Interview with Cynthia Foster, MD of Dr. Foster’s Essentials: Why You Should Think Twice Before Getting Vaccinated
Reprinted from Original Interview - Nov. 2009 (Amazing how relevant this article still is in 2015)
Frank Mangano: With all the talk about vaccines in the news today, I really wanted to tackle this issue head-on. And who better to talk to about vaccines than one of the foremost experts on the power of all-natural treatment, Dr. Cynthia Foster.
If you know anything about Dr. Foster and her life story, then you know how uniquely qualified she is to be discussing the effectiveness—or lack thereof—of vaccinations. Just as she was beginning her studies at the University of Texas several years ago, she was severely impacted by a bevy of symptoms that literally threatened her life. Throughout her first year of medical school, she experienced migraines, throbbing chest pains, and seizures. Doctors were befuddled as to the diagnosis, and perhaps more importantly, at a complete loss for what they could do to help relieve her symptoms. Every treatment they tried seemed to make her symptoms worse.
But thanks to her stick-to-itiveness, and with the help of a registered nurse that specialized in holistic treatment, her symptoms virtually disappeared in a matter of months! In the 11 years since, she’s completely free of those symptoms and has been able to take and treat diseases as they come.
Best of all, though she’s a staunch advocate of holistic treatment, she’s a traditionally trained medical doctor. That’s right; she still finished medical school, even though she became disillusioned by traditional treatment due to her own experience. That’s why she remains firm in her belief that healing is best achieved through “education, not medication.”
You can find out more about Dr. Foster at her web site, but let’s get to the interview, shall we?
So, without further ado, I present to you Dr. Cynthia Foster. Thanks so much, Cynthia, for talking with us today.
All right, let’s get right to the guts of it as it pertains to vaccines:
Why should people avoid getting vaccines when you have organizations like the CDC and the FDA actively promoting them? After all, if they weren’t safe, wouldn’t they be at the forefront in advising people not to get vaccinated, especially considering the state of medical liability claims against hospitals?
This is a very complex and highly charged issue nowadays and I don’t know if I can answer every question about the safety of each and every vaccine, but I can bring up and discuss many issues about vaccines that no one is talking about. At the very least, it’s going to make all of us think twice about vaccinations.
The safety of vaccinations has always been somewhat in question. This is due not only to problems with purity but to the toxicity of vaccine adjuvants, substances that are added to vaccines to increase immune response to the vaccine.
Why should vaccine manufacturers care so much about liability? This year, they’ve been granted full legal immunity against any and all lawsuits arising from any injuries caused by the swine flu vaccine. On the surface, it looks as if this was done because the swine flu is a “national health emergency” and there is simply no time to test for safety. Underneath this, though is another issue—that vaccine manufacturers are paying out more and more money each year to people who have been damaged by their vaccines. One might think they’ve gotten tired of paying.
To understand this fully, you have to know what types of vaccines are available, the components they contain and how they are manufactured.
Now, in order to produce a vaccine, we must have the outer protein coat of the virus (called hemagglutinin). This is the part that the body’s immune system recognizes, and this is the part against which the body will produce antibodies when it is exposed. Once those antibodies form to the virus, the person is protected against infection. How long they are protected depends on many things. For some organisms, antibodies can protect a person for life. For example, once a person has produced antibodies against chickenpox, that person, for the most part, is protected against chickenpox for life.
On the other hand, there are organisms that mutate and change their protein coat. This makes the antibodies ineffective since the organism has changed its protein coat, and this coat is what the antibodies must attack by producing an exact match of molecules that will glue onto the protein coat perfectly and then destroy it. If the antibody is not an exact match, then it will not work. This is like a lock and key mechanism. You have to have the right key or you cannot unlock the door. So we have to have an exact match of an antibody against a protein coat, otherwise, the immune system cannot attack the pathogen (virus).
Cold and flu viruses mutate so quickly that it is next to impossible to produce a vaccine in time to have an exact match of antibodies against the virus. The process of making a vaccine takes around six months. After six months, a virus may have mutated a few times, and then you no longer have an exact match and your vaccine is worthless. Many vaccine manufacturers attempt to guess which strains of virus will infect the population in advance, and they make up vaccines before the cold and flu season hit. The only problem with this is that no one has ever been able to correctly guess with 100 percent accuracy which viruses are going to infect during the next cold and flu season.
This is what doctors are aiming for when they administer vaccines. They are looking to produce that exact antibody by introducing a protein coat of a harmful organism, knowing that the human body will form an exact antibody match against it. In theory, this is a great concept. However, from concept to completion, there have proven to be many problems that interfere not only with the effectiveness of vaccines, but the safety of them as well.
To produce the swine flu vaccine, samples of the virus against which we want a vaccination must be collected. Then, an original strain must be made. This takes three weeks. These viruses are often mixed and/or spliced with other viruses to weaken them or make it easier for them to multiply. The only way a virus can reproduce is by growing as a parasite on something living. This is why many vaccines are grown in eggs or on animal tissues. For example, the swine flu vaccine was manufactured in eggs. It takes another three weeks to test the strain to make sure that it is safe, that it can grow properly in eggs or tissue, and is the correct strain.
So, after six weeks of producing the strain and testing it, the strain is sent to manufacturers who begin manufacture. For three months, the manufacturers must do tests to determine if they have the correct strain and in the correct dose. When they are ready, they begin injecting the strain into thousands of eggs to multiply the viruses. This takes another two weeks. After production, quality control takes an additional two weeks to verify the correct strain. After the manufacturer dilutes the strain and puts it into vials, there has to be more testing to determine if the solutions are sterile (solutions can become contaminated with various bacteria or viruses just by handling them.). This testing takes two weeks. After the vaccine has been completed, it can take about four weeks for clinical tests on animals or humans to see if it is effective. All in all, the whole process can take around six to seven months.
Then, in order to mass produce the vaccine, we have to grow the virus on something because we’re going to need millions upon millions of virus particles to make all of those vaccines. Now, anyone who knows anything about biology knows that in order to do this, we have to grow the organisms in a culture. A culture is a solid or a liquid containing the nutrients required for the organism to grow. You can grow organisms on a culture, but it has to be the right culture with the right nutrients, the right temperature and even the right atmospheric conditions, otherwise the organism won’t grow. If the conditions are wrong, and your sample is contaminated, sometimes other organisms grow instead. And other organisms can compete for the same nutrients. So, you can see here that lots of things can go wrong during this process. And this is why so much testing is needed.
At any point during this process, there can be contamination. For example, there may be other bacteria or viruses in the eggs or in the animal tissues. They can mix in with the intended virus. And during the culturing process, it may not be noticeable at first, since some organisms can be present, but they can take longer to grow. So, they may be invisible, showing no evidence of being there, but they are actually there.
Problems with cultures happen all the time in hospitals. A patient has an infection, and a culture is ordered to determine what is causing the infection. It can take about two weeks for most things to grow on a culture. However, if you choose the wrong culture medium, even though the infecting organism is there, it’s not growing. Because viruses are so tiny, they can only be seen with an electron microscope, so a regular microscope is of no use whatsoever in viewing viruses. Most times, doctors rely on tissue evidence of viral infection and not the ability to actually see the virus. This is not a fail-safe process. Viruses can create tissue damage and if you see a certain type of tissue damage, you can “assume” that the virus is there. However, just because you don’t see tissue damage, does not mean that the virus is not there. You can have millions of viruses in a sample that have not yet invaded the tissue and it will not show up as tissue damage. And you will never see a single virus with a regular microscope because you have to use a special electron microscope to see viruses.
Do you think that there is someone working in the labs whose job it is to look all day long at samples through an electron microscope in order to identify that the virus is actually present? I guarantee you no one is doing this. Nowadays, there is testing with reagents, chemical tests. But no one can go through each and every batch of vaccine with an electron microscope—it would simply be too time-consuming.
Medical technology has been unable to produce a vaccine that is absolutely pure with the one particular strain of virus or bacteria against which it is supposed to protect. The polio vaccine was highly contaminated with viruses normally found only in monkeys, although researchers did not originally obtain the polio virus from monkeys. How did that happen? The original virus was obtained in human feces and then cultured in Green Monkey skin cells, monkey testicular cells, and then grown on rhesus monkey kidney cells. The kidneys were infected with the virus, and then the pus was collected to make the vaccine. The only trouble is that along the way, you have potential for contamination with human feces bacteria and viruses, with organisms from Green Monkey skin, monkey testicular cells, as well as rhesus monkey kidney cells.
There is a lot of potential for contamination here. The pus contained many other organisms beside the polio virus. At any given moment, there can be many types of bacteria and viruses swimming around in a human body, in an egg, or in monkey kidney tissue, or other animal tissue. Humans and animals are filled with bacteria, viruses, and all kinds of pathogens (organisms that can cause disease). Because so much animal tissue is involved in the making of a vaccine, this is why they are not “kosher.”
Although the polio vaccine was originally believed to have been produced from a pure strain, when it was analyzed in modern times, it was found to contain over 39 other types of viruses. When the polio vaccine was first introduced, the technology did not exist to purify the vaccines. One of the viruses was the simian virus, otherwise known as the SV40 virus (stands for simian virus). This is a virus that infects monkeys (simian means monkey). In 1961, it was found that when this monkey virus was injected into hamsters, it caused tumors to form.
It is known that many types of viruses can cause several types of cancer. Many viruses can do this because they contain DNA. The virus injects its DNA into the host (human, animal or whatever it is infecting) and uses the host’s cells to multiply itself. This piece of DNA can also splice itself into the host DNA and stay there for the life of the host. Many of these virus types ended up in cancerous tumors years later and were implicated in causing many types of cancer, including medulloblastomas (type of brain cancer), bone cancers and mesotheliomas (type of lung cancer). The rate of childhood cancer did increase in the 70s, 80s and 90s after the polio vaccine was administered in the 60s; whether the vaccines were the cause remains a question. Although the SV virus in particular is now classified as a human carcinogen and is routinely used to produce the cancer cells needed to test anticancer therapies. There is no doubt about whether SV40 virus causes cancer.
Now the question of the day is, “Why has SV40 virus been found in children who were vaccinated in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, after the contaminated vaccine was banned?” In the 60s, the government began to require tissue cultures to test vaccine strains for contamination. And yet, contamination occurred anyway with SV40 viruses. Monkey viruses don’t just show up in children’s blood naturally!
Monkeys can harbor many latent viruses in their bodies, viruses that do not necessarily cause sickness or disease in monkeys, but that can cause diseases in humans. And there is no way to absolutely guarantee that when cultures are grown in animal cells, that these cells are going to be free of other viruses and bacteria. So, in effect, we are taking unknown viruses from animals and injecting them directly into our bodies. In nature, this is something that would never happen. We have immune defenses against things we eat, things we breathe, and things that get on our skin because these are the ways that organisms normally get into our bodies. Odds are that for something that doesn’t ordinarily occur in nature, our bodies have not developed much of a defense against it.
In the attempt to counter these problems, most vaccines contain antibiotics and/or formaldehyde and thimerosal (a mercury-containing preservative). These things kill many types of bacteria and other types of organisms that could contaminate a vaccine. They also serve to preserve the vaccine after it has been manufactured (for example to prevent spoilage). Unfortunately, some people are allergic to antibiotics, and can have allergic reactions to antibiotics. Formaldehyde is also a preservative that prevents animal, food or microbiological products from spoiling, yet it is also a known carcinogen. No one debates that formaldehyde is a carcinogen— it’s been proven many times throughout the world. In fact, when I was in my first year of medical school taking gross anatomy, the professors told us, “The only way we can preserve the human bodies for dissection is to preserve them in formaldehyde. And we’re sorry because we know that formaldehyde is a known carcinogen.” Without the formaldehyde, the bodies would decompose very quickly and the smell would be horrendous.
Mercury is a known neurotoxin as well. There are probably hundreds of research studies proving it. No one can refute it. The original doctors who used mercury to kill infectious diseases administered it by mouth to kill syphilis organisms. They were often successful. After all, mercury is a strong antimicrobial. Unfortunately, even though they were successful at killing the organisms that cause syphilis, their patients would die due to mercury toxicity. These doctors were originally called “quacksalvers”—a derivative of the word quicksilver, another word for mercury. And this is the origin of the word “quack.” Quacks were actually doctors who used mercury to treat their patients. Even though mercury would “cure” syphilis, it would often kill the patient. You can understand why the word “quack” has such a negative connotation.
Interview with Dr. Cynthia Foster of Dr. Foster’s Essentials: Complete Health Solutions - Page 3
Vaccines are brand new chemical combinations that have never before existed in nature. Their effects must be studied. Otherwise, it is a vast experimentation on the public at large. We simply do not know the long term effects of brand new chemical combinations unless we do long term studies on them. We can’t do long term studies on something that keeps changing. There simply isn’t enough time. This is one of the most frustrating roadblocks in medicine and may eventually prove to be its downfall. Modern medicine has great difficulty proving the long term safety of their chemicals and genetic experiments, so they settle for short term studies instead. These are 90 day studies and, in the case of the flu vaccine, a four week study.
How in the world are we going to know the long term effects of this new flu vaccine unless we take about 30 years to study it? Anyone who accepts a vaccine must also accept the risk that 30 years down the line, they could be subject to unforeseen diseases, most notably, cancer, arthritis, and autoimmune diseases. Before the Gardasil vaccine was released, the pre-licensure research only tested the vaccine on about 1,200 girls and for only six months before it was released. Six months of observing girls after receiving a vaccine is not the same as observing girls over their entire lifetime after they have been vaccinated. There are no long term studies to determine the long term safety of Gardasil. It simply hasn’t been in existence for that long. Was that adequate testing?
In reality, all vaccines must be tested for safety and for good reason. Could you imagine NOT testing something that is known to contain particles that are potentially infectious? Can they absolutely GUARANTEE that they have weakened the organisms sufficiently so as not to cause the very disease against which they are supposed to be effective?
A big issue with vaccination is that you want a virus strong enough to cause an immune response (the body produces antibodies to it, which protect against reinfection), but weak enough so as not to cause the infection you’re actually vaccinating against. Unfortunately, we have seen so many times since vaccines were first introduced, that despite manufacturers’ best efforts to weaken the virus, it is still strong enough to cause an infection. Hence, the many people who actually catch the flu from the flu vaccine, catch the chickenpox from the chickenpox vaccine, get measles from the measles vaccine, polio from the polio vaccine, and get genital warts from the HPV vaccine.
Now, there have been many manipulations to produce a vaccine and there is a worry of contamination and a worry of infection if the vaccine is too strong. However, one of the most common problems is that a vaccine is not strong enough to cause an immune response. This means that the body didn’t produce antibodies against that protein coat, which means the vaccine was worthless.
I was just reading that three doses of HPV vaccine costs anywhere from $400 to $1,000. That is a lot of money to pay for something that won’t necessarily work.
To counter this problem, it is now being recommended to give several doses of a vaccine over six month’s time. So, for example, the Hepatitis B vaccine and the HPV vaccine are given at one month, two months and at six months. And for the swine flu, recommendations are that children in certain age groups should receive two doses. Another way to increase immune response to a vaccine is to add an adjuvant. An adjuvant is an irritant— any type of substance that the body sees as “foreign”/ “not self”. These kinds of substances stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies. It is thought that adding an adjuvant to a vaccine increases the likelihood that the immune system will respond to the vaccine and produce antibodies. Examples of adjuvants: aluminum, squalene, Freund’s adjuvant.
As you can see, we’ve now gotten so far away from the way a natural immunity is produced, that the medical profession must inject, chemicalize, culture in various animal tissue types, add preservatives, and add an adjuvant to boost the immune response to the vaccine. And most vaccines are injectable, which means it is only creating an immunity in the blood and not in the mucous membranes where exposure would normally occur. There are different types of antibodies. Antibodies that form in the blood are called IgG antibodies. Antibodies that form in the mucous membranes are called IgA antibodies. Vaccines are injectable antigens (substances that provoke the immune system to produce antibodies). They stimulate IgG antibodies in the blood. However, when a person is exposed to a virus, the virus normally enters through the mucous membranes. Natural exposure to a virus causes the creation of a different type of antibody, called IgA antibodies. These IgA antibodies protect the mucous membranes from reinfection with a virus. So, there is a doubt here that we are able to produce the right “type” of immunity against influenza by injecting vaccines into the tissues as opposed to putting them in the mucous membranes.
In recent years, we have seen the “FluMist” vaccine— a vaccine that is squirted up the nose. This would produce the right type of antibodies to protect against influenza, and this one also does not contain thimerosal. However, this vaccine does contain virus particles that have been weakened. I just checked the VAERS system for adverse reactions to various vaccines and the FluMist had side effects of autoimmune disorders and nervous system damage just as severe as the other types of flu vaccines that are injected. In addition, there was a higher rate of flu-like symptoms reported after this vaccine was received. My question is can they guarantee that there are absolutely no live viruses in this vaccine? Can they show me an electron microscope picture of each dose of vaccine?
Another issue that is especially problematic is with vaccines against viruses that are constantly mutating. Once a virus mutates, the vaccine intended for the original virus no longer works. Nature is always changing, yet medicine wants to standardize and keep everything the same dose, the same potency, the same everything. This is like trying to shoot a moving target. Your virus keeps moving, and you have to move yourself in order to compensate for the movements of the virus. But your standardized vaccine does not allow you to move at all, since, in theory, this vaccine is standardized and must not change.
A third problem is the age at which many vaccines are administered and another issue is the sheer number of vaccinations that can overwhelm the body’s attempts to process them.
Government organizations do not consider the value of an individual human life. What they are making highest priority is something you might call the “collective.” This is the highest good for the highest number of people. Therefore, they add up numbers for the risks versus the benefits for the population as a whole. Then they know, for a fact, that certain people are going to react negatively to their treatments/vaccines. But, the individual is not as important as the population as a whole. This is like saying that the life of an individual human being is not so important to the government and to health organizations worldwide. There are many people who would react badly to the vaccine, and these health organizations are willing to minimize these reactions publicly and/or compensate injured individuals because in the whole scheme of things, they are making more money than they are losing with the liability claims. This is a numbers game. Anyone who understands statistics is going to understand this game.
Let’s crunch some numbers for the Gardasil vaccine. The vaccine was released on Sept. 15, 2006. According to an FDA Fact Sheet, in 2007, it was estimated that there would be 9,710 cases of cervical cancer and 3,700 deaths in the U.S. Gardasil is expected to prevent up to 70 percent of cervical cancers because they are due to HPV types against which the vaccine is directed. There are over 100 different types of HPV, yet health organizations and the media are telling us that the vaccine is only protective against four types: HPV types six, 11, 16, and 18, and it is only the last two that have been associated with cervical cancer. So, remember, there are 96 other types of HPV that it is possible to get. And 15 types of HPV are currently associated with cervical cancer. One can easily see that the vaccine is NOT a full protection against HPV in general, but only against four different types of HPV, only two of which are currently known to cause cervical cancer. Now, are they going to discover additional types of HPV in the future that also cause cervical cancer? That is entirely possible. So, is there a guarantee here that the vaccine is protecting against all types of HPV that could possibly cause cervical cancer in the future? Clearly not.
How many reactions have we seen to this vaccine since its inception? Understand that these are reactions that were reported, and it is estimated that only around five percent of vaccine reactions are actually reported to the VAERS. Reporting adverse reactions are currently voluntary and not required, so this greatly minimizes the reports that are received.
In the U.S., we have seen over 9,000 adverse reactions to the Gardasil vaccine, including massive outbreaks of genital warts, seizures, paralysis, chronic fatigue, pancreatitis, miscarriages, and blood clots. Under certain circumstances, for women who have already been exposed to the types of HPV in the vaccine before vaccination, the Gardasil vaccine can actually increase the risk of developing high-grade precancerous lesions by 44.6 percent. Nine thousand seven hundred and forty nine reactions and 36 deaths have been reported since 2006. Let’s assume these numbers represent about five percent of all reactions that actually occur and this adds up to almost 195,000 reactions to the vaccine in the past three years. And we haven’t added on yet the number of women who are actually at INCREASED risk of cervical cancer as a result of receiving the vaccine. Estimates are that 40 million vaccines against HPV have been distributed. If we say that one percent of those women are more prone to cervical cancer, and that 10 percent of that one percent actually develops cancer as a result of the vaccine, that’s 40,000 more cases. By my count, we’ve had 9,000 reactions times 20 to compensate for underreporting, which would add up to 180,000 reactions in three years vs. 9,000 cases of cervical cancer per year that naturally occur. Over three year’s time, that adds up to 27,000 cases. So, we damaged 180,000 people in order to save 27,000 lives. And there is absolutely no proof that this vaccine protects again cancer. There is only a theory that this vaccine protects against a couple of types of viruses that can cause cervical cancer.
Interview with Dr. Cynthia Foster of Dr. Foster’s Essentials: Complete Health Solutions - Page 4
Frank Mangano: The CDC says that vaccines have saved millions of lives and that if they were to be stopped, nearly three million people would die from measles alone. That said, should we get rid of vaccines entirely, or do they have some positive role to play when it comes to prevention?
Let’s consider all of the contaminated vaccines that have been injected into millions of people worldwide and compare those numbers against the lives that have actually been saved against an acute infectious disease. One might argue, “Is it better to suffer from an acute infection, or suffer a drawn out protracted disease over many year’s time due to the side effects of the vaccines?” This is a question about quality of life.
Many times, what we find is that after that six month process of vaccine preparation, when the vaccine is finally administered, the rate of infection has already declined and many people already have antibodies against the virus. This is a concept called herd immunity. Now, if anyone goes to Wikipedia to look up the definition of herd immunity, they’re not going to find the true definition. They’re going to find a definition with a hidden agenda to sell and promote vaccines.
Herd immunity is immunity or protection against an infectious disease. It normally happens because people in the group (or herd) have already been exposed to the infectious disease and developed antibodies to it. According to the definition currently posted on Wikipedia, herd immunity can only exist if people are vaccinated. This is ludicrous! (I think the MD who wrote this definition must have missed that day in medical school where this concept was taught.)
Vaccines are merely an attempt to mimic what the body does naturally: When exposed to something infectious, the body creates antibodies against it to destroy it. Some people will have an infection and become immune; some people will merely be exposed, have a very mild or insignificant illness, but still develop antibodies against something. When enough people in a population have developed antibodies against something infectious, the chances of that infection spreading through that population become very, very small. This is “herd immunity.”
For any infectious disease, we see that the frequency of infectious diseases occurs like a bell-shaped curve. At first, only a few people are infected. Then the numbers grow steadily to reach a peak. Then after the peak—the time when the most people are infected—the numbers steadily decrease until the “epidemic” dies out. The numbers decrease because more and more people have been exposed and have survived and these people are now protected due to their natural antibodies that have formed. They have developed “herd immunity.” This happens with most epidemics, with or without vaccination. The Bubonic Plague was an epidemic. It came, it peaked, and it died out, and no one ever had a vaccine. But after the plague was over, the rest of the people who survived had “herd immunity.”
By the time a vaccine is administered for an infectious disease, we see that the bell-shaped curve is already on the decline—the number of infections is steadily going down anyway because of herd immunity. So, many statistics that show vaccines are associated with a decrease in infection rates can be misleading, since the infection rate was going to go down anyway. This is based on epidemiologic research on infectious disease. Epidemiology is a field of medicine that studies the causes of diseases, how they are distributed amongst the population, when, where and how often they occur, who is more at risk, and how a disease will behave over time. This is like “statistics” for diseases.
So, we know already that a certain number of people will get the flu each year and that each year, the number of people getting the flu is going to start with a few cases, reach a peak, and then go down naturally, regardless of whether or not a vaccine is used. And each year, the flu is going to be a different strain.
Frank Mangano: What makes the H1N1 vaccine, in particular, bad? Do you oppose it because it’s ineffective or because of its side effects? Or is it a combination of both?
This particular vaccine was released before the six month testing period was up. This is particularly concerning because the testing to determine if the cultures were grown correctly with the exact protein coat needed has not been completed. This is a concern for contamination and even for effectiveness. Remember, a vaccine is not going to work if you do not get an exact match on the protein coat of the virus or bacteria. Remember also that a vaccine is a brand new chemical combination that has never before existed in nature, so we do not know exactly the effects it will have on human beings until we study it for a period of time. Even after six months of studying a vaccine, can we really know the long term effects of a vaccine? No one can know this for sure.
Interview with Dr. Cynthia Foster of Dr. Foster’s Essentials: Complete Health Solutions - Page 5
Frank Mangano: As you probably already know, the last time a similar strain of the H1N1 virus was around, more people died from the vaccine than the actual virus. But health officials promise consumers that people don’t have to worry about that this time. Why should we not believe them when there haven’t been any reported deaths from the vaccine nor an uptick in autoimmune disease diagnoses like there was in 1976? Could they, in fact, be safe this time?
The swine flu vaccine contains many ingredients other than a weakened or inactivated strain of virus. It also contains adjuvants and other chemical stabilizers. For example, the Australian version of the vaccine contains the antibiotics neomycin and polymixin B. Neomycin is an antibiotic known to cause harm to a fetus when administered to a pregnant woman. Other side effects of neomycin: kidney damage and nerve damage. These are not necessarily common side effects; however, when we’re talking about vaccinating millions of people against influenza, these “not so common” side effects are going to add up. Someone has to be in that “one to two percent range” and that person could be you or it could be someone you know. Other chemicals used: Taurodeoxycholate— a bile-salt derived substance that is used as a detergent to separate the protein coat of the virus from the virus itself. This substance is known to cause oral cancers. It also contains Beta-propiolactone, a disinfectant, which is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen, and has already caused stomach and skin cancers in laboratory animals.
The H1N1 vaccine has only been studied in 240 people. This is a far cry from a full research study which requires at least 400 participants in order for the results to be statistically valid. That is a little scary. In addition, if you read the product packaging, it states that the safety profile for children, pregnant, and lactating woman are all unknown. This basically means no one knows if it’s safe for these groups of people. Since the swine flu is hitting children the hardest and we don’t know if the vaccine is safe for children, we’ve basically created a vaccine with unknown safety for the very people who would need it the most.
Since the first flu vaccine was developed, there have always been some cases of Guillain Barre Syndrome caused by it. The medical profession has always known about it but accepts this as a necessary evil since, in their mind, they are saving more lives than they are endangering. Guillain Barre Syndrome is fairly rare, but it does happen and the numbers really begin to add up once 40 million people have taken a vaccine. In Guillain Barre Syndrome, paralysis begins in the extremities (usually the feet) and progresses upwards towards the head. Guillain Barre can be mild, or it can result in permanent paralysis and can result in paraplegia or quadriplegia. Guillain Barre Syndrome appears to result only from the influenza vaccines and no other types of vaccines.
Since Guillain Barre Syndrome can also occur naturally as a complication of the flu, it makes sense to assume it has something to do with the vaccine causing an influenza-like infection. Like I said previously, many people do actually catch the flu from the flu vaccine. In 1976, after 40 million were vaccinated with the swine flu vaccine, 25 people died and 500 people contracted Guillain Barre Syndrome. That year, only one person died from influenza. If we get more people to take the flu vaccine than we did in 1976, it is expected that even more people could get Guillain Barre Syndrome. The CDC has already publicly announced that they anticipate 30,000 adverse reactions to the flu vaccine this flu season.
We also see many causes of neurologic damage from most vaccines. It makes sense to blame this on thimerosal (a mix of mercury and ethylmercury), seeing as medical science has already proven it is a neurotoxin. Because of these studies, many countries have already banned its use in vaccines. (Russia, Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all of the Scandinavian countries.) And yet the U.S. persists, despite an abundance of evidence of harm.
Interview with Dr. Cynthia Foster of Dr. Foster’s Essentials: Complete Health Solutions - Page 6
Just last year, there were many reports of flu vaccine reactions to the FluMist vaccine that included rhinitis, muscle aches, joint pain, severe fatigue, Bell’s palsy, increase in autistic symptoms, asthma, wheezing, nosebleeds, pneumonia, rashes, hives that cover the entire body, grand mal seizures, tremors, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, Type I Diabetes, sinus infections, paralysis, sore throat, abdominal pain, low platelet counts. There were around 2,300 reports last year. If we assume this is 1/20th of the actual number of reactions that actually happened—since vaccination reactions are vastly underreported—that number would be 46,000 adverse reactions to last year’s FluMist vaccine.
We can also expect to see reactions to the adjuvants used, the most notable reactions are autoimmune disorders such as lupus, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, Multiple Sclerosis, Type I Diabetes, and even thrombocytopenia (where the immune system attacks the platelets, which are elements of the blood responsible for clotting).
If it is true that we have solved all of the problems causing vaccine reactions since the days of the1976 swine flu vaccine fiasco, then why would there be so many reactions to the most recent HPV vaccine developed and released near the end of 2006? In fact, this vaccine is purported to have caused 30 times more reactions than any other vaccine. If we have really advanced our techniques of vaccine manufacture, why are reactions on the increase?
Thanks so much for your time, Dr. Foster. Is there anything else you’d like to mention?
In closing, I’d like to address the following statement usually given by medical officials when confronted with the fatal and debilitating side effects of vaccinations. They claim, “The benefits outweigh the risks.”
In my opinion, once your vaccine has killed more than a handful of people—and maimed a few thousand others—the risks of your vaccine have, by far, outweighed its benefits.
* Note from Frank Mangano: I highly encourage you to visit Dr. Foster's website at www.drfostersessentials.com and learn how her herbal products can benefit you. I highly recommend them. In fact, I use Dr. Foster's products myself.
I have no financial ties with Dr. Foster's Essentials and no affiliate links are used in this interview. I published this interview because it's my opinion that many people will benefit from the information she disclosed in this interview.
Me Listen to Me and Not to Them"
- Gertrude Stein