisher. and if found it never ever ,100% certainly never came from vaccines, that`s for sure...Bah Humbug!!

Aluminium et Autisme : la découverte du Pr Christopher Exley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0TahxmLBnw

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

Rtp

"So it's hardly surprising that the Corvelva test failed to find anything, the trypsin enzyme just didn't have access to the antigens, the method may work on antigens in free solution but it's almost certainly (OOPS sorry Barry) not been validated for this application with antigens complexed with an adjuvant."

This is brilliant!

The reason the antigens can't be found isnt because they're not there it's because Aluminum makes things magical so they become invisible.

Has Eindecker finally found the secret to invisibility? According to Eindecker aluminum foil doesn't just protect us from alien probes it actually makes us invisible!

Eindeker

Hera here's an excellent review on adjuvants https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967670/ the title says it all "Working together: interactions between vaccine antigens and adjuvants" There are several types of adjuvant, the essential feature of all these adjuvants is that they enable the antigens to undergo a slow release, so that the antogens are not rapidly eliminated from the body. In the case of aluminium salt adjuvants the antigens are embedded in a honeycomb type matrix of the insoluble aluminium adjuvant aggregate. So it's hardly surprising that the Corvelva test failed to find anything, the trypsin enzyme just didn't have access to the antigens, the method may work on antigens in free solution but it's almost certainly (OOPS sorry Barry) not been validated for this application with antigens complexed with an adjuvant.

Jenny there appears to be a shortage of the >65 flu vaccine version in the UK, so can’t be that many people refusing it http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/clinical/immunisation/70-of-gps-unable-to-secure-enough-flu-vaccine-for-over-65s/20037786.article “70% of GPs unable to secure enough flu vaccine for over-65s” I wouldn’t worry about squalene, here’s a meta analysis conducted on flu vaccines using squalene and non-squalene adjuvants https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X09013103?via%3Dihub and no squalene was not in vaccines given to participants in the Gulf war, minute amounts detected in studies were shown to come from contaminated laboratory glassware file:///C:/Users/Family/Downloads/Anthrax%20and%20Squalene%20QA.pdf Also see https://cvi.asm.org/content/13/9/1010we demonstrated that antisqualene antibodies are frequently detectable at very low titers in the sera of subjects who were never immunized with vaccines containing squalene. More importantly, vaccination with a subunit influenza vaccine with the MF59 adjuvant neither induced antisqualene antibodies nor enhanced preexisting antisqualene antibody titers.

Angus Files

Welcome Gary, just like vaccines when its in there how do you get it out...

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

Gary Ogden

Angus: Thanks for the lovely music. Best solstice ever!

Hera

Hi Eindecker,
yes, I understand that the aluminium adjuvant is not an antigen; thank you though. However, the question was actually more specific; have studies shown that the macromolecule creates the same antibodies as the individual antigens?
It is common that macromolecules ( molecules combined) have different properties from their components. To give a well known example, copied from a basic google search

What is the difference between steel and iron? Iron is an element whereas steel is an alloy (Iron + carbon). Addition of carbon to iron changes its property. The iron that contains less than 2% of carbon is called steel whereas which contain more than 2% of carbon is known as pig iron.

Hope this explains why I am asking for studies specific to the efficacy of the macromolecule.

Hans Litten

Page 206 Forrest Maready Crooked: Man-made disease explained

As it so happens, vaccines are administered in such a way they cause both triggers for immune activation in the dorsal vagal complex - and many of them simultaneously introduce the very ingredient you wouldn't ever want to get transported into that area. It seemed like the perfect crime -
as if someone had purposefully designed this event to cause neurological damage.

Jenny Allan

"So you don't get antibodies against the aluminium adjuvant, but as an adjuvant complexed with a weak antigen it provokes a stronger reaction to the weakly stimulating antigen, that's how adjuvant works."
Absolutely correct Eindecker. Top of the class!

Of course that does NOT mean the adjuvant is safe or even effective. In the UK the over 65s are refusing in droves the new super duper 'adjuvanted' Influenza jab with Squalene . Us oldies have stopped believing all the hype surrounding the flu jabs.

Angus Files

Nothing to crow or be pro about what says you Eindecker and Chop.


Aluminum in Vaccines: What Everyone Needs to Know

https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/vaccinations/aluminum-in-vaccines-what-everyone-needs-to-know/

“Vaccines: What Is There to Be ‘Pro’ About?”

SAFETY STUDIES
If you were to ask the FDA or the CDC which studies they use to determine the safety and recommendation of injectable aluminum, they would refer you to the only study done by an FDA scientist. “Updated Aluminum Pharmacokinetics Following Infant Exposures Through Diet and Vaccination,” by Dr. Robert J. Mitkus was published October 2011 in the journal Vaccine. While the title may sound impressive, this study was heavily flawed. Mitkus tested infused intravenously (rather than injected) aluminum citrate (rather than aluminum hydroxide) into adults (rather than infants). As J.B. Handley, co-founder of Generation Rescue, wrote, “Dr. Mitkus’ study is somewhere between a professional disgrace and a fraudulent disaster. In no other drug on the planet (except for vaccines) would safety standards ever be determined without using the actual product (aluminum hydroxide) administered the proper way (intramuscular injection) into the proper patient population (infants).”

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

Morag

Alliance for Natural Health -Home
https/www.anhinternational.org
Professor Peter Gotzsche,is raising money for Scientific Freedom via@go fund me .
I hope the fairy godmother donates lots of cash to this determined good cause!
Industry funded stragglers gan go and organise a "Beechams Powder" PRN for the headache that's going to bring to the commercial scientific sector, with a big aversion, for scientific honesty, transparency, and integrity?

Barry

John/Hera Do you really want to understand what almost certainly is the explanation to the Corvelva results?

*********
Definition of almost : very near but not quite
Definition of certainly: Undoubtedly; definitely

What does 'almost certainly' even mean? Is that the current 'scientific' position on vaccines .... that you know, they're 'almost certainly' safe and effective? Nudge nudge, wink wink.

I don't know how you expect to be taken seriously as a scientist, if you're going to introduce your expertise with wishy-washy language like that.

I can't speak for anyone else , but I can definitely tell you that when I saw you lead with language that... I didn't read another word that you had to say

Eindeker

Hera aluminium is not an antigen on it's own, so you don't get antibodies against the aluminium adjuvant, but as an adjuvant complexed with a weak antigen it provokes a stronger reaction to the weakly stimulating antigen, that's how adjuvant works "late 16th century: from Latin adjuvant- ‘helping towards’, from the verb adjuvare, from ad- ‘towards’ + juvare to ‘help’.

Angus Files

Nothing to crow about or be pro about ..the pharma crows are not crowing.

Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzCdQbxgkAQ

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

Hera

Eindecker; are there studies showing that the aluminium containing macromolecule confers the same antibodies as each of the single antigens?

Jeannette Bishop

If GSK were to sue CORVELVA, presumably for this...

"Proteins solubility and their digestion (i.e. the capacity to divide them into small peptide fragments) are two typical proteins characteristics that not only makes it possible to study them through some specific analysis methods but are also fundamental for the interaction with the immune system to create protective antibodies, because if the protein structure is heavily altered from the original one, the new antibodies result completely different from those that are able to attack the original antibodies causing illnesses.


"Since this polymer we have encountered, derived from the antigenic mix, is not only different for its spatial conformation but it’s chemically different, so we can state that we are not facing antigens similar to the original ones but in the form of a compound with an unknown and unpredictable toxicity and efficacy."

...and not for finding all the contaminants they found (which would probably seem absurd and dubious to all), then would discovery allow the public to see exactly what documents are in the vaults of GSK that establish Infanrix Hexa's safety and efficacy?

Susan Welch

Eindecker,

Many of us wish we could sue GSK, Merck.........

But we can't.

Eindeker

John/Hera Do you really want to understand what almost certainly is the explanation to the Corvelva results?

The technique they used for the detecting the protein components (Toxoids, & other protein antigens) was to digest them with trypsin, a proteolytic enzyme, and then look for characteristic patterns amongst the digested proteins that would indicate the presence of a given toxoid, don't take my word for it it's here from Corvelva " to separate the antigens from each other and to be digestible by the enzyme specific for proteins (trypsin). We have found instead a real polymer, insoluble and indigestible, that we supposed to be the set of antigens chemically bound together (has to be defined if this is present as an aggregate of the individual antigens or a single macromolecule), on which we can find in literature partial information regarding the single antigens"

Please note "WE FOUND A REAL POLYMER INSOLUBLE & INDIGESTIBLE" Now look at the eMC for Infanrix hexa https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/2586/smpc and you will see that the various antigens are complexed with 2 forms of aluminium adjuvant, which, by the way, are insoluble polymers

So John & Hera Corvelva were using a technique that may work on pure toxoids, (I don't know), but it is certainly highly unlikely to work on toxoids complexed as insoluble complexes to aluminium adjuvants.

So Fred's point is well made, how credible is the "secret" analytical lab, their findings and methods have not been peer reviewed & instead they go public with this highly dubious result. I do hope GSK sue them!!!

Frederic Chopin

John,

A web post about implausible and unverifiable research from an anonymous anti vaccine group (funded by more anti vaxxers I'd imagine) is a challenge to "the system"?

Hera

Hi Frederic,
If a product is being falsely described, and is being given to millions of people, I expect the whole issue to make the mainstream news. I expect independent consumer safety groups all over the place to get samples and test them. I expect the company to release lots of data showing all its quality control testing.
Brush it under the rug and ignore the allegations? Imo, very suspicious.

John Stone

Fred

CORVELVA are an identifiable group and they are entitled to pose the question: in Europe we have the EMA which is 89% funded by industry and in the U.K. the MHRA which is 100% funded by industry: they are not credible bodies to ensure public safety, and nor is the WHO:

https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948
https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3948/rapid-responses
https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4152
https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4152/rapid-responses

https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/12/aljazeera-series-questions-who-infallability-on-global-health.html

Transparently these bodies do not have any standards, and the swine flu episode left them completely exposed. The system must be challenged.

HPV vaccine is another where commercial interests have prevailed:

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4602/rr

Frederic Chopin

So if y'all don't care who (and by that I mean the researchers' names) wrote this report, what lab(s) they used, or whether their work has been peer-reviewed, what standards DO you require?

Gary Ogden

And then there is this:
worldtruth.TV/Italian-court-rules-mercury-and-aluminum-in-vaccines-cause-autism
ageofautism.com, “Italian Court Rules MMR causes Autism”
Rules of evidence require discovery. For another Italian case from 2012, GSK was forced to cough up their (confidential!!!) report for the Infanrix Hexa clinical trials. I suggest everyone read it. The rate of autism in the trials for this so-called "vaccine" was shockingly high. Master Frederick and Eindingbat, does it make you feel warm and fuzzy that the fascist thugs you work for willingly and happily do this to helpless infants and children? The Nuremberg Trials resulted in the most profoundly important guidelines for medical ethics ever produced, yet they do not have the force of law anywhere that I know of. God help us.

Barry

It's the same old story of rubbish analytical methods that gave rise to the fairy stories about glyphosphate in vaccines & most ridiculously of all the covert sterilization in Kenya

*********
The most ridiculous fairy tale ever to emerge from rubbish analytical methods, is the well funded conclusion that any vaccine has ever prevented a disease of any kind

Fairy tale indeed..

Jeannette Bishop

Assuming this vaccine was essentially the same formulation that was tested with this suppressed high infant death rate, tested against DPT no less ( https://www.ageofautism.com/2015/01/gsks-69-infanrix-deaths-are-not-explicable-as-coincidence.html ), does anyone know how to look up what methods were used to test "efficacy" in these trials? We already know that some vaccine efficacy (all? -- at least minus Merck's mumps vaccine with rabbit's blood and magic pencil potency enhancement methodology) is measured by titer levels produced against vaccine strains, rather than wild strains. Did GSK check for antibodies against something further removed from what is conceived as protection?

John Stone

Fred

Just found your comment in the spam - it happens, including to mine. CORVELVA have published the report and presumably take responsibility for it. And who, by the way, are you?

Susan Welch

Eindecker,

Why on earth would Corvelva disclose the laboratory? Thy must know what happened to A Gatti and S Montanari in February this year, Any independent researcher looking into the safety of vaccines would have to be extremely careless to disclose such information.

It is not an indication of questionable research, but a question of not trusting the vaccine 'police'.

What a sorry state of affairs when those working on behalf of our children's health have to do so much in secrecy?

Frederic Chopin

Come on John, stop censoring the internet. Who wrote this analysis? Do you think if you don't post my comment no one will ask?

Hera

Eindecker,
Sure, I would be interested in reading further analyses, but, you asked "Why would they do that?"
But you already know the answer to why they could do that, and probably get away with it, if they choose.
Their job is to protect their share holders. So, if they decide quality control is not important to them, is too expensive, that dodgy suppliers are acceptable, or that diluting the stuff down makes better financial sense, who is actually going to call them on it?
People have died from vaccines, and the media response is to shut down the topic.
So no matter what it does to people, it is unlikely to ever hit the news. Maybe huge numbers of people dying immediately after the vaccine might get attention, but illness, or just a couple of people dying following a vaccine? No. It s a "rare" reaction.

Scientists just made a huge outcry at the whole idea of someone actually checking the contents of the vaccine.
Perfect product protection. Who needs quality control when everyone is certain your product is sacrosanct?
If the vaccine fails, and people start getting sick with the illness, then the media have a choice of 4 easy options, none of which blame the manufacturer

1) Well, it fails in a percentage of people

2) the virus mutated,

3)the anti vaxxers must be infecting the vaccinated ( makes no sense, but it seems to fly)

4) and I am sure any manufacturer, who has an eye to the bottom line has this as their personal favorite; the shot has worn off and you need a lot more of it.

Then, in the U.S. they have product protection from being sued, regardless of safety issues, , so even if it could have been made safer, no one can take them to court.

More testing is a good idea, like you, I am kind of horrified that the results don't even show vaccine components, but the reality is, imo, that if you take away every possible incentive to provide a good product, and give every possible financial incentive to provide a bad one, what do you think happens to quality control?

Eindeker

Hans/Angus The analytical method was not approved by an external referee and as a scientist the title of the method seems utter gobbley de gook, oh and it's an "undisclosed" analytical lab that's doing the analysis with this unapproved method, lord a mercy but some people are just plain gullible.
It's the same old story of rubbish analytical methods that gave rise to the fairy stories about glyphosphate in vaccines & most ridiculously of all the covert sterilization in Kenya

Hans Litten

Eindecker, publication and Peer review is so important is it ?

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
-------------------------------------------------------
"pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance"
I think is he referring to vaccination here but I may be reading too much into it !

Angus Files

Not crowing today Chop and Eindecker are we now hahaha!


Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

Eindeker

OK so they didn't find any active components that were meant to be there and they found loads of (unidentified) nasties. There's really only 2 explanations

> 1 GSK are selling something in total contravention of all rules and regulations by not meeting the declared formulation, (EMC again John, to check) just why the hell would they risk this? -or-
> 2 The method was totally screwed & unsuitable for doing what they were trying to do. This reference gives some, shall we say, credence to this being the correct explanation. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07464-0

A team of researchers funded by Corvelva posted the methodology behind the organization’s earlier studies on vaccine components to F1000Research, an online platform where articles are first published and then peer reviewed by invited referees. The one reviewer who looked at the paper did not approve it. Here's the paper https://f1000research.com/articles/7-1767/v1 & the title says it all: Do you cov me? Effect of coverage reduction on species identification and genome reconstruction in complex biological matrices by metagenome shotgun high-throughput sequencing [version 1; referees: 1 not approved]
It's a novel approach to scientific publication to publish something and then get it reviewed!

Hans Litten

Fred - what is your French like because I cant make any sense of this one ?

https://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2018/12/18/2927134-papillomavirus-professeurs-toulousains-contestent-propos-dangers-vaccination.html

Suite aux annonces faites par l’ancien député Gérard Bapt sur les dangers qu’occasionnerait la vaccination contre le papillomavirus, le docteur Jacques Rimailho, chirurgien en gynécologie oncologie au CHU de Toulouse, et le professeur Christophe Pasquier, virologiste au CHU de Toulouse, ont souhaité apporter un éclairage différent.

Dans un courrier adressé à la rédaction, ils se sont dits « choqués » par les arguments avancés par l’ancien maire de Saint-Jean et en profitent pour étayer leurs propos. Ils rappellent ainsi que « le cancer du col utérin est rare, voire exceptionnel, avant 25 ans. Son développement après contamination par un papillomavirus (HPV) est un processus long durant de 15 à 20 ans ».

Les deux médecins soulignent également que « la vaccination HPV n’a débuté qu’en 2007 ». Pour eux, « affirmer que l’augmentation des cancers du col est liée à cette vaccination est tout simplement faux car impossible, les modes de vie (consommation de tabac par exemple) et de contamination (sexualité), très probablement responsables, ayant évolué sur la même période ».

Gary Ogden

Master Frederick: We all eagerly await your list of peer-reviewed and published biochemical analyses of vaccines. Any vaccine will do. Any professional journal will do. Don't disappoint.

Davide Suraci

At this time the peer review scientific committees in the field of immunological research related to vaccines are out of the game. They have deliberately blocked the research sector in this field, supported by bigpharma .. No guarantee of safety, vaccines lacking effectiveness and efficiency, very high risks to human health, autoimmune diseases and childhood cancer growing exponentially. We will not stop. Friends of the free world let us join in this long war. You can make a difference.

Hans Litten

Fred , I suggest this is how mass vaccine proliferation got off the ground in the first place ?
Please discuss ?


107 Cancer Papers Retracted Due To Peer Review Fraud (arstechnica.com) 153

Posted by BeauHD on Saturday April 22, 2017 @08:00AM from the blindingly-niche dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica:
The journal Tumor Biology is retracting 107 research papers after discovering that the authors faked the peer review process. This isn't the journal's first rodeo. Late last year, 58 papers were retracted from seven different journals -- 25 came from Tumor Biology for the same reason. It's possible to fake peer review because authors are often asked to suggest potential reviewers for their own papers. This is done because research subjects are often blindingly niche; a researcher working in a sub-sub-field may be more aware than the journal editor of who is best-placed to assess the work. But some journals go further and request, or allow, authors to submit the contact details of these potential reviewers. If the editor isn't aware of the potential for a scam, they then merrily send the requests for review out to fake e-mail addresses, often using the names of actual researchers. And at the other end of the fake e-mail address is someone who's in on the game and happy to send in a friendly review. This most recent avalanche of fake-reviewed papers was discovered because of extra screening at the journal. According to an official statement from Springer, the company that published Tumor Biology until this year, "the decision was made to screen new papers before they are released to production." The extra screening turned up the names of fake reviewers that hadn't previously been detected, and "in order to clean up our scientific records, we will now start retracting these affected articles...Springer will continue to proactively investigate these issues."

Carol

Coincidentally I've started reading Dangerous Doses by Katherine Eban. It's about counterfeit drugs and drugs that have been tampered with (but in the United States, and I don't see that she mentions vaccines anywhere):

"The counterfeits were not a one-time fluke but rather a consequence of America's distribution system. Our medicine moves through a gray market of middlemen who trade the drugs as they would any other commodity, seeking profits from ever-fluctuating prices. These sales can obscure the medicine's origin and make its purity impossible to guarantee. They also open the door to counterfeits.

Investigators realized by 2002 that felons including narcotics traffickers and those with ties to organized crime had infiltrated America's drug supply. After becoming licensed wholesalers, they poured compromised medicine into our distribution system. Their profits rivaled those in the narcotics trade...."

Hans Litten

Fred do you remember this ? (in your nightmares) - regarding the Peer Review process

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

Marcia Angell

Waiting for your response - cos there is more !

Morag

Dear Frederic or Frederica Chopin .I thought you would have realised by now, that your perception of an "F" sharp ain't ever going to hit the right note, or ever going to be "F" n well competent and capable of doing so, now ,or in the future, ma dear wee chum !

John Stone

Fred

That's always a very good way of ducking the issue.

Frederic Chopin

Truly shocking! In which peer-reviewed journal is this published?

Hans Litten

Probably related to vaccine blowback worries I bet , Walmsley ?

https://www.ndtv.com/business/glaxosmithkline-gsk-to-split-after-folding-in-pfizer-consumer-unit-1964972

London:
GlaxoSmithKline forms joint venture with Pfizer consumer health division

GlaxoSmithKline plans to split into two businesses -- one for prescription drugs and vaccines, the other for over-the-counter products -- after forming a new joint venture with Pfizer's consumer health division.

The revamp is the boldest move yet by chief executive Emma Walmsley, who took over last year.

She has previously played down the idea of breaking up the group, something that a number of investors have called for over the years.

On Wednesday, however, Ms Walmsley announced that GSK and Pfizer would combine their consumer health businesses in a joint venture with sales of 9.8 billion pounds ($12.7 billion), 68 per cent-owned by the British company, in an all-equity transaction.

GSK said the deal laid the foundation for the creation of two new UK-based global companies focused on pharma/vaccines and consumer healthcare within three years of the transaction closing.

For Pfizer, the deal resolves the issue of what to do with its consumer health division, which includes Advil painkillers and Centrum vitamins, after an abortive attempt to sell it outright earlier this year.

The new joint venture with Pfizer is expected to generate total annual cost savings of 500 million pounds by 2022 for expected total cash costs of 900 million and non-cash charges of 300 million. GSK plans divestments of some 1 billion pounds.
In a bid to reassure investors of its financial strength, GSK extended its guarantee on the dividend by stating it expected to pay unchanged dividends of 80 pence per share for 2019.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)