Sunday, September 14, 2014

Inflammation in the guts and depression

Can Inflammation in Your Gut Be the Root of Your Depression?

October 06, 2011 | 152,564 views
Recent studies have shown that inflammation may be involved in the pathogenesis of depression. In fact, some research has demonstrated that depression is frequently associated with gastrointestinal inflammations and autoimmune diseases as well as with other ailments in which chronic low-grade inflammation is a significant contributing factor.
It is possible that depression could be a neuropsychiatric manifestation of a chronic inflammatory syndrome. And the primary cause of inflammation may be the dysfunction of the "gut-brain axis".
According to a study reprinted on the website Green Med Info:
"... [A]n increasing number of clinical studies have shown that treating gastrointestinal inflammations with probiotics, vitamin B, D and omega 3 fatty acids, through attenuating proinflammatory stimuli to brain, may also improve depression symptoms and quality of life. All these findings justify an assumption that treating gastrointestinal inflammations may improve the efficacy of the currently used treatment modalities of depression and related diseases."
By Dr. Mercola
The notion that inflammation in your gut could be linked to your symptoms of depression may sound far-fetched, but it actually makes perfect sense when you understand the intricate connection between your brain and your digestive tract.
Perhaps the simplest example to use is getting butterflies in your stomach when you're nervous, thus your thoughts, i.e. brain, are manifesting symptoms in your gut. But another route of connection is via low-grade inflammation, which is a significant contributing factor to numerous diseases that often occur alongside depression, and may, in fact, be manifesting your depressive symptoms.

Is Depression the Result of Chronic Inflammation?

A recent review has pointed out several mechanisms by which gastrointestinal inflammation may play a critical role in the development of depression.
Among them:
  1. Depression is often found alongside gastrointestinal inflammations and autoimmune diseases as well as with cardiovascular diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, type 2-diabetes and also cancer, in which chronic low-grade inflammation is a significant contributing factor. Thus researchers suggested "depression may be a neuropsychiatric manifestation of a chronic inflammatory syndrome."
  2. Research suggests the primary cause of inflammation may be dysfunction of the "gut-brain axis." Your gut is literally your second brain -- created from the identical tissue as your brain during gestation -- and contains larger amounts of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with mood control.
  3. It's important to understand that your gut bacteria are an active and integrated part of your body, and as such are heavily dependent on your diet and vulnerable to your lifestyle. If you consume a lot of processed foods and sweetened drinks, for instance, your gut bacteria are likely going to be severely compromised because processed foods in general will destroy healthy microflora and sugars of all kinds feed bad bacteria and yeast, as well as promote systemic inflammation.
  4. An increasing number of clinical studies have shown that treating gastrointestinal inflammation with probiotics, vitamin B, vitamin D and omega-3 fats may also improve depression symptoms and quality of life by attenuating proinflammatory stimuli to your brain.
What this all boils down to is that chronic inflammation in your body disrupts the normal functioning of many bodily systems, and can wreak havoc on your brain. But it appears inflammation may be more than just another risk factor for depression; it may in fact be THE risk factor that underlies all others. Although this refers to postpartum depression, the inflammatory response is the same in its impact on all forms of depression.
Published in the International Breastfeeding Journal, researchers stated:
"The old paradigm described inflammation as simply one of many risk factors for depression. The new paradigm is based on more recent research that has indicated that physical and psychological stressors increase inflammation. These recent studies constitute an important shift in the depression paradigm: inflammation is not simply a risk factor; it is the risk factor that underlies all the others.
Moreover, inflammation explains why psychosocial, behavioral and physical risk factors increase the risk of depression. This is true for depression in general and for postpartum depression in particular.
Puerperal women are especially vulnerable to these effects because their levels of proinflammatory cytokines significantly increase during the last trimester of pregnancy -- a time when they are also at high risk for depression.Moreover, common experiences of new motherhood, such as sleep disturbance, postpartum pain, and past or current psychological trauma, act as stressors that cause proinflammatory cytokine levels to rise."

This is Why Sugar is Also a Major Factor in Depression

There's a great book on this subject, The Sugar Blues, written by William Duffy more than 35 years ago, that delves into the sugar-depression link in great detail. The central argument Duffy makes in the book is that sugar is an extremely health-harming addictive drug, and that simply making that one dietary change -- eliminating as much sugar as possible -- can have a profoundly beneficial impact on your mental health. He even advocated eliminating sugar from the diet of the mentally ill, stating it could be an effective treatment in and of itself for some people.
It's become increasingly clear that one route by which sugar is so detrimental to your mental health is because sugar consumption triggers a cascade of chemical reactions in your body that promote chronic inflammation. Further, excess sugar and fructose will distort the ratio of good to bad bacteria in your gut, which also plays an integral role in your mental health.  Sugar does this by serving as a fertilizer/fuel for pathogenic bacteria, yeast and fungi that negatively inhibit the beneficial bacteria in your gut.
For instance, recent research showed the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus was found to have a marked effect on GABA levels in certain brain regions and lowered the stress-induced hormone corticosterone, resulting in reduced anxiety- and depression-related behavior. But if you consume a lot of processed foods and sweetened drinks (which are typically fructose-heavy), your gut bacteria are likely going to be severely compromised and so is your mental health! So the dietary answer for treating depression is to severely limit sugars, especially fructose, as well as grains.
It's worth noting that sugar can also lead to excessive insulin release that can lead to hypoglycemia, which, in turn, causes your brain to secrete glutamate in levels that can cause agitation, depression, anger, anxiety, panic attacks and an increase in suicide risk.
So radically reducing your sugar intake, especially fructose, to less than 25 grams per day will be one of the most powerful interventions for dealing with depression, as well as fighting chronic inflammation and supporting healthy gut bacteria. Consuming more than 25 grams of fructose a day will clearly push your brain biochemistry, and your overall health, in the wrong direction.

Relieving Gastrointestinal Inflammation May Ease Your Depressive Symptoms

We discussed the importance of limiting sugar and fructose, which is one of the primary ways to treat gastrointestinal inflammation, above. You will also want to be sure your gut is regularly "reseeded" with good bacteria, or probiotics, which are the foundation of a healthy gastrointestinal tract.
My recommendations for optimizing your gut bacteria are as follows:
  • Fermented foods are still the best route to optimal digestive health, as long as you eat the traditionally made, unpasteurized versions. Healthy choices include lassi (an Indian yoghurt drink, traditionally enjoyed before dinner), fermented raw (unpasteurrized) grass-fed organic milk such as kefir, various pickled fermentations of cabbage, turnips, eggplant, cucumbers, onions, squash and carrots, and natto (fermented soy).
  • If you regularly eat fermented foods such as these that, again, have not been pasteurized (pasteurization kills the naturally occurring probiotics), your healthy gut bacteria will thrive.
  • Probiotic supplement. Although I'm not a major proponent of taking many supplements (as I believe the majority of your nutrients need to come from food), probiotics are definitely an exception. I have used many different brands over the past 15 years and there are many good ones out there.
  • If you do not eat fermented foods, taking a high-quality probiotic supplement certainly makes a lot of sense considering how important they are to optimizing your mental health.
Probiotics have a direct effect on brain chemistry, transmitting mood- and behavior-regulating signals to your brain via the vagus nerve, which is yet another reason why your intestinal health can have such a profound influence on your mental health, and vice versa. Two other important factors to treat gastrointestinal inflammation and also help relieve depression are:
There's a wealth of evidence showing gastrointestinal involvement in a variety of neurological disease. With this in mind, it should also be crystal clear that nourishing your gut flora with good bacteria is extremely important, from cradle to old age, because in a very real sense you have two brains, one inside your skull and one in your gut, and each needs its own vital nourishment.

Depression - Disease or Infammation?

Is Depression a Disease—or a Symptom of Inflammation?

by Chris Kresser

The idea that depression and other mental health conditions are caused by an imbalance of chemicals (particularly serotonin and norepinephrine) in the brain is so deeply ingrained in our collective psyche that it seems almost sacrilegious to question it. 
Of course Big Pharma has played a role in perpetuating this idea. Antidepressant drugs, which are based on the chemical imbalance theory, represent a $10 billion dollar market in the U.S. alone. According to the CDC, 11 percent of Americans over 12 years old take antidepressants, and they are the second-most prescribed medications (after cholesterol-lowering drugs). Doctors wrote a staggering 254 million prescriptions for antidepressants in 2010. (1)
New research suggests that depression may be primarily caused by inflammation.
Yet as popular as this theory has become, it is riddled with problems. For example: 
  • Reducing levels of norepinephrine, serotonin and dopamine does not produce depression in humans, even though it appears to do so in animals.
  • Although some depressed patients have low levels of serotonin and norepinephrine, the majority do not. Several studies indicate that only 25 percent of depressed patients have low levels of these neurotransmitters.
  • Some depressed patients have abnormally high levels of serotonin and norepinephrine, and some patients with no history of depression have low levels of them. (2)
What if depression isn’t caused by a “chemical imbalance” after all? More specifically, what if depression itself is not a disease, but a symptom of an underlying problem? 
That is exactly what the most recent research on depression is telling us. A new theory called the “Immune Cytokine Model of Depression” holds that depression is not a disease itself, but instead a “multifaceted sign of chronic immune system activation.” (3)
To put it plainly: depression may be a symptom of chronic inflammation.

The connection between depression and inflammation

A large body of research now suggests that depression is associated with a low-grade, chronic inflammatory response and is accompanied by increased oxidative stress. 
In an excellent review paper by Berk et al, the authors presented several lines of evidence supporting the connection between depression and inflammation: (4)
  • Depression is often present in acute, inflammatory illnesses. (5)
  • Higher levels of inflammation increase the risk of developing depression. (6)
  • Administering endotoxins that provoke inflammation to healthy people triggers classic depressive symptoms. (7)
  • One-quarter of patients who take interferon, a medication used to treat hepatitis C that causes significant inflammation, develop major depression. (8)
  • Remission of clinical depression is often associated with a normalization of inflammatory markers. (9)
During an inflammatory reaction, chemicals called “cytokines” are produced. These include tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α, interleukin (IL)-1, interferon (IFN)ɣ, and interleukin (IL)-10, among others. Researchers discovered in the early 1980s that inflammatory cytokines produce a wide variety of psychiatric and neurological symptoms which perfectly mirror the defining characteristics of depression. (10)
Interestingly enough, antidepressants (particularly SSRIs) have been shown to reduce the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines like TNF-α, IL-1, interferon IFN-ɣ and increase the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines like IL-10. (11, 12) They also change the gene expression of some immune cells that are involved in inflammatory processes. This suggests that SSRIs are anti-inflammatory, which would explain their mechanism of action if inflammation is a primary driver of depression.
The research on this topic is robust, and the connection between depression and inflammation is now well-established. But if depression is primarily caused by inflammation, the obvious question that arises is, “what is causing the inflammation?”

Common causes of inflammation and depression

If you’ve been following my blog for any length of time, you know that inflammation is at the root of nearly all modern disease, including diabetes, Alzheimer’s, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, allergies, asthma, and arthritis. So perhaps it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that depression is also caused by inflammation. 
The downside of this connection is that our modern diet and lifestyle are full of factors that provoke inflammation—and thus cause disease. The upside is that if we address these factors and reduce inflammation, we can prevent and even reverse the chronic, inflammatory diseases that have become such a fixture of industrial civilization.
According to the authors of the Berk et al review paper I referenced above, the following are the most common causes of inflammation that are associated with depression. 


There are several problems with the modern diet. It is high in foods that provoke inflammation, such as refined flour, excess sugar, oxidized (rancid) fats, trans fats, and a wide range of chemicals and preservatives. And it is low in foods that reduce inflammation, like long-chain omega-3 fats, fermented foods, and fermentable fiber. Numerous studies have associated the Western diet with major depressive disorder. (13)


One of the most harmful consequences of the modern diet has been the dramatic increase in obesity. Obesity is an inflammatory state. Studies have shown higher levels of inflammatory cytokines in obese people, and weight loss is associated with a decrease in those cytokines. (14) Obesity is closely linked with depression, and while that relationship is likely multi-factorial and complex, inflammation appears to play a significant role. (15)

Gut health

Disruptions in the gut microbiome and leaky gut (i.e. intestinal permeability) have both been shown to contribute to inflammation and correlate with depression. For example, a leaky gut permits endotoxins called lipopolysaccharide (LPS) to escape the gut and enter the bloodstream, where they provoke the release of inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α, IL-1 and COX-2. (16) And numerous studies have linked unfavorable changes to the bacteria inhabiting our gut with major depressive disorder. (17


Stress may be one of the most obvious causes of depression, but the link between stress and inflammation is less well-known. Research has shown that psychosocial stress stimulates the pro-inflammatory cytokine network, including increases in TNF-α and IL-1. (18) These increases in inflammatory cytokines are in turn closely related to depressive symptoms, as described above. 

Physical activity

There’s a huge amount of evidence indicating that exercise is an effective treatment for depression—in many cases as effective or more so than antidepressant drugs. It has also been shown to prevent depression in healthy people with no pre-existing symptoms. (19) Interestingly enough, while exercise initially produces the same inflammatory cytokines that are associated with depression, that is quickly followed by induction of anti-inflammatory substances. (20) This is known as a hormetic effect, where an initial stressor provokes a compensatory response in the body that has positive, long-term consequences. 

Sleep deprivation

Chronic sleep loss has been shown to increase inflammatory markers even in people that are otherwise healthy. (21) And although temporary sleep deprivation has been used to therapeutically improve depression, chronic sleep loss is a well-known contributing factor to developing depression in the first place. (22

Chronic infection

Chronic infections produce ongoing inflammation, so it’s no surprise to see that depression is associated with Toxoplasma gondii, West Nile virus, Clostridium difficile, and other pathogens. (23, 24, 25

Dental caries and periodontal disease

Dental caries and periodontal disease are another source of chronic inflammation, and thus a potential cause of depression. According to one large study of over 80,000 adults, researchers found that people with depression were more likely to have tooth loss even after controlling for several demographic and health factors. (26

Vitamin D deficiency

Low levels of vitamin D are common in Western populations, and there is growing evidence linking vitamin D deficiency to depression. Vitamin D modulates immune responses to infection, including reducing inflammatory markers like TNF-α and IL-1 that are associated with depression. (27) Supplementation with vitamin D to normalize serum 25D levels has been shown to to reduce inflammatory markers in some, but not all cases. (28)

Final thoughts and recommendations

The early 1980s discovery that inflammatory cytokines produce all of the characteristic signs and symptoms of depression should have made a big splash. For the first time ever, scientists had discovered a class of molecules that were tightly and consistently associated with depression, and, when administered to healthy volunteers, produced all of the symptoms necessary for the diagnosis of depression. 
Unfortunately, the “chemical imbalance” theory continues to be the dominant paradigm for understanding depression nearly 30 years after this profound discovery, despite the weak correlation between serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine and depressive symptoms. There are probably several reasons for this—and you’d be correct if you guessed that some of them are financial—but I’ll leave that discussion for another time.
The significance of this finding is huge—both for patients and clinicians. It shifts our focus from viewing depression as being a disease caused by a chemical imbalance, which often requires medication to correct, to being a symptom of a deeper, underlying problem. It also leads to entirely new avenues of treatment—many of them more effective and safer than antidepressant drugs.
Understanding the physical roots of depression can have a profound effect on people who are suffering from it. Although the stigma surrounding depression has decreased in recent years, many who are depressed still carry the burden of thinking that there’s something wrong with them, and the depression they experience is “their fault”. When my patients with depression learn that there’s an underlying physiological cause of their symptoms, they often feel a tremendous sense of relief and empowerment. What’s more, when we address this underlying cause, their mood improves dramatically and they quickly realize that the self-judgment and shame they felt about being depressed was misplaced and unwarranted.  
I don’t mean to suggest that emotional and psychological factors don’t play an important role in depression. In many cases they do, and I’ve written on that topic before. However, the assumption in mainstream medicine that depression is exclusively caused by those factors is obviously not true, and too often these other potential underlying causes go unexplored. The doctor prescribes an antidepressant, the patient takes it, and that’s the end of the discussion.
With this in mind, what can you do if you’re suffering from depression? Follow these two steps:
  1. Adopt an anti-inflammatory diet and lifestyle. This means eating a nutrient-dense, whole foods diet, getting enough sleep, managing stress, engaging in appropriate (not too little or too much) physical activity, and nourishing your gut. For more on how to do this, see my book Your Personal Paleo Code.
  2. Investigate other underlying causes of inflammation. On your own or with the help of a good functional medicine practitioner, explore other possible causes of inflammation that could be contributing to depression. These include gut issues (SIBO, leaky gut, dysbiosis, infections, etc.), chronic infections (viral, bacterial, fungal), low vitamin D levels, dental caries and periodontal disease, exposure to heavy metals and mold or other biotoxins, obstructive sleep apnea, and more.
Now I’d like to hear from you. Were you aware of the link between depression and inflammation? If not, how has learning about it changed your view of depression? Have you experienced an improvement in depressive symptoms after implementing an anti-inflammatory diet and lifestyle? Let us know in the comments section.

Controversial Vaccines in India : HPV and Pentavalent

Controversial vaccine studies: Why is Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation under fire from critics in India?

By KP Narayana Kumar, ET Bureau | 31 Aug, 2014, 07.10AM IST

In 2009, several schools for tribal children in Khammam district in Telangana — then a part of undivided Andhra Pradesh — became sites for observation studies for a cervical cancer vaccine that was administered to thousands of girls aged between nine and 15. The girls were administered the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine in three rounds that year under the supervision of state health department officials. The vaccine used was Gardasil, manufactured by Merck. It was administered to around 16,000 girls in the district, many of whom stayed in state government-run hostels meant for tribal students.

Months later, many girls started falling ill and by 2010 five of them died. Two more deaths were reported from Vadodara, Gujarat, where an estimated 14,000 children studying in schools meant for tribal children were also vaccinated with another brand of HPV vaccine, Cervarix, manufactured by GSK. Earlier in the week, the Associated Press reported that scores of teenaged girls were hospitalised in a small town in northern Colombia with symptoms that parents suspect could be an adverse reaction to Gardasil.

A standing committee on health and family welfare that investigated the irregularities pertaining to the observation studies in India tabled its report a year ago, on August 30.

The committee found that consent for conducting these studies, in many cases, was taken from the hostel wardens, which was a flagrant violation of norms. In many other cases, thumbprint impressions of their poor and illiterate parents were duly affixed onto the consent form. The children also had no idea about the nature of the disease or the vaccine. The authorities concerned could not furnish requisite consent forms for the vaccinated children in a huge number of cases.

The committee said it was "deeply shocked to find that in Andhra Pradesh out of the 9,543 [consent] forms, 1,948 forms have thumb impressions while hostel wardens have signed 2,763 forms. In  Gujarat, out of the 6,217 forms 3,944 have thumb impressions and 5,454 either signed or carried thumb impressions of guardians. The data revealed that a very large number of parents or guardians are illiterate and could not even write in their local languages, Telugu or Gujarati."

Earlier this month, taking a serious view of the death of seven tribal girls in the context of the observation studies, the Supreme Court asked the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) to explain how permissions were given.

The SC bench of justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda asked the Centre to produce relevant files that pertained to the grant of licence for trial of the HPV vaccine in India. The court also asked the Centre to appraise it of steps taken on the report of the parliamentary committee.

Shoddy Investigations

Controversial vaccine studies: Why is Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation under fire from critics in India?

When a team of health activists from an NGO that specializes in women's health named Sama visited Khammam in March 2010 on a fact-finding mission, they were told that as many as 120 girls experienced adverse reactions such as epileptic seizures, severe stomach ache, headaches and mood swings. The Sama report also said there had been cases of early onset of menstruation following the vaccination, heavy bleeding and severe menstrual cramps among many students. The standing committee pulled up the relevant state governments for the shoddy investigation into these deaths. It said it was disturbed
to find that "all the seven deaths were summarily dismissed as unrelated to vaccinations without in-depth investigations...the speculative causes were suicides, accidental drowning in well (why not suicide?), malaria, viral infections, subarachnoid hemorrhage (without autopsy) etc."

The committee said that in the context of deaths of girls classified as suicide, the role of the "HPV vaccine as a possible, if not probable, cause of suicidal ideation cannot be ruled out."

It said that an American NGO — Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) — had carried out the studies.

The committee found that the objective behind the observation studies in India primarily was to collect and record data on the effect of the vaccines on the minor subjects. Another objective was to help the relevant authorities in India make an informed opinion on introducing the vaccine into India's immunization programme.

Providing a background, the report states that on June 1, 2006, American drug regulator, the US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) approved the first vaccine — Gardasil — to prevent HPV. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), two HPV types causes 70% of cervical cancers. In the very same month, PATH embarked upon a large-scale, five-year project that involved observation studies, covering Peru, Vietnam and Uganda, apart from India.

The committee observed that on November 16, 2006, a draft memorandum of understanding (MoU) between PATH and the ICMR was circulated by the latter. The MoU states that the two parties desire " explore collaboration to support public sector decision regarding HPV vaccine introduction in India and to generate necessary evidence to allow the possible introduction of HPV vaccine into India's Universal Immunization Programme." That idea appears to have hit a roadblock following the deaths of the
deaths of the children during the observation studies.

The standing committee report was a shocker but it became even more significant when it was mentioned that the study was sponsored by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF).

Over the past decade, Bill Gates has transformed from an IT businessman into a global philanthropist. The foundation that he set up along with his wife is involved in hundreds of projects related to healthcare for the poor. Vaccination is a significant area of work and BMGF has projects running in almost every country that's counted as poor. BMGF continues to partner PATH in a number of studies such as the ones for a Rotavirus vaccine and pneumococcal vaccine in several countries, mainly Africa and Asia.

The health ministry also has not stopped PATH, in any manner, from becoming a part of such studies in India. The NGO has been roped in for other vaccine observation studies in India wherein it partners the department of bio-technology and other government departments. Health secretary Lov Verma refused to give an answer when ET Magazine asked why PATH continued to be allowed to carry out observation studies in India even after the studies which allegedly turned fatal.

According to the BMGF, the WHO, the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, and the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India have all recommended vaccination "as a proven and highly effective preventive measure for cervical cancer. "The project used vaccines that are licensed in India and that have been administered safely around the world tens of millions of times, preventing countless cases of cervical cancer illness and death," maintains a BMGF spokesperson
in an emailed response (see GAVI & PHFI create incentives...).

The Wrong PATH

BMGF's role in funding the controversial studies, however, has led to many healthcare activists in India voicing their apprehensions. "BMGF has to take full responsibility because PATH is funded by them. It is also unethical when people championing the cause of vaccines are the same ones who are also investing in vaccine development," said V Rukmini Rao, one of the activists who filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court in connection with the HPV vaccine studies.

BMGF has funded two organizations that over the past five years have played a significant role in the country's immunization programme and are both under fire for conflict of interest. The organizations are GAVI (earlier known as Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization), a global aid organization that specializes in vaccination, and Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), a public-private partnership society that BMGF co-founded with the UPA government in 2006.

Activists allege that these two institutions have a working relationship with pharma companies. The main charge against GAVI is that it has representatives from pharmaceutical companies on its board while the PHFI accepts grants from pharma companies. "BMGF and GAVI are pushing the [vaccine] agenda with governments around the world, including India," says Ritu Priya Mehrotra, professor of Social Medicine and Community Health and School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. The
community health activist says the biotechnology industry was pushing more and more vaccines into India and that the health ministry was not ensuring that adequate testing was done before recommending their use in government programmes.

"We need to follow the precautionary principle when it comes to vaccines. We do need more vaccines...but we should ensure that enough time is given for research to prove the efficacy and safety of new vaccines. The vaccines that are to be brought here should also fit our epidemiological profile," adds Mehrotra. Mehrotra adds that a network of people in aid agencies and the health bureaucracy were pushing this agenda. "They have the advantage of an existing medicalized mindset that believes vaccinations
are the perfect, safe, effective, low-cost solution for prevention of infectious diseases. There is ample evidence that this is not always the case."

Wrong Dose

In recent years, the deaths of many infants allegedly soon after they were immunized with the Pentavalent vaccine, a five-in-one shot, has contributed towards anxiety around vaccines. The vaccine has been controversial in Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Vietnam, too, where it was temporarily suspended on account of some reported post-vaccination deaths of infants.

Launched in 2011 in India, Pentavalent is a combination of five vaccines in one: diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, hepatitis B and haemophilus influenza type b (the bacteria that causes meningitis and pneumonia). The vaccine created a furore after many infants from across the country were reported to have died after the vaccination. A reply by the health ministry to an RTI application shows that the deaths of three infants in Tamil Nadu have "a consistent causal association to immunization",  which means the ministry confirms that there is a connection between the vaccination and the deaths. In all, 54 cases of deaths of infants who were vaccinated with Pentavalent have been classified as 'adverse events following immunization'(AEFI), nomenclature that confirms the deaths have occurred soon after vaccination.

Controversial vaccine studies: Why is Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation under fire from critics in India?

ET Magazine's questionnaires to the health secretary were unanswered. BMGF, GAVI and PHFI are in favour of Pentavalent even as a number of paediatricians and health experts have petitioned the government to take a second look at the vaccine in light of the deaths of infants.

In an opinion piece published recently in Deccan Herald titled "New Vaccines: Gates Foundation's philanthropy or business?", Dr Gopal Dabade of the All India Drug Action Network said that GAVI had committed a $165-million grant for the phased introduction of Pentavalent in India and provides a subsidy of Rs 145 per injection for five years after which the government will have to pay the total cost of the vaccines. "BMGF is a founding partner of GAVI. Its initial grant helped establish GAV  and it continues to support its work. Some of the pharmaceutical companies have affiliation with BMGF to manufacture the vaccine," Dr Dabade said.

The Controversial Report

A recent strategy document on immunization published this year by the health ministry suggests doubling the expenditure on purchase of Pentavalent. The Multi-Year Strategic Plan for the Universal Immunization Programme (UIP) makes the case that the ministry needs to double its spend on Pentavalent from Rs 312.7 crore in 2013 to Rs 773.8 crore in 2017. The report also calls for a seven-fold increase in total spend on vaccines — from Rs 510.6 crore to Rs 3,587.1 crore by the same year.

The report was drafted by a team of immunization researchers who work under the PHFI which was co-founded by BMGF and the UPA government as a public private partnership. A few experts from UNICEF and WHO were also part of the team. Interestingly, its on the basis of such multiyear plans that GAVI, also funded by BMGF, disburses grants to countries.

Started in 2000, GAVI is a first-of-its kind funding agency that brings together poor countries, donor nations, global agencies, foundations, individual donors and pharma companies to enhance vaccination in poor countries. The funding is split between governments of the developed world (74%) and corporations, foundations and individuals (26%). BMGF accounts for about a fifth of the total contributions.

The HPV vaccine, used as a part of the allegedly fatal observational studies in undivided Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat, as well as Pentavalent are both part of a range of vaccines that countries can seek co-financing support for under GAVI's scheme for new and underused vaccines.

The GAVI board comprises of a representative each of the pharma industry from the industrialized and developing countries, a sore point with some experts from the aid world. In an article in the The Guardian three years ago, leaders of international aid agencies such as Oxfam and MSF said the representatives of companies needed to step down from the GAVI board. "Pharmaceutical companies' representation on GAVI's board creates a conflict of interest. The current structure is far too cosy," said the article quoting Mohga Kamal-Yanni, a senior policy adviser with Oxfam.

In a statement to ET Magazine, GAVI defended its model: "As a public-private partnership, GAVI harnesses the capabilities of the public and private sector to maximise its impact on health and development. While we believe this model is critical for our mission, we also recognize that it requires us to manage potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, relationships with the private sector are managed through strict policies. For instance, a board member representing manufacturers will be asked to leave discussions and be excluded from voting on any issue where a potential conflict of interest is identified."

Recently, an additional secretary with the health ministry, Anuradha Gupta, was appointed as the deputy CEO of GAVI. Gupta was earlier in charge of the National Health Mission. Healthcare activists raised a furore as the international agency's board also has representation from pharmaceutical companies. The Alliance Against Conflict of Interest, an organization fighting for a legislation on the subject, highlighted Gupta's move from government to GAVI as an example.

GAVI's defences is that "Ms Gupta has brought to GAVI her deep passion and commitment to protecting maternal and child health which includes enabling them to access life-saving vaccines. She strongly supports GAVI's vision and mission which is to save children's lives and protect people's health by increasing access to immunization in poor countries."

Conflict of Interest

Similar controversies on proximity with pharma companies and conflict of interest have been raised about PHFI. While PHFI is engaged in public health and is also partnering the government in UIP, it has accepted grants from a number of pharma companies, including vaccine manufacturers. In all, PHFI has accepted grants worth around `57.65 crore from pharma companies, including Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer and Sanofi, which manufacture vaccines. Sanofi is one of the many manufacturers of the controversial Pentavalent vaccine around the world.

PHFI head K Srinath Reddy asserts that the grants "that the PHFI has received from pharmaceutical companies are meant for broader educational activities, and are not intended to benefit PHFI, a pharma company or any other specific organization."

Another point that provides firepower to the critics is PHFI's McKinsey connection. An executive with the consulting company, Gautam Kumra, is present on the governing body of PHFI. Kumra's profile on McKinsey's website declares that his areas of expertise include healthcare. He is also credited with helping "one of India's leading pharmaceutical companies define its 10-year vision, redesign its organization and upgrade its capabilities to execute the vision."

In 2012, McKinsey published a report titled "Transforming India's vaccine market" in association with the Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India.

The report suggests that India's vaccine market is much smaller and underpenetrated than its global peers and discusses impediments that have hampered growth of the vaccine market. The report also features a scenario as per which the optimistic case would be that the market would have hit a value of around $3.2 billion in 2020, growing at 30-35% year-on-year from 2012 onwards. "In all likelihood, there will be five "mega" vaccines of over $250 million each in size, constituting 60% of the market, namely the anti-influenza, anti-typhoid, HPV, pneumococcal and Hepatitis A," the report said.

A McKinsey spokesperson said "the consultancy does not have a working relationship with PHFI. Gautam Kumra, a senior partner at McKinsey & Company, is a member of PHFI's governing board but in an entirely personal capacity as a healthcare systems expert and not as a representative of McKinsey." The consultancy also said it had a long history of pro bono and volunteer work for private, public and social sector organizations.

Controversial vaccine studies: Why is Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation under fire from critics in India?

"PHFI is a private society cleverly disguised as a public-private partnership since some of the people in the governing body are or have been senior civil servants or public servants," adds Supreme Court lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan. Bhushan points out that PHFI appears to have several connections with the big pharma companies and their consultants. "The PHFI appears to have a conflict of interest in advising the government of India and directing the immunization programme."

PHFI's Srinath Reddy stresses that they had received unrestricted educational grants from pharma companies towards building the capacity of health professionals for providing appropriate health care of adequate quality in primary health care settings. However, these were not connected with the PHFI's work on the immunization front, he added. "As a not-for-profit organization, PHFI receives grants from different stakeholders for funding capacity building programmes which address broader public health and health system needs, including quality of healthcare. These grants are in no way tied to any pharmaceutical product and are meant solely for educational activities." But then again the line between transferring medical knowledge and deriving commercial interests is a thin one.

New Study Correlates Autism Disorder Increase and Human Fetal DNA, Retroviral Agents in Vaccines

New Study in Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology Correlates Autism Disorder Increase and Human Fetal DNA, Retroviral Agents in Vaccines

Contact: Katie Doan, Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, 206-906-9922,

SEATTLE, Sept. 8, 2014 /Christian Newswire/ -- A new study published in the September 2014 volume of the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology reveals a significant correlation between autism disorder (AD) and MMR, Varicella (chickenpox) and Hepatitis-A vaccines.

Using statistical analysis and data from the US Government, UK, Denmark and Western Australia, scientists at Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI) found that increases in autistic disorder correspond with the introduction of vaccines using human fetal cell lines and retroviral contaminants.

Even more alarming, Dr Theresa Deisher, lead scientist and SCPI founder noted that, "Not only are the human fetal contaminated vaccines associated with autistic disorder throughout the world, but also with epidemic childhood leukemia and lymphomas."

Their study comes on the heels of recent breaking news that the CDC deliberately withheld evidence of the significant increase in autism among African-American boys who were vaccinated prior to 36 months of age. (See: )

So it should come as no surprise that the FDA has known for decades about the dangers of insertional mutagenesis by using the human fetal cell lines and yet, they chose to ignore it. Instead of conducting safety studies they regulated the amount of human DNA that could be present in a vaccine to no greater than 10ng. ( )

Unfortunately, Dr. Deisher's team discovered that the fetal DNA levels ranged anywhere from 142ng - 2000ng per dose, way beyond the so-called "safe" level.

"There are a large number of publications about the presence of HERV (human endogenous retrovirus - the only re-activatable endogenous retrovirus) and its association with childhood lymphoma," noted Dr Deisher. "The MMR II and chickenpox vaccines and indeed all vaccines that were propagated or manufactured using the fetal cell line WI-38 are contaminated with this retrovirus. And both parents and physicians have a right to know this!"

Certainly these discoveries by SCPI should generate an immediate investigation by FDA officials, if not an outright ban on the use of aborted fetal cell lines as substrates for vaccine production.  There are numerous other non-human FDA-approved cell lines that can and should be used.

Dr Deisher's study is available on the Academic Journals website at:
or on their website at  

Dr. Theresa Deisher is a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Physiology from Stanford University with over 20 years in commercial biotechnology, prior to founding AVM Biotechnology and Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute. As an inventor of 23 issued US patents she is world-renowned for her work in  adult stem cell research and the first to discover adult cardiac derived stem cells. Dr. Deisher was a plaintiff in the US federal lawsuit to prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars for embryo destructive research, which resulted in steering science towards adult stem cell research and 14 US FDA approved adult stem cell products.


Data reveals Autism is on the rise.

Empirical Data Show Autism is On the Rise. Is it Logical to Blame the Toxins of the 1970s?

Date: 10 Sep 2014
By: SafeMinds
Comment: 0
By Cynthia Nevison, Ph.D., SafeMinds Board Member
When I was pregnant with my first son in 2007, I read that a boy in the U.S. had a 1 in 91 chance of being diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. A good friend was a special education teacher who attended national meetings to keep up with the latest research. She told me she’d noticed a definite increase in the number of autistic kids over the course of her career (The odds today, as most of you already know, are so much worse: 1 in 42 boys, 1 in 189 girls). My friend said that nobody really knew what was causing the increase in autism, but that the leading theory involved an upsurge of nerdy men marrying nerdy women.
When my baby was born, I was smitten. He arrived ten days past his estimated due date, weighed 7 pounds 1 ounce; he had peach fuzz on his head and deep blue eyes. He was so sweet and adorable—and so helpless and dependent on me to make wise choices for him.
A close relative, who had been stricken with polio as a boy, had died of a neurodegenerative disease at age 69. Though he recovered from polio, my family always suspected his later disease may have been caused by his boyhood illness. So I went to my son’s 2-month well baby visit glad that he would be getting DTaP and polio shots. I was surprised, however, at how many other vaccines were recommended. I left the doctor’s office feeling uneasy about injecting such a small baby with so many bioactive substances at once.
I knew there had been a controversy surrounding vaccines and, although I’d heard the link with autism had been thoroughly discredited, I decided I needed to inform myself about the issue before I went back to the doctor for my son’s 4-month visit. I earned my Ph.D. in atmospheric science from Stanford University and had 18 years of experience in scientific research when my son was born. I was very interested in making an evidence-based decision on this issue.
I was shocked and dismayed by what I learned:
  • That autism was often accompanied by devastating gastrointestinal problems.
  • That in November 1999 CDC data revealed that babies with the highest early vaccine mercury exposure had a 7.6-fold increased risk of getting autism compared to those with zero exposure. Instead of making this information public, the CDC held an off-site meeting at the Simpsonwood retreat and conference center with doctors and vaccine manufacturers to decide how to manipulate the data to make these inconvenient results go away.
I read David Kirby’s Evidence of Harm, subscribed to the SafeMinds newsletter, and had a second baby in 2009. When my second son was 9 months old the doctors were unhappy with his weight gain and diagnosed him with an eating disorder. I grew disillusioned with standard medicine during the stressful year that followed. We saw an eating therapist who told me to distract my son into eating with zany behavior and a nutritionist who gave me a list of junk foods to fatten him up. My little boy was also subjected to a number of traumatic, often botched blood draws that achieved little or nothing. It was I, with the help of a new, holistic doctor, who finally improved my son’s appetite by giving him zinc and other mineral supplements. With my second son’s eating problems I became even more grateful to SafeMinds for giving me information about children’s health that wasn’t being covered in the mainstream media.
In 2011, when SafeMinds advertised for a volunteer with an atmospheric science background, I sent them my resume and began a study looking at geographical correlations between autism and atmospheric mercury. Although I found a statistically significant correlation, I eventually became skeptical of my own study. It didn’t really make sense. The time trend in atmospheric mercury over the U.S. had been flat since at least the mid 1990s and seemed inconsistent with the sharply increasing trend I’d plotted in the autism data. In addition, the diagnosed autism rate in China, the world’s biggest coal burner and mercury emitter (and a country with horrendous air pollution), was lower than in the U.S.
Around this same time, in 2012, Philip Landrigan and colleagues published an autism research strategy that included a list of the top 10 compounds suspected of causing autism.
Having studied and taught a survey course in environmental chemistry, I recognized immediately that 3 of the first 5 compounds on their list had been banned or sharply curtailed in the 1970s. But I had little idea about the trends in some of the other compounds. So I decided to do a study, based around Landrigan’s list, to answer 2 major questions:
1) What is the time trend in autism in the United States and how much of the apparent rise is real rather than due simply to better diagnosis?
2) How does that rise in autism, if it really exists, compare to the time trends in each of the chemicals in Landrigan’s top 10 list?
My findings have been published this week in the peer-review journal Environmental Health.
The main points that I have uncovered are:
  • Diagnosed autism prevalence has risen dramatically in the U.S over the last several decades and continued to trend upward as of birth year 2005.
  • The increase in autism is mainly real, with only about 20-25 percent attributable to increased autism awareness/diagnoses, and has occurred mostly since the late 1980s.
  • In contrast to the upward trend in autism, children’s exposure to most of the top 10 toxic compounds has remained flat or decreased over this same time frame.
  • The environmental factors with time trends that correlate positively to autism include 2 vaccine-related indices: cumulative aluminum adjuvant exposure and cumulative total number of disease-doses by 18 months; polybrominated diphenyl ethers (used as flame retardants); the herbicide glyphosate (used on GM crops); and maternal obesity.
Figure 1. Autism prevalence vs. birth year for California IDEA data, derived using two independent methods:  1) Constant-age tracking of 9 year-olds over 20 years of annual reports from 1991-2010 (red) and 2) Age-resolved snapshot from the most recent report in 2010 (blue).  The slope of each curve over the same birth year interval, 1993-2001, is estimated with a least squares linear fit.  The snapshot fit (grey) spans ages 9-17 in the 2010 report.  The constant-age tracking fit spans report years 2002-2010.  The snapshot:tracking slope ratio over the 1993-2001 birth year interval is 0.80, suggesting that 80% of the tracked increase is real. 
 (Reprinted from Environmental Health 2014, 13:73 doi:10.1186/1476-069X-13-73)
Figure 1. Autism prevalence vs. birth year for California IDEA data, derived using two independent methods: 1) Constant-age tracking of 9 year-olds over 20 years of annual reports from 1991-2010 (red) and 2) Age-resolved snapshot from the most recent report in 2010 (blue). The slope of each curve over the same birth year interval, 1993-2001, is estimated with a least squares linear fit. The snapshot fit (grey) spans ages 9-17 in the 2010 report. The constant-age tracking fit spans report years 2002-2010. The snapshot:tracking slope ratio over the 1993-2001 birth year interval is 0.80, suggesting that 80% of the tracked increase is real. (Reprinted from Environmental Health 2014, 13:73 doi:10.1186/1476-069X-13-73)  Note: due to underascertainment among 5 and 6 year-olds, the age-resolved snapshot curve decreases after birth year 2003.  However, constant-age tracking of 5 year-olds suggests that autism is still increasing in birth years 2004-2005.
Of course, correlation does not mean causation, so this last point should be interpreted with caution. It also should not be taken as a comprehensive list. There are many other environmental factors I would have liked to have included in my paper, but was not able to reconstruct their trends, including prenatal ultrasound, the use of acetaminophen (Tylenol), and antibiotics. Trends in key nutrient levels like vitamin D, zinc, and magnesium may also be important.
The vaccine index correlations, on their own, would mean little, but become more significant when you consider that thousands of parents are reporting autistic regression in their children following severe adverse reactions to vaccines. The severe, obvious reactions are the exception, not the rule, among autistic kids, but these cases are real and have been conceded and compensated under U.S. law.
With children’s well-being at stake, we should be leaving no stone unturned until we get to the bottom of these parental reports. Instead, we have dismissed them with statistics and called it Science, despite knowing that in some cases those statistics were deliberately manipulated.
It’s also not enough for epidemiologists to show that most kids can tolerate the current vaccine schedule without developing autism. That’s already obvious, but it doesn’t prove there’s not a vulnerable subset of children who can’t.
The director of the NIEHS recently described air pollution as a probable “real agent involved in the increasing prevalence of ASD.” Her comments were based on the multiple epidemiological studies that have found correlations between autism and air pollution. I’ve read those studies and have been surprised that none has recognized that air quality has been improving in the U.S. over recent decades, beginning with the 1970 Clean Air Act. Can we logically expect that further reductions in air pollution will reverse the upward trend in autism?  
We owe it to our children to exert ourselves to what John F. Kennedy once described as the “discomfort of thought” and to consider the whole body of scientific evidence.
It’s time to stop resting on what JFK called the comfort of myths.
Myth #1: We are not failing to protect children against autism, rather, autism has been there all along and we’re just succeeding in diagnosing it better.
Myth #2: We can account for the upward autism trend with comfortable explanations like air pollution, which nobody likes, or with “throw-up-our-hands-and-do-nothing” explanations based on a vague convergence of multiple toxins.
Because of the “convergence of many toxins” paradigm, the mainstream scientific community has led parents to believe that we cannot know what causes autism and therefore we cannot prevent it. It’s hard to dismiss this paradigm. The many chemicals in our environment at best are not helping our kids and certainly are contributing to their overall body burden of toxins. But we also should be skeptical of these kinds of vague explanations. If they were true, would autism have such a distinct time trend, with an inflection point in the late 1980s? Especially considering that many of the worst toxins were in decline at that point? Also, despite hand-waving arguments to the contrary, there is no evidence that autism existed prior to the 1930s.
The “we can’t know” attitude also absolves scientists and doctors of responsibility for prevention, and suggests the only thing we can do is diagnose autism as early as possible in order to do behavioral intervention.
The unfortunate truth is that the environmental influences causing autism may at the same time be medically useful, even lifesaving. Rather than the current approach of blanket denial, wouldn’t it be better to confront the situation honestly and come up with solutions that promote a more optimal health outcome for children as a whole?
Parents deserve better and more honest information about how to protect their children, not only from autism, but also from the other chronic conditions that afflict so many kids these days: asthma, ADHD, and severe food allergies, many of which, like autism, are fundamentally disorders of the immune system.
Some members of the environmental health community once showed true courage in taking on powerful industries, like the lead industry, that were poisoning children’s brains
We need such leaders again to challenge the illogic of past and current explanations for the rise in autism, from nerdy parents to air pollution, to end the denial of inconvenient truths, and to act to protect innocent children.
nevison_photoCynthia Nevison, Ph.D., is a research scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Her work focuses on atmospheric and environmental science.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Polio Vaccine, Cancer, AIDS and more

Cancer-Causing Vaccines,
Polio, AIDS, and
Monkey Business

2004 by Alan Cantwell, M.D.
The Global Polio Eradication Program, supported by the United Nation's World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, Rotary International, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), is planning to immunize 74 million African children in 22 countries in the coming months. The purpose is to stem a wild polio epidemic, the epicenter of which is oil-rich Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa.
The vaccine program hit a snag last Fall when Islamic clerics in the predominantly Muslim-populated areas of northern Nigeria claimed the WHO program was a plot by westerners to depopulate the area. Laboratory tests revealed estrogen and other female sex hormones in the polio vaccine, proof that the vaccines were contaminated with substances that could cause sterility. Furthermore, Nigerian officials became aware of internet reports suggesting the WHO vaccine might be contaminated with HIV (the AIDS virus) and other cancer-causing viruses. African blacks are as suspicious of government vaccines programs as American blacks. A 1990 survey of African-Americans in New York City showed 30% believed AIDS is an ethno-specific bioweapon designed in a laboratory to kill black people.
Dr. David Heymann, who heads the WHO eradication program, says the oral polio vaccine (which contains live but attenuated polio virus) is completely safe. He blames Nigerians for exporting polio to surrounding nations.
The WHO, the world's leading international health and science agency, is mired in power politics. For example, the Bush administration now restricts communications between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and WHO officials. A new HHS policy requires the WHO to submit all requests for expert scientific advice to political officials at HHS who will then choose which federal scientists will be permitted to respond. The new policy and two recent Administration decisions to withdraw federal scientists from major international health conferences are part of a disturbing pattern of political interference in global health issues.

Antifertility Vaccines and the WHO
In March 2004, Haruna Kaita, a pharmaceutical scientist and Dean of Ahmadu Bello University in Zaria, Nigeria, took samples of the controversial WHO's oral polio vaccine to India for analysis. Evidence of serious vaccine contamination was found. According to a March 11, 2004 report on, Kaita was asked why drug manufacturers would contaminate the oral polio vaccine. He gave three reasons: "These manufacturers or promoters of these harmful things have a secret agenda which only further research can reveal. Secondly they have always taken us in the third world for granted, thinking we don't have the capacity, knowledge and equipment to conduct tests that would reveal such contaminants. And very unfortunately they also have people to defend their atrocities within our midst, and worst still some of these are supposed to be our own professionals who we rely on to protect our interests." Dr. Kaita is demanding that "those who imported this fake drug in the name of Polio Vaccines- be prosecuted like any other criminal."
This is not the first time the WHO has been called on the carpet to explain their surreptitious use of antifertility vaccines. Millions of female Mexicans, Nicaraguans and Filipinos were duped into taking tetanus vaccines, some of which were laced with a female hormone that could cause miscarriage and sterilization. In 1995 a Catholic organization called Human Life International accused the WHO of promoting this Canadian-made tetanus vaccine covertly laced with a pregnancy hormone called human choriogonadotropic hormone (HCG). Suspicions were aroused when the tetanus vaccine was prescribed in the peculiar dose of five multiple injections over a three month period, and recommended only to women of child-bearing age. When an unusual number of women experienced vaginal bleeding and miscarriages after the shots, a hormone additive was uncovered as the cause.
It is no secret that since the 1970's the WHO has been testing and funding antifertility vaccine research that would make a woman's immune system attack and destroy her own babies in the womb. In Geneva in 1989 the WHO sponsored a Symposium on Antifertility Vaccines and Contraceptive Vaccines.
Third-world women who received the laced tetanus shots not only developed antibodies to tetanus, but developed dangerous antibodies to the pregnancy HCG hormone as well. Without HCG, growth of the fetus is impaired. Consequently, the WHO's vaccine served as a covert and unsuspected contraceptive device. Commissioned to analyze the vaccine, the Philippines Medical Association found that 20 percent of the WHO tetanus vaccines were contaminated with the hormone. The WHO has denied all accusations as "completely false and without basis," and the U.S. media never reported on the controversy. For further details, go to and type-in "WHO + antifertility vaccine", or "Philippines + antifertility vaccine."
Following an eight month boycott, on June 24, 2004, the recalcitrant Nigerians agreed to resume polio vaccinations, under the conditions the polio vaccine had to be manufactured in Indonesia and nowhere else.

The WHO and the Man-Made Theory of AIDS
Unlike most Americans, Africans are aware of the man-made theory of AIDS, and the possibility that the WHO's extensive vaccine programs in Africa in the 1970s are connected to the severe outbreak of AIDS in the early 1980s.
On May 11, 1987, The London Times, one of the world's most respected newspapers, published an explosive article entitled, "Smallpox vaccine triggered AIDS virus." The story suggested the smallpox eradication vaccine program sponsored by the WHO was responsible for unleashing AIDS in Africa. Almost 100 million Africans living in central Africa were inoculated by the WHO. The vaccine was held responsible for awakening a "dormant" AIDS virus infection on the continent.
An advisor to the WHO admitted, "Now I believe the smallpox vaccine theory is the explanation for the explosion of AIDS." Robert Gallo, M,D., the co-discoverer of HIV, told The Times, "The link between the WHO program and the epidemic is an interesting and important hypothesis. I cannot say that it actually happened, but I have been saying for some years that the use of live vaccines such as that used for smallpox can activate a dormant infection such as HIV." Despite the tremendous importance of this story, the U.S. media was totally silent on the report, and Gallo never spoke of it again.
In September 1987, at a conference sponsored by the National Health Federation in Monrovia, California, William Campbell Douglass, M.D., bluntly blamed the WHO for murdering Africa with the AIDS virus. In a widely circulated reprint of his talk entitled "W.H.O. Murdered Africa" , he accused the organization of encouraging virologists and molecular biologists to work with deadly animal viruses in an attempt to make an immunosuppressive hybrid virus that would be deadly to humans. From the Bulletin of the World Health Organization (Volume 47, p.259, 1972), he quoted a passage that stated: "An attempt should be made to see if viruses can in fact exert selective effects on immune function. The possibility should be looked into that the immune response to the virus itself may be impaired if the infecting virus damages, more or less selectively, the cell responding to the virus." According to Douglass, "That's AIDS. What the WHO is saying in plain English is Let's cook up a virus that selectively destroys the T-cell system of man, an acquired immune deficiency.'" The entire article can be read on ("WHO Murdered Africa").
In his 1989 book, AIDS: The End of Civilization, Douglass claims the WHO laced the African vaccines. He blames "the virologists of the world, the sorcerers who brought us this ghastly plague, and have formed a united front in denying that the virus was laboratory-made from known, lethal animal viruses. The scientific party line is that a monkey in Africa with AIDS bit a native on the butt. The native then went to town and gave it to a prostitute who gave it to a local banker who gave it to his wife and three girl friends, and wham - 75 million people became infected with AIDS in Africa. An entirely preposterous story."
Indeed, in my two books on man-made AIDS - AIDS and the Doctors of Death: An Inquiry into the Origin of the Epidemic (1988) , and in Queer Blood: The Secret AIDS Genocide Plot (1993), there is much evidence to show that throughout the 1970s (the decade that preceded the AIDS outbreak in the U.S. and Africa) there was widespread laboratory transfer of animal viruses, particularly primate/simian/monkey/chimpanzee viruses, by virologists. Various animal viruses were pumped into different species of animals and into all sorts of cell cultures. This experimentation was undertaken to find, create, and develop new cancer-causing and immunosuppressive viruses. It is these species-jumping laboratory primate viruses that are the source of "human" immunodeficiency virus (HIV) - not the animals in the wild in Africa.
To researchers who believe whole-heartedly that AIDS is a man-made disease, the evidence is crystal clear that the "primate ancestor virus of HIV" jumped species via contaminated vaccine programs, namely the extensive WHO-sponsored vaccine programs in sub-Saharan Africa during the 1970's, and the experimental hepatitis B vaccine (1978-1981) that was injected exclusively into gay men just prior to the outbreak of AIDS in America. (More on this later.)

Cancer-causing Monkey Viruses and the Polio Vaccine
Americans have been told repeatedly that HIV/AIDS is the first time a monkey virus has jumped species to cause a new epidemic called AIDS. But the rarely-publicized truth is that a cancer-causing monkey viruses jumped species a half century ago when contaminated polio vaccines were given to millions of people on the planet, including half the U.S. population of that era.
In the early 1960's it was discovered that some lots of polio vaccines manufactured on rhesus monkey kidney tissue during the period 1955 to 1963 were contaminated with a monkey virus called SV40 (Simian[monkey] virus #40). This primate virus was quickly proven to cause various cancers in experimental animals. However, to this day, U.S. government officials still insist there is no absolute proof that SV40 causes human cancer.
Despite the lack of government interest in SV40 in human cancer for three decades, genetic and immunologic studies by independent researchers over the past decade indicate this virus is clearly associated with human cancer, such as rapidly-fatal cancers of the lung (mesothelioma), bone marrow cancer (multiple myeloma), brain tumors in children, and other forms of cancer.
A Washington Times report (09/21/03) indicates "Some of the polio vaccine given to millions of American children from 1962 until 2000 could have been contaminated with a monkey virus that shows up in some cancers, according to documents and testimony to be delivered to a House committee Wednesday. The vaccine manufacturer said such claims don't have any validity,' and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) agrees. Documents set to be delivered to the House Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness appear to show that the original "seeds" used to produce the Sabin [oral] vaccine could have been tainted with SV40; that the company that manufactured the vaccine, Wyeth Lederle, may have used Rhesus monkeys -- which are more likely to carry the disease -- rather than the African Green monkeys it says it used, according to company documents; and that the company may not have performed all of the screening tests required."
Stanley P Kops is a lawyer who represents children and adults damaged by polio vaccines. He has documentation indicating that the polio virus "seeds" from which the oral vaccine is made are still not proven to be free of SV40. In his article entitled "Oral polio vaccine and human cancer: a reassessment of SV40 as a contaminant based upon legal documents", appearing in the journal Anticancer Research (November 2000), Kops states: "In litigation involving the Lederle oral polio vaccine, the manufacturer's internal documents failed to reveal such removal [of SV40] in all of the seeds. The absence of confirmatory testing of the seeds, as well as testimony of a Lederle manager, indicate that this claim of removal of SV40 and the testing for SV40 in all the seeds cannot be fully substantiated. These legal documents and testimony indicate that the scientific community should not be content with prior assumptions that SV40 could not have been in the oral polio vaccine. Only further investigation by outside scientific and independent researchers who can review the test results claimed in the January 1997 meeting and who can conduct their own independent evaluations by testing all the seeds and individual mono-valent pools will assure that SV40 has not been present in commercially sold oral poliovirus vaccine manufactured by Lederle."
More information on Kops, SV40, and polio litigation can be found at
More than 600 million doses of polio vaccine were sold by Lederle from 1963 to 1999. On Jan. 1, 2000, the CDC recommended injections of an inactivated killed polio vaccine (IPV) that eliminates the risk of spreading the disease, unlike the oral live polio vaccine that had been used for decades. This prompted Lederle to get out of the polio vaccine business, and the last batch of Orimune was produced on Dec. 31, 1999.
For anyone who still thinks that vaccine makers and government health officials are always your friend, I would highly recommend a just-published book titled AIDS. The Virus and the Vaccine: The True Story of a Cancer-Causing Monkey Virus, Contaminated Polio Vaccine, and the Millions of Americans Exposed, by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher. The book explores the history of the polio vaccine, the contamination problems with SV40 , the ensuing vaccine-related cancer problems, and the government's cover-up of the problem over the past three decades.
Few people realize how dangerous vaccines can be and how complicated the process of vaccine manufacture really is, particularly when vaccines are made on living animal or human cells. Contamination with bacteria and viruses and their elimination from the final product are constant problems during the process. There are also recent suspicions that the laboratory media used to feed and nourish the cell cultures upon which the virus is grown may also be a source of contamination. For further details on the dangers of vaccines, see "Are Vaccines Causing More Diseases than they are Curing?" (

The Polio Vaccine/ Primate Virus Connection to African AIDS
In a 1,070 page book published in 1999, entitled The River: A Journey to the Source of HIV and AIDS, Edward Hooper claims a 1950's polio vaccine made using monkey (and possibly chimp) kidneys, contained the ancestor virus of HIV which now infects millions of Africans. Hooper's research greatly expands the polio vaccine man-made theory of AIDS first reported by Tom Curtis in Rolling Stone magazine in 1992. When Curtis asked the ubiquitous David Heymann whether the 1950's polio vaccine might have contributed to the outbreak, the WHO official declared: "The origin of the AIDS virus is of no importance to science today. Any speculation on how it arose is of no importance." Quite an amazing response from a man currently responsible for administering a possibly contaminated live oral polio vaccine to Africa's children.
Hooper's book got extensive press coverage, greatly upsetting the AIDS establishment which has always viewed any suggestion of AIDS as a man-made disease as hysteria, paranoia or "conspiracy theory." Similarly, my two decades of man-made AIDS research linking AIDS to 1970's vaccine, as well as two books on the subject, were dismissed by Hooper in a sentence in a footnote on page 897.
Not surprisingly, Hooper's vaccine theory was totally discredited the following year by AIDS scientists and WHO officials at a Conference held in London to debate the origin of AIDS, although Hooper still actively promotes his theory on the internet. The retesting of the old 1950's polio vaccine showed no evidence of a chimp virus. The molecular biologists also came down hard on Hopper with their "genetic sequencing data" suggesting HIV first entered the human population in the 1930's. (For details, google "2000 London Origin of AIDS.")
Why it took HIV a half-century to produce an epidemic was not made clear, nor was there any discussion as to how a black heterosexual African disease could have transformed itself exclusively into a white gay man's disease in Manhattan. Or why the epidemic broke out first in America in 1979 and was only uncovered five years later in Africa.

Oral Polio Vaccine and Immunodeficiency
The public frequently receives bad news about AIDS in Africa. Millions are dying, millions are infected with HIV, and millions of children are left as orphans. And this is just the AIDS part of the various horrors connected with Africa.
Africans question why they are being given the oral form of the polio vaccine (OPV) when this form was removed from the market in America in January 2000. The inactivated and killed polio virus vaccine (IPV) cannot cause polio, but the live OPV is indeed capable of causing (although rarely) paralytic polio. Equally dangerous is that OPV recipients shed live polio virus, which is entirely capable of spreading polio to unvaccinated and unprotected others. However, the oral form of the vaccine is the only form recommended by health officials for outbreaks of polio epidemics.
Even if the IPV vaccine were effective, the cost would be prohibitive. A 5cc. vial (enough to adequately inoculate 3 children with three separate injections) is $US 300. Is this form of the vaccine totally safe? The expensive IPV is thought to contain newly-discovered nanobacteria, which have been linked to various diseases. The Vaccine web site claims nanobacteria have been found to be a contaminant in previously assumed-to-be-sterile medical products, specifically the IPV Polio Vaccine. Most human biologicals and vaccines are made in fetal bovine (cow) serum, a medium known to be contaminated with nanobacteria, as reported May 23rd, 2001, at the 101st General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology.
Bad vaccine reactions are increased in the presence of HIV, immunodeficiency and malnutrition, which is purportedly common in sub-Saharan Africans. So why is this not being considered? Will the WHO's live oral vaccine awaken more "dormant" HIV? Nowhere could I find this question being asked by WHO officials or other scientists. The WHO vaccine for Africa (except parts of Nigeria) is made by Aventis Pasteur, a multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered in France. In 2003 Aventis donated 30 million doses to the program.

The Origin of AIDS and Monkey Business
A google search of the "origin of AIDS" lists an overwhelming 796,000 citations.
However, there are essentially three major theories of AIDS origin. The AIDS establishment believes unanimously in the "official" monkey out-of-Africa theory. Second is Hooper's polio vaccine origin, now largely discredited or ignored. And third is the never-discussed "conspiracy theory" that HIV was deliberately seeded into gay and black African populations as a covert depopulation experiment with genocidal overtones.
Until 1999, it was widely believed that the African Green Monkey was the source of HIV. This theory was highly touted by Robert Gallo, the world's most famous AIDS researcher, who had done extensive animal virus research forcing ("jumping") primate viruses between species in the Special Virus Cancer Program (1964-1980) in the years just before the AIDS outbreak. In 1975 Gallo reported on a "new" and "human" HL23 virus, which eventually proved to be three contaminating ape viruses (gibbon-ape virus, simian sarcoma virus, and baboon endogenous virus). Gallo claims he has no idea how these viruses contaminated his laboratory [Queer Blood, p47]. For more information on pre-AIDS primate virus research, google "primate research + Special Virus Cancer Program."
In 1999 there was renewed interest in the origin of AIDS. A media blitz surrounded the finding of a team of researchers headed by Beatrice Hahn, M,D,, at the University of Alabama. Viral studies on three African chimps in the wild, and on the corpse of a frozen chimp named Marilyn, found accidentally in a freezer at Fort Detrick (the Army's biowarfare unit), all indicated a common subspecies of chimp was the animal source "most closely" related to HIV. Hahn theorized the epidemic started when a hunter cut himself which butchering chimp meat and subsequently became infected. For details, google "Beatrice Hahn + Marilyn".
Hahn is no stranger to primate theories, having worked in Gallo's lab when he was heavily promoting the green monkey theory in the mid-1980's. Her publicized 1999 AIDS origin research, based on genetic and molecular evidence, was quickly accepted as gospel by the AIDS establishment.
In 2003 she presented further details of her primate research, which was again touted in the media. This time her findings were even more impenetrable (at least to me). The most popular origin of AIDS web site ( summarizes Hahn's most recent findings in this way: "The findings of this 10-year long research into the origin and evolution of HIV by Paul Sharp of Nottingham University and Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama were published in 2003. They concluded that wild chimps became infected simultaneously with two simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIVs) which had viral sex' to form a third virus capable of infecting humans and causing AIDS. Professor Sharp and his colleagues discovered that the chimp virus was an amalgam of the SIV infecting red-capped mangabeys and the virus found in greater spot-nosed monkeys. They believe that the hybridization took place inside chimps that had become infected with both strains of SIV after hunting and killing the two smaller species of monkey."

American AIDS and the Gay Hepatitis B Experiments (1978-1981)
Due to space requirements it is not possible to give all the evidence pointing to AIDS as a man-made disease. However, a Google search of "man-made AIDS" lists 135,000 citations (not bad for a "conspiracy theory"!) and most of my published research on the subject can be found on the internet ("alan cantwell + man-made AIDS").
It is my view that the origin of AIDS cannot be determined without some reasonable (and not homophobic) explanation of how AIDS originated in America exclusively in young, predominantly white, previously healthy gay men in Manhattan, beginning in 1979. To my knowledge, there is no evidence to show that American AIDS originated in Africa. Furthermore, the virus "strain" of HIV in the U.S. is totally different from African strains. This finding has led AIDS researcher Max Essex of Harvard (and co-discoverer of HIV) to suggest that there may be two separate HIV-1 epidemics - one in which subtype B [the American strain] predominates and that is spread by blood and homosexual sex, and a second involving the other HIV-1 subtypes and primarily vaginal sex [as seen in Africa]. (
The onset of the "gay plague" and "gay cancer" (in the form of Kaposi's sarcoma) are clearly associated with the hepatitis B vaccine trials which used young gay men as guinea pigs during the years 1978-1981. A few months after the first group of men were injected in the experiment in Manhattan at the New York Blood Center, the first cases of "gay-related immune deficiency" were reported to the CDC. The experimental hepatitis B vaccine was developed in chimpanzees, the animal species now thought to harbor "the ancestor of HIV."
Never mentioned by proponents of the chimp out-of-Africa theory is the fact that the New York Blood Center established a chimp virus laboratory in West Africa in 1974. One of the purposes of VILAB II, at the Liberian Institute for Biomedical Research in Robertsfield, Liberia, was to develop the human hepatitis B vaccine in chimps. The lab prides itself by releasing "rehabilitated" chimps back into the wild.
Also closely allied to the "pre-AIDS" development of the hepatitis B vaccine is the little publicized primate colony outside New York City called LEMSIP (the Laboratory for Experimental Medicine and Surgery). Until disbanded in 1997, LEMSIP supplied New York area scientists with primates and primate parts for transplantation and virus research. Founded in 1965, LEMSIP was affiliated with the NYU Medical Center, where the first cases of AIDS-associated Kaposi's sarcoma were discovered in 1979.
HIV tests of the stored gay men's blood from the hepatitis experiment at the New York Blood Center reveals that 6% of the men were HIV-positive in 1979!
By 1981, the year the AIDS epidemic became "official", 20% of the men were positive! By 1984, 40% were positive! This means that this group had a spectacularly higher rate of HIV than any group in Africa during the same period - and at a time when AIDS cases were not even recognized or noted in Africa.
It is clear that there is overwhelming molecular and genetic evidence to tie SV40 related cancer cases to the SV40 contamination of polio vaccines. Yet government health officials refuse to accept this research on the grounds of "not enough evidence" and "contamination problems" connected with SV40 testing (See Bookchin and Schumaker's book). On the other hand, AIDS experts try to convince us that a molecular HIV test on a dried-up blood specimen taken from an unknown black man in the Congo in 1959 is strong "proof" that human HIV cases existed in Africa back in 1959!! To me, the explanation for this absurdity and inconsistency in science is simple: The government does NOT want people to question the safety of vaccines, and it wants to blame Africans and African monkeys for a disease that is most likely caused by covert primate virus contaminated vaccine experiments, that undoubtedly still continue to this day. For more documentation of covert and unethical government-sponsored human experimentation , read In the Name of Science: A History of Secret Programs, Medical Research, and Human Experimentation [2003] by Andrew Goliszek.
AIDS scientists accept the fact that HIV was "introduced" into gays, but do not publicize the fact that a second virus - the Kaposi's sarcoma virus, also known as human herpes virus-8- was also introduced into gays at the time of the gay vaccine experiments. Are two new viruses just another "accident of Mother Nature"?
Two decades after the KS virus was "introduced" into gay men, it is now a permanent virus in the blood supply, which is beginning (like SV40) to appear in association with certain cancers. Twenty percent of "healthy" Texas blood donors now carry antigens to the KS virus in their blood. As many as 40% of Caribbean men with prostate cancer also carry the virus.
More details on the KS virus and the role of bacteria in KS cancer and other cancers can be found in "Acid-fast Bacteria Discovered in Prostate Cancer" (; and in my book The Cancer Microbe: The Hidden Killer in Cancer, AIDS, and other Immune Diseases.
It is clear to me that AIDS science is highly selective. Scientists who support the African origin of AIDS are heralded. Scientists and researchers who support the man-made, laboratory origin of AIDS are ignored as "conspiracy theorists" or crackpots.

The Revenge of the Monkeys
AIDS scientists blame AIDS on promiscuity, homosexuality, dirty needles, drugs, air travel, etc,, but never once do they seriously consider themselves responsible in any way for the AIDS holocaust. Scientists quickly obscured the primate virus origin of AIDS by calling it the "human" immunodeficiency virus, a clever attempt to accentuate the "human" quality rather than calling it by its real name -a simian (primate) immunodeficiency virus. Better to advise people to not transmit a human virus, than to remind them they are spreading an animal virus of dubious origin.
On the altar of science the primate populations of Africa are dwindling to extinction. And the ultimate blame for AIDS is placed on primates who cannot speak for themselves. Over the decades millions of animals have been sacrificed for their kidneys and other organs to make vaccines which are now creating new plagues of incurable AIDS and cancer and new emerging diseases which in turn demand more animal sacrifice to make more vaccines and drugs..
Monkeys, chimps, apes, gorillas, and human beings are all classified as "primates." "Human primates" and "non-human primates" share 99% of the same DNA. Yet, we treat them all as disposable beings, locking them up in increasingly large numbers as slaves of science in animal gulags called "primate centers" for the sole purpose of using them and their children as hapless research tools.
As a physician, I am not against animal experimentation. However, I am against foolish and excessive and dangerous animal experiments that expose millions, perhaps billions of people, to disease and death from contaminated vaccines and insane biological warfare creations. I do not believe we can exterminate countless animals for our selfish purposes without some sort of reckoning. What goes around, comes around.
Will the monkeys and the chimps get their revenge?. It's obvious it is already happening. AIDS is depopulating the planet. Mad cow disease is a concern. SARS is yet another deadly emerging disease. The list goes on and on.
There is no indication things will get better. Only worse. Isn't it time we get over our fantasy that slaughtering these animals will somehow help us attain better health?.
Deadly HIV and SV40 virus from primates have already co-mingled with our human genetic material, changing our collective gene pool forever.
How many more people will have to die as a result of our lab atrocities and our scientific ignorance? The more animals we kill for science, the more people will die from "emerging" laboratory viruses. Admittedly this is a hard concept to understand and accept when we have been conditioned to believe that abusing and killing animals for science is in our best interest.

[Dr. Cantwell is the author of two books on the man-made epidemic of AIDS: AIDS and the Doctors of Death, and Queer Blood, available from Book Clearing House @ 1-800-431-1579 ad]