Re: Vaccines and the Theory of Evolution (Ingrid)

July 1, 2009

Ingrid,

I think I stumbled across something big. Ever since I posted this info I have

been having problems with this email, but not my other one. The email

account keeps freezing on me, but my other one does not.

I believe this whole Autism thing stemmed from the Pertussis vaccine first used

(in the 1940's?? or 1930's - I have to look it up). That is when Autism all of

a sudden " showed up " . Whatever animal they used set off this whole chain of

events. Is it the animal viruses altering our chromosomes or just the animal

DNA - I'm not sure. This is new territory for me - I have no degree is medicine

or science for that matter. Whatever happened they tampered with our

chromosomes so that it disrupts our whole metabolic function - hence, the

genetic disorders - to include Autism. The heavy metals/chemicals just add fuel

to the fire. Autism is definitely genetic. So are all of the other neurological

and chronic diseases...they all stem back to the first generation vaccinated

with Pertussis.

Again, chromosome 2 is definitely linked. I'll be researching the others. Just

wish I had a pre-vaccinated era to compare the differences to.

>

> Dawn, this is quite interesting

>

> http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070

>

> Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?

> by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert , Ph.D.

>

> In this context, also read the article in our Sunday Times titled " Africans'

> DNA could be abused " and my comments:

>

> http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=939479

>

> Africans' DNA could be abused

> Bobby Jordan Published:Feb 14, 2009

>

> An attempt to patent genetic material donated by rural African communities

> has sparked a global scientific rumpus.

>

> South African researchers and traditional leaders fear scientists will soon

> start patenting the genes of local ethnic groups, many of whom have donated

> blood samples as part of a worldwide genome-mapping project.

>

> This week, several lawyers, researchers and community leaders denounced an

> American patent application for unique gene mutations found in DNA samples

> collected in Tanzania, Kenya and Sudan.

>

> The American applicants, Dr Tishkoff and Dr Floyd from the

> University of Pennsylvania, collected more than 2000 samples in East Africa

> and are sitting on a large blood bank of more than 5000 in total, taken from

> 80 African ethnic groups, including several from South Africa.

>

> Known South African blood sample donors include the Ju-speaking !Xun (also

> known as Vasekela) and Khoe- speaking Khwe.

>

> Their samples were collected from individuals in the area of Schmidtsdrift

> in the northwest Cape region of South Africa and provided by a prominent

> local scientist.

>

> Although the Sunday Times has been unable to contact the American

> researchers, their research website says all African samples were collected

> with written consent. What remains unclear is whether the donors agreed to

> let the scientists use their genetic material for commercial gain.

>

> Tishkoff shot to fame six years ago after ground-breaking genome research

> that led to her theory of the " African Eve " .

>

> The latest patent application has renewed fears that scientists could profit

> from human DNA in much the same way as from plants and minerals.

>

> Detailed analysis of the South African samples — collected about four years

> ago — is due to be published later this year in one of the world's leading

> scientific journals, according to prominent local scientist Dr Maritha

> Kotze. She confirmed this week that she had sent the SA samples to Tishkoff.

>

> Kotze, who is now attached to the University of Stellenbosch's pathology

> department, said she had been assured there would be no commercial gain from

> the material.

>

> She said the South African samples had been collected with the full consent

> of the communities involved, and with assurances that any commercial

> benefits would be shared.

>

> " The South Africans' ones went the right route… I've still got the proof

> from the university. "

>

> She said the research, if conducted properly, could hold vital clues about

> human origins and help scientists to fight disease.

>

> South Africa's diverse population is a major boon for this kind of research.

>

> " It's no good if (scientists) get samples from all over the world but

> nothing from South Africa or Africa, with the Khoisan being such a vital

> group, " Kotze said.

>

> Some human rights groups fear the Tishkoff patent application could signal

> an avalanche of similar applications as private genetic business groups seek

> to cash in on recent advances in genome sequencing, which allows scientists

> to come up with a person's genetic " formula " .

>

> National House of Traditional Leaders chief executive Abram Sithole said:

> " The NHTL is against any academic who will use his academic profession to

> patent or make a profit from poor South Africans who will benefit nothing.

>

> " We cannot allow such behaviour to continue in this modern world where care

> and feelings of people must be taken into consideration. "

>

> The director of the African Centre for Biosafety, m Mayet, condemned

> the patent application and called for firm protocols to guard against the

> commercial exploitation of genome research.

>

> Other observers said South Africa was well situated to contribute to genome

> research, but the country needed to ensure the researchers' conduct was

> ethical.

>

> Neither Tishkoff nor could be reached for comment. —

> jordanb@...

>

> IBlank said at Feb 15 2009 7:22AM

> In their quest to prove at all costs that intelligent life exists in Africa,

> our " scientists " keep exploiting our natural and human resources to fill the

> multi-billion coffers of the biotech cartel without our knowledge and

> consent, which one would assume is the underlying concept of a democratic

> government elected by and for the people. Contaminating our environment and

> food chain with highly toxic GMOs without adhering to the precautionary

> principle, which constitutes a blatant and downright criminal violation of

> our constitutional rights and human right to bodily integrity, is clearly

> not enough.Now they want to commercially exploit the DNA of our people under

> the guise of fighting diseases, although predictive genomic profiling has

> long since been debunked! Findings of a study organized by the United States

> National Human Genome Research Institute proved that the human genome might

> not be a tidy collection of independent genes after all, with each sequence

> of DNA linked to a single function, but appear to operate in a complex

> network. This blows the presumption of independently operating genes, on

> which the entire biotech technology industry is built and above all the

> patentability of such genes straight out of the sky. Also see:

>

> The promise of customized medicine and prescribed lifestyle based on an

> individual's genetic makeup is a pipe-dream. The effect of each gene depends

> not only on external environmental factors, but on the genetic back-ground

> of all other genes in the genome. Individuals differ on average by one base

> per thousand in their DNA. This amounts to three million bases over the

> entire genome. As each gene is at least a thousand bases in length, it means

> that every gene will most probably be different. Assuming that only two

> variants exist in each gene, the number of different genotypes is already

> 3(100 000). In fact, hundreds of variants are typically found for each gene.

> Consequently, every individual is genetically unique, except for identical

> twins at the beginning of development, before different genetic mutations

> can accumulate in each of the pair. That is why it is generally impossible

> to give accurate prognosis of even single gene diseases unless the genetic

> background is homogenous, as in an inbred laboratory strain of mice. And

> even then, the mice have to be raised in a uniform environment.

>

> It is difficult to see any definite strategy within either bioinformatics or

> proteomics that can pay off, either in terms of basic understanding the

> human organism as a whole, or in terms of miracle cures and wonder drugs.

> There is nothing beyond the proliferation of more and more detailed

> information on genes and proteins that have been spilling out of the pages

> of scientific journals for the past decade. The one million proteins encoded

> by the 100 000 genes interact with one another, with the genes themselves,

> and small molecular weight `cofactors' and `messengers'. Those interactions

> vary in different cells and tissues at different times, subject to feedback

> from the environment. Feedback from the environment can alter the genes

> themselves, and hence the entire cascades of interactions involved. All that

> is the reality of the fluid and adaptable genome (11), which the moguls of

> genomics and bioinformatics have yet to come to grips with. The prospect of

> understanding the human being by a detailed description of its molecular

> parts is essentially nil. This reductionist fallacy has been exposed in

> different forms, starting with the physicist Walter Elsasser (22).

> http://www.i-sis.org.uk/humangenome.php

>

> Also read " From Genomics to Epigenomics "

> Decades of sequencing and dissecting the human genome have confirmed that

> the real causes of ill health are environmental and social

>

> It is not the genetic messages encoded in genomic DNA but

> environmentally-induced epigenetic modifications that overwhelmingly

> determine people's health and well-being Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

> http://www.i-sis.org.uk/fromGenomicsToEpigenomics.php

>

> The " genomics medicine " that never was nor will be

> By September 2008, B. Goldstein at Duke University, a leading young

> population geneticist known partly for his research into the genetic origins

> of the Jews, said the effort to pin down disease susceptibility genes is not

> working.

>

> There is absolutely no question that for the whole hope of personalized

> medicine, the news has been just about as bleak as it could be, " he told the

> New York Times [5]. The HapMap and other techniques developed to make sense

> of the human genome was a " tour de force " , but has produced only a handful

> of genes accounting for very little in explaining genetic predisposition to

> diseases: for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, almost nothing, for type 2

> diabetes, 20 variants that explain only 2 to 3 percent of familial

> clustering, and so on.

>

> The reason for this disappointing outcome, in his view, is that natural

> selection has been far more efficient at eliminating disease-causing

> variants than people thought, so these variants are rare. It takes large,

> expensive studies with hundreds of patients in different countries to find

> even common disease variants, so rare variants are simply beyond reach.

>

> It's an astounding thing, " said Goldstein, " that we have cracked open the

> human genome and can look at the entire complement of common genetic

> variants, and what do we find? Almost nothing. That is absolutely beyond

> belief. "

>

> Goldstein is not alone in this bleak assessment of genomics. Concern has

> been raised for several years over commercially available gene tests offered

> to consumers, especially `predictive genomic profiling' testing for variants

> in different combinations of genes for risks to illnesses such as lung

> cancer, type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease that are supposed to give

> people personalised nutrition and other life-style health recommendations.

>

> Recently, researchers at Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam in

> The Netherlands critically appraised these genomic profiling now offered

> online by at least seven companies testing for variants in 56 genes. For 24

> of the genes, there were no available studies to show that the profiling was

> useful in the general population. Of the remaining, only variants in 25

> genes showed significant associations with risks in 28 diseases, but the

> associations were generally modest, and many of associations were with

> diseases unrelated to the condition for which the profiling was intended

> [10].

>

> These weak associations most certainly do not mean that people carrying

> `high' risk variants will definitely develop the disease, nor do they give

> licence to those carrying `low' risk variants to adopt unhealthy lifestyles

> with impunity. As one critic commented [11], the genetic information

> provided by such direct to consumer genomics is " nearly all, to varying

> degrees, inaccurate, misleading or merely useless. "

>

> The real reasons genomics profiling fail, however, is not due to lack of

> data, or that natural selection is so effective in eliminating deleterious

> variants. It is the genomics project itself that is misguided.

>

> There are 4 different types of genetic disorders. One of them is called

> a single-gene disorder and it will affect 1 in every 200 babies born

> here in the U.S. There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders!

> Maybe this why the government is now collecting our newborn babies'

> DNA? Not to help us of course, but maybe figure out a way to make some

> money in the process? The state of Minnesota has actually been

> collecting and storing this DNA illegally since 1997!!

>

> http://tinyurl.com/cnu5ff

>

> http://tinyurl.com/8dyv56

>

> http://tinyurl.com/ajpw2c

>

> I would like to see the rate of genetic disorders in the U.S. compared

> to that of non-industrialized and non-vaccinated nations! This could

> explain why the U.S. is giving " free " vaccines to third world countries

> too.

>

> Ingrid Blank/Merrivale

>

> I had my first panic attack in many, many years last night. The more that I

> read and study vaccines, the more terrified I become about what is happening

> to the human race.

>

> When I was in 1st grade, my Mother told me the story about how I came home

> all upset. I said the teacher told us that we evolved from apes. I told

> her we didn't. I also told my Mom, " Can you believe how dumb they are to

> think that? " This was a public school. I then attended a Christian school

> from 8th - 12th grade.

>

> Well, I just came across this website about chromosome fusion. Science has

> taken great measures to make it appear that we have come from apes.

> (Monkeys and chimps are used in vaccine manufacturing). How much do you

> want to bet that if we were to take a wild African human tribe whose

> ancestors have never seen vaccines and actually studied their DNA, ours

> would be different than theirs? (Theirs being more normal)....Oh wait, I

> forgot that they ARE already covering their butts and vaccinating third

> world countries!! There still has to be some tribes left though...

>

> http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

>

> Now, the real scary part is that this chromosome 2 just happens to have

> Mitochondria Disorder listed!!! Hint-hint - AUTISM is in the genes, but I

> think it came from monkey or chimps' DNA by way of vaccines!!!

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

>

> ------------------------------------

>

July 1, 2009