(Series, Part 1 of 3) The Scientist recently published an article about Dr Douglas Wallace who is head of a new unit called the Center for Mitochondrial and Epigenomic Medicine, at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr Wallace believes that “Every one of the diseases we can’t solve is absolutely logical if we put energy at the center,” ... “I believed that in 1970 and I believe it now.” So what’s a mitochondria? If you don’t know, this book might be one of the most important books you read in your life. Use “Click to look inside” and the first two chapters which are available free, will show you why mitochondria are so important. Mitochondria, are intimately involved with your immune system, and if your immune system isn’t working properly, neither will your mitochondria. Dr Wallace has TWO problems in his new mitochondrial research Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which I believe will be insurmountable:
1) Dr Paul Offit (vaccines and autism).
2) Dr Offit's echo, Arthur L Caplan, Ph. D. ( the Emmanuel and Robert Hart Professor of Bioethics and director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania). who says "The scientific case for the importance of vaccines is overwhelming and beyond any dispute (and most worries about safety rest on fear and lies )."
It's my bet, that Dr Wallace has already been instructed to stay away from vaccines, or the impact of vaccines on the development of mitochondrial dysfunction. Mitochondrial dysfunction will always be consigned to the “cause” of vaccine reactions, never the result of a vaccine's administration, because so many medical people consider mitochondrial disorders to be genetic, not "epigenetic" (affected by lifestyle).
If ... Dr Wallace believes autism has something to do with mitochondrial disorders, then he needs to ask “why and how?” - or "what causes the mitochondria to suddenly go wrong?"
alternatively, Dr. Wallace would have to seriously examine two issues that have only recently received the attention they deserve:
1) The development of the neonatal immune system,
2) Epigenetic effects of vaccines on the developing neonatal immune system.
Dr Wallace will also need to study Dr Terry Wahl's case, and see how when faced with a multiple sclerosis death sentence, she set about righting her mitochondria, and succeeded in doing so by good nutrition - a topic that most allopathic physicians are fairly ignorant about.
Last but not least, Dr Wallace needs to compare the health of fully vaccinated adults with never vaccinated adults.
The research starting point, is pregnant mothers and babies. In particular, looking at all those things which throw spanners in the baby’s immune system programming – in utero and after birth, including food, vaccines, mercury in teeth, and drugs.
The simple fact is that if we keep throwing monkey wrenches into a very young immune system, we will guarantee that bad stuff will follow for the rest of the baby's life.
Let’s look at this issue, working backwards. In 2010, A medical article was published which discussed the human neonatal system and how it was similar to mice. So using mice, the author showed how, “... myosin immunisation with complete Freund’s adjuvant and additional lipopolysacchride (LPS is an endotoxin), induced (autoimmune) disease. These findings clearly indicate that a potent adjuvant effect can overcome the relative genetic resistance to autoimmune disease. At the same time, we showed that blocking either IL-1B or TNFa inhibits the development of disease even in highly susceptible A/J mice”
A previous paragraph on the same page stated, “These experiments convinced us that the administration of microbial products together with self antigen greatly increases the probably that autoimmune disease ensues”
Ah, but I hear you say, vaccines don’t include self-antigens. At least two vaccines have certain peptides in common, between the vaccines and the human proteins in relation to surface antigen proteins: Hepatitis B, and Gardasil. Bonnie Dunbar, Ph.D, a lone voice in the wilderness, has already stated publicly that she considers the Hepatitis B vaccine "guilty" of adverse reactions as a result of molecular mimicry between the relevant proteins in the vaccine, and the immune system's response to them.
Other vaccines which have residual DNA from aborted fetal tissue (which can also theoretically be treated by the body as “self” antigens), or animal DNA from culture mediums which may cross-react, may also fulfil the criteria of presenting “self-antigens” or “similar antigens” into the recipient, subsequently resulting in autoimmunity. That apparently, hasn't been considered at all.
Most vaccines have potent adjuvants as well as other foreign antigens, and when you give several vaccines together ..... you more than fulfil the criteria in Rose 2010..
But to understand the significant of the 2010 Rose paper, we have to have a look at HOW a baby’s immune system develops, and why.
We can do that by looking at Chelvarajan 2004, where at that time, the author considered a baby’s immune system to be “defective” precisely because a baby’s immune system persistently and defiantly refuses to produce IL-1B and TNFa – those same things mentioned in Rose 2010. Look at how many times almost in disgust, Chelvarajan 2004 used the word “defect” or defective.
Let me repeat that:
Babies just won’t produce IL-1B and TNFa.
Which is why all the early vaccines, for Hib, which were not joined up with a toxin and adjuvant to whack the immune system around the ears, wouldn’t work.
Once they conjugated them onto a diphtheria or tetanus toxin, and other adjuvants were added, to further push the red alert buttons in the baby, the baby’s immune system had no option but to respond. The vaccine manufacturers crowed at this marvel of technological success, wihch corrected the baby’s “defective” immune system.
In 2004, Chelvarajan suggested that if vaccine pushers added various immune system kickers into vaccines, this would solve the problem and fix this horribly deviant system. All vaccines for Strep Pneumo, Hib and Meningococcal diseases have potent adjuvants for this purpose, because without them, the baby's immune system acts from the blue-print, sits there and does nothing - just as it's supposed to do.
However, by 2007, Chelvarajan was seeing things differently, and stated in the last paragraph, that whereas in the past, they had considered this a “defect”, they now considered it “an important developmental program” saying,
“This anti-inflammatory phenotype may be beneficial to the neonate at a time when tissue growth and remodelling events are taking place at a rapid pace... thus the inability of the neonate to respond to infection with encapsulated bacteria may be the risk the organism takes for successful development.”
Why "protect" tissue growth and remodelling? What is being remodelled? From what - to what? If a baby's prime directive in NON-INFLAMMATION, what could inflammation do to tissue growth and remodelling that would be so bad?
Everything in a baby is growing so fast. The body, the gut, the immune system, the brain – cognitive function. Your baby learns the fundamentals of language at an astonishing speed and can be speaking single nouns within 7 months of you doing nothing but talk to your baby.
If it is important for successful development of a baby to allow the RISK of infection by NOT allowing two key parts of the primary infection defence to "fire", what’s the OTHER risk you might take, if you force an immune system to do something it's not supoosed to do....by causing repeated, chronic inflammation at the end of a needle?
Peripheral inflammation and vaccine adjuvants, can cause brain inflammation; create allergies, autoimmunity - constant inflammation all around the body - not just at the site of the injection... and.... cause mitochondria to stop working properly.
The brain and the immune system, are the two key fundamentals of successful, appropriate adaptation to the environment you live in. Your baby’s immune system needs to recognise what to react to, and what NOT to react to. Your baby’s brain needs to accurately, mentally respond to everything around it.
And the key to this is a non-inflammatory phenotype.
If your baby learns this correctly, that process greatly reduces the possibility of allergy, asthma and other “inflammatory” disorders from developing in the first place. Even Holt, in 2005, recognised that this was the key.
So here’s the next question?
If a baby’s default position is NOT to respond to toxin-mediated bacterial diseases, what chance does a baby have to survive potentially serious infections?
