Inclusive interviews with Dr. Patricia Winokur and Dr. Charles Majors:

Loras College Media Reporters, Felicia Carner and Edward Helmold, interviewed Dr. Patricia Winokur, the Associate Dean for Clinical and Translational Science at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, about the H1N1 vaccine and its clinical testing.

Felicia Carner: What role does the University of Iowa play in the H1N1 vaccine testing?

Winokur: The University of Iowa is designated as a national institute of health vaccine and treatment evaluation unit. This was a very large contract that we were awarded in 2007 and one of the purposes was to establish relationships with universities and programs around the country where they could come to us when they needed trials done very quickly and enrolled very quickly and with very clean data. We’d worked with them for the past 5 years and we were awarded that in 2007, to become one of eight, what we call VTU’s in the country.

FC: How many participants do you have?
Winokur: The adult trial that we have going has got 400 enrolled around the country, we’ve enrolled 174 here at the University of Iowa. So concurrently, there are 2 other adult trials that are being run by the National Institutes of Health through these eight centers: another that has 400 patients, and a third that has 600 patients. So there are quite a number of people enrolled around the country.

Edward Helmold: What exactly have you been testing for and how have you been running the tests?

Winokur: The vaccine that we’re testing, we’re looking to try and understand the dose of vaccine that’s required for protection, and whether people will need one shot or two shots, so that’s the goal of our study.

EH: Are you expecting that it will likely be one shot or two shots needed?

Winokur: The thought process is that this may require two shots, and the reason is that our bodies have not seen this strain of flu in the past, and we know that with previous novel flu strains that it’s taken two shots to get their systems revved to make enough protective antibodies. So by chance, it may be that we’re required two shots. There is some data that’s come sifting out in the media that suggests that in China they had success with just one dose, but that data is not available for our review. We don’t know how they made that vaccine, what dose they tested, and whether it was made the same way the U.S.’s is made, because there are different ways of making flu vaccine, and it may not be similar to ours.

EH: When a person does receive the vaccine, how long will they be expected to have immunity to that strain?

Winokur: So typically with flu vaccines the immunity lasts 9 months to 12 months, so we would expect the same to be true with this vaccine.

EH: When you consider that as a virus passes from person to person it replicates itself and can mutate and become stronger, how can we know for sure that the vaccine that is being tested now will even be effective for the virus that is going around when this vaccine comes out?

Winokur: So that’s a very good question, one of the things that we do know is that we’re watching the strains evolve, and today there has not been a very significant shift in the outer coat, and so the vaccine that we have that’s in production right now does cover the strains that we’re seeing. Now that could change by next year, and it could be that we’re seeing this virus mutate and evolve to needing a different vaccine, and that’s what we expect with every flu virus, so that won’t be surprising. I think we’re good right now though.

EH: How long have you been testing this vaccine, and how much additional testing do you expect to do before the vaccine is released?

Winokur: We have had subjects enrolled now for 3 weeks, and they’re coming back now for their second vaccination. We are sending their blood to a central lab to be tested on a daily basis. We expect that they will start testing these bloods from before the vaccine and then after the first vaccine in the next week or so, and we’ll start to get that data. In the meantime, we’ve given them their second dose of vaccine, and we’ll be following blood in another 3 weeks to find out what happens after 2 shots.

EH: So before the vaccine is delivered you expect it to be possibly a month or two?

Winokur: Right. And so we will have data probably on the first dose in a week to two weeks. If we’re lucky, and people are developing a protective layer with just one dose, that may be the answer that FDA (Food and Drug Administration) needs. If they aren’t, then we’re going to get that second dose data that we’ll have in another 3 weeks.

EH: Well I think that a concern that’s been cropping up among the public is that, with testing being done for a total of just a few months, and an effort being made to get a vaccine out there quickly enough to head off a potential epidemic, how is it going to be possible to gauge if there are any potential harmful long-term side effects?

Winokur: The nice thing about this particular vaccine is that this vaccine is made in the exact same way that our flu vaccines have been made for decades. The manufacturing process is identical. So we expect that the vast majority of side effects that we see will be the exact same side effects that we see with the flu vaccine every year. There are rare side effects that occur with these flu vaccines, we usually see them about 6-8 weeks after the vaccine has been administered. So we will have some of that data before. But I think that the big picture is that we are dealing with a vaccine that has a very long history of safety, so we’re hoping and expect to see the same with this vaccine.

FC: Have you seen any side-effects so far with the vaccine?

Winokur: So the side effects that we’re seeing with the vaccine are the same that we’ve seen with the flu vaccine every year, some people have a sore arm, a very small number of people will have a low-grade temperature, a little bit of that “fluey” feeling, and that just means that the vaccine is starting to take hold and the body is responding to it. And so those are the side effects that we’ve seen.

EH: You mentioned how this is going to be very similar to the flu vaccine that’s come out in the past, and that’s why the testing can be expedited.

Winokur: Right.

EH: But something that came to my attention is that I saw a post on the website of Novartis—a big pharmaceutical company that will be supplying this vaccine—on July 24 they posted: “The US government has awarded Novartis 2 contracts totaling $979 million for the future purchase of H1N1 bulk vaccine and the groups proprietary MF59 adjuvant. Now what concerns me is that this MF59 is also known as Squalene, which is an adjuvant that has been known to trigger severe auto-immune disorders as well as infertility in males, most notably some studies have linked the debilitating Gulf War Syndrome to Squalene containing vaccines that were given to soldiers before deployment in the early 90’s. And additionally, I found out that Squalene has never before been approved for use in a flu vaccine by the US before. So my question is, with just a few months of testing, how can you confirm that a product such as this that studies have suggested is so dangerous, how can you guarantee that there will be no long-term side effects.

Winokur: The vaccine that we’re testing does not have an adjuvant in it. So, the vaccine that they are hoping to release in October will not have an adjuvant in it, it will not have MF59. MF59 has been approved for use in the European Union, and has been used for 4 or 5 years in hundreds of thousands of people, and they have not seen the side effects that you’re describing. So, there is a lot of hype on the web about adjuvants; we do not have them approved in the US at this point in time. The testing has been ongoing with adjuvants in the US; this is certainly something that we are watching. But I think the bigger picture is that the vaccine that is going to be released in the winter is going to be a unadjuvanted vaccine and it’s identical to the flu vaccines that you’ve seen every year.

EH: But on Novartis’ website it states that the US government has purchased almost a billion dollars worth of this adjuvant Squalene, you would have to assume that it will be used in the future and that testing would have to come out that there is no dangers associated with Squalene or else the government has lost a lot of money.

Winokur: So, I think you’ve hit it right on the money that the government has purchased it but that they have not approved it. And so testing is ongoing.

EH: Well something else, in talking about this debate that’s going on, something that I’ve come across in my own research is something called an Emergency Use Authorization, which authorizes the use of unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products during a declared medical health emergency. And this is something that I think has raised concern: that some questionable ingredients may be fast-tracked through testing in effort to get them out quickly in hopes of heading off a potential oncoming epidemic.

Winokur: So I think this comment that you make, “fast-tracked,” is a questionable one, because these adjuvants have been under tests for years, and as I said they’ve been approved in the European Union and been used on hundreds of thousands of people for a number of years so, I’m not sure that fast-tracked is the correct terminology for that product. The goal is to not have to use an adjuvant, that’s certainly the hope. Yes, we can use products that are fast-tracked if it’s used under an emergency situation we have that law in the books. So, could that be a possibility… it’s possible. That’s not the initial goal in this point in time.

EH: Well of course it’s not the initial goal, but I know that we are considered to be under a public health emergency and that there is concerns over enough being able to be delivered to the public

Winokur: M-hm. You’re correct.

FC: And since we’re talking a little bit about the public right now, I understand that the vaccine is not being produced as quickly as they’ve hoped, is that correct?

Winokur: That’s true.

FC: And so, when they do release it—they’re predicted mid-October, is that correct?

Winokur: I think there will be some released in mid-October, I don’t think it will be enough. That’s my guess.

FC: So since there probably won’t be enough, who are the targeted people who will get vaccinated first?

Winokur: So, the CDC has developed priority lists, and the priorities include children, and pregnant women, those are the highest priority, and health-care workers. The next priority group will be adults with underlying medical conditions, and elderly. And then the last group would be healthy adults.

FC: You were speaking about pregnant women; a lot of women who are pregnant are advised not to take new vaccines.

Winokur: Pregnant women are advised to get the influenza vaccine; this has been a recommended vaccine for a number of years in pregnant women. Because this vaccine is made in the exact same way that the flu vaccine is produced, it’s going to be recommended for pregnant women.

FC: I understand that there are two types of vaccine being produced: one with thimerosal, and one without thimerosal, is that correct?

Winokur: So thimerosal is a preservative, and the thimerosal is often in multi-dose vials, so sometimes we make a batch of vaccine, we put in a vial that holds ten doses, or even more doses—that has the preservative thimerosal. They also are making single-dose vials that are thimerosal-free. Predominantly they’ll be saving that for pregnant women and children.

FC: I was just curious of what the different effects are of the two different types. Are there any additional effects with the one containing thimerosal?

Winokur: There is no difference in the immunogenicity, the potency of the vaccine at all, no.

FC: So, I guess that I’m just a little confused at then why you would take it out.

Winokur: So, thimerosal has been reputed in the late press to be associated with autism, and so, the government decided that they would try and make vaccines for children thimerosal free. And so, the priority will be to use that thimerosal free in children.

EH: So talking a little bit more about this thimerosal, one of the reasons of course that it’s been so controversial is because it contains mercury, which is a known toxin. And I know that, as you’ve said, in recent years pharmaceutical companies have been removing thimerosal from vaccines in order to make their products safer, but as you’ve stated the seasonal flu vaccine still contains thimerosal and the H1N1 is expected to contain thimerosal as well, so my question is, with the American public receiving one shot containing mercury from the flu vaccine, and potentially two for the H1N1 vaccine, what research is being done to guarantee that that cumulative amount of mercury will be safe?

Winokur: So the amounts in these vaccines are miniscule, and they do not reach the amounts that the FDA and other regulatory agencies have considered to be toxic amounts. And we have decades of history of using these vaccines, and as you probably well know, the data surrounding thimerosal and autism is not thought to be a viable link. And they’ve done numerous studies to address that. Never the less, it’s a concept that many people believe in, and so they’ve worked to reduce the exposure to thimerosal, particularly in children who have developing brains and neurological systems.

Now just to clarify you’re saying that they have done a lot of research that hasn’t found a connection, who are you referring to with that?

Winokur: So, the Institute of Medicine, has released a study exploring the links between autism and thimerosal so.

EH: Something that you’re saying, that the levels of mercury in these vaccines is miniscule, I’ve done some research on my own and I checked out the EPA’s standard for the ratio that’s considered to be the maximum safety, for mercury level in the blood, and it’s 5.8 micrograms per liter, and for a 160 lb. man, he has about 4.7 liters of blood in his body, and just by multiplying that that comes out to 27.26 micrograms of mercury that the EPA would consider to be safe in the body of an average sized man. Now the flu vaccine contains 25 micrograms of mercury, so right there that puts you just a couple…

Winokur: I don’t think your numbers are correct.

EH: Why is that?

I would have to look at the numbers, the numbers I think you have, I think you may be off by your units.

EH: Which, referring to the EPA’s standard, or the amount of mercury that is in the flu vaccine?

Winokur: The amount that is in the vaccine.

EH: How much mercury is in…

Winokur: I’d have to look it up for you; I can’t tell you off the top of my head. But the numbers that you’re giving me are not correct

EH: Okay, well, then if that’s what you say.

FC: Getting back to what you said before, as you said, H1N1, it’s going to happen. In the past there has been rises of possible pandemics, and then have never happened. From your medical experience, do you believe that it’s going to hit us?

Winokur: We have a pandemic. We’re not waiting for one. We have one.

EH: To clarify, I think Felicia’s referring to, in 1976 you had a similar pandemic, Gerald Ford and the federal government pushed a mass-vaccination program…

Winokur: So it was not a pandemic it was concerned to become a pandemic. H1N1 is a pandemic.

EH: And now what exactly is the definition of that?

Winokur: It’s circulated around the world, and we have 100 countries that have H1N1. So, the swine flu in 1976 was a novel strain that they thought could become a pandemic strain, but it never did. It never was found to spread from human to human. And so, they stopped the vaccine campaign because it didn’t materialize. This is a different story.

EH: Could it be that the vaccine campaign was stopped also potentially because of all the injury claims that were filed, reaching 3.5 billion total?

Winokur: So there were cases reported of Guillen-Barre syndrome that were in excess of what we expected during that year, and yes, that contributed to the halting, but also you don’t need a vaccine if you don’t need it, because there’s always more risk than benefit.

EH: Always?

Winokur: Always. And so that vaccine campaign was terminated because it did not turn out to be a strain that was spreading from person to person.

FC: Now, I’ve been hearing all kinds of ridiculous numbers, and I don’t know what’s right and what’s wrong, but have there been any kind of predictions regarding the mortality rate?

Winokur: So, every year we know that 20-40 thousand people die in the United States due to influenza. This year, because this is a novel strain, more of our population will be susceptible to getting that, so just by odds we would expect the mortality rate could be higher. Another thing we’re watching is that we know with pandemics, we know that often times the first wave that’s spread tends to be a fairly modest, relatively virulent strain. As the virus evolves it becomes more virulent and we see mortality rates go up. That has not been the case yet, with H1N1, but it’s something people are worried about and they’re watching very carefully.

FC: would you say H1N1 is more of a dangerous flu than the typical, seasonal flu?

Winokur: We don’t know yet. CDC released some mortality statistics yesterday. There are hints that this may be a little bit more virulent than the regular seasonal flu, but the data isn’t solid yet, and the numbers aren’t great enough to really make that claim very solidly.

FC: So, because of that data collecting, would you recommend that people, come mid-October, receive the H1N1 vaccine?

Winokur: I think people should get this vaccine.

FC: For those who decide not to get the vaccine, are there any tips that you can give them?

Winokur: So, the recommendations are for what they call social distancing. So, trying not to be in crowded places, which is difficult if you are a college student. Aggressive hand washing, trying to limit your contact with sick individuals, certainly schools are trying to develop plans for removing kids who are sick to rooms that will not have to be shared with roommates, and other things like that. So, those are the recommendations that they can rely on if they cannot get the vaccine or choose not to get the vaccine.

EH: Now I’ve seen that you started doing research on healthy adults, and now you’ve started doing research on children, and from what you’ve been seeing, is this vaccine going to have the same effect on a child as on an adult, and is the dose going to be different?

Winokur: We don’t know yet. So, that’s why we’re doing the studies. Typically the doses have been relatively similar for toddlers on up. For little babies, they usually require half the dose than a larger kid and adult require but, those studies are ongoing.

EH: So from a toddler to an adult, the doses…

Winokur: The doses are pretty similar, m-hm.

EH: The reason that I ask that is that, with substances such as mercury in there, that can have a different effect on a grown man as opposed to a small child…

Winokur: So that’s why they’re using thimerosal-free vaccine in children.

EH: Right but that’s only going to be a limited amount.

Winokur: The goal is to have enough for children.

FC: So you said that you want the goal to be to have enough for children, what if that goal isn’t met; do you still give the child H1N1 vaccine that has thimerosal?

Winokur: So the data does not support a risk with thimerosal, so the recommendation would be to vaccinate the child. The goal would be to have thimerosal-free vaccine because of this persistent belief that it is linked to problems; we do not have data to support that.

EH: So is it mainly for media relations then, that you produce thimerosal free vaccines, if there is no real risk?

Winokur: That’s exactly why it’s being done.

EH: Well, talking about mercury and aluminum that exists in these vaccines, do you know how much of these ingredients go to the brain, and are you checking for…

Winokur: I’m not going to address more of these questions

EH: Why not?

Winokur: Because I don’t have the numbers that you want. I think we’ve covered this fairly carefully, and you’ve come up with numbers that you haven’t given me in advance, so I can check them out. If I’d been able to check them out I could tell you whether your math’s right and stuff, I can’t off the top of my head. And so I can’t address these questions effectively. And your obviously trying to identify these hypes that are things that need to be addressed very specifically with data, and so if you had given me these numbers and stuff so I could address them more accurately ahead of time I’d be happy to address that, but I can’t off the top of my head.

EH: So, when the research does come out, will it be made available to the public, so that we’ll be able to look up the research, the scientific data, for ourselves?

Winokur: The FDA requires us to register all of our trials with clinicaltrials.gov, so all of the research goals are listed there, the data will be published, I can’t tell you when exactly it depends on when we get it, and how quickly we can clean up the data and get it out; the goal is to get this data out as fast as possible, so it is going to be published data.

FC: I just had a couple more questions. Here in the clinic, can you talk about what your role is here?

Winokur: So, we are performing what’s called a clinical trial. So, our clinical trials are approved through our human subjects review process, that both occurred at MIH and at this site here at University of Iowa. We have a consent process where we discuss the risks and benefits and the processes that each individual is going to undergo if they continue to participate. We have five blood draws with this trial, and two vaccinations. And the goal is to understand the speed with which these antibodies are being produced, and the total number of antibodies that are being produced. We have two different vaccine doses—so 15 micrograms and 30 micrograms—and then each person will get two doses, and then we’ll have bloods from the first vaccine as well as the second vaccine, so there are a lot of variables that we’ll be studying with this study.

FC: Okay, so my final question was: mid-October is when you think there should be some available to the public, is that correct?

Winokur: I think that mid-October there will be some vaccine available. I don’t think it will be enough to cover as many people as we want this vaccine to, and as many people as we think probably should get vaccinated in those high-risk groups.

FC: So when would you say that the testing will—I know that the testing really never stops—but when will the distribution start?

Winokur: So the dosing decisions will be the hardest ones… so the manufacturing of the vaccine is ongoing as we speak. We are trying to get the data very quickly to help them decide on the exact dose that individuals will require. Some of that’s going to be coming from the studies that we’re doing; they’re probably going to be pooling data from studies that started in Australia before our study. And it wouldn’t surprise me that there are studies ongoing in Europe as well, and they’re going to be pulling all that data in to try and understand the best dose.

FC: So in a way you guys are kind of working with the entire world to connect this data.

Winokur: Exactly, and that’s because of the speed with which this virus is spreading and we need to get a vaccine out as quickly as possible.

FC: Do you think that the United States has been hit as hard as some other countries around the world?

Winokur: So, right now the answer’s no, because in the Southern Hemisphere, flu typically occurs during our summer. And so they’ve had higher numbers of cases simply because this is their flu season. We have had flu at times when we historically never have had flu. And that’s what’s been so odd about this H1N1 strain is that it’s been circulating in the summer in the United States which is not typical. We’re starting to see the kids going back to school, there’s more close contact, and so the concern is that we’re going to see a much earlier peak in the flu cases because of that close proximity and we know that there’s flu already circulating in the U.S.

FC: And so you would say that you’re working as hard and as efficient as you can in the amount of time that you have to produce this vaccine.

Winokur: This trial has been expedited, and our groups have been working 12-hour days to try and get the data as quickly as possible and that’s true across the country.

FC: Is there anything else you would like to add about the vaccine? Have the trials been going well?

Winokur: The trials have been going very well. As I said the groups are working very hard to try and get this data. And I think we’ll be seeing some results soon.

Lorian Reporter, Edward Helmold, interview practitioner Dr. Charles Majors.

Edward Helmold: What is your occupation?

Doctor Charles Majors: Defeat Autism Now practitioner
graduated from University of Illinois, Champagne, Palmer College of Chiropractic, did about 9 years of complete studies last 11 years studying how to get someone completely well and healthy and keep them healthy for the rest of their lives.

EH: How dangerous do you expect the H1N1 flu virus to be?

Majors: The first thing you have to look at is the history of all these pandemics, have any of them ever happened; In 1976 they said this pandemic was coming, they began mass vaccinating back then, and then quick vaccinating because of the harm the vaccines were having, we never had a pandemic.

They said back in April of this year we were going to have another pandemic, swine flu, and they were getting everyone scared, and they had no vaccine, and what was the total, maybe 46 people died total in the world? That’s 46 people out of the billions of people who live in the world. These aren’t pandemics; it’s going to be very hard for a pandemic to happen in the US when we have clean water and sewer systems; we’re not a 3^rd world country where people have mass issues of malnutrition and really compromised immune systems.

EH: If this isn’t as serious as they’re letting on, then why has the US government bought a mass amount of vaccines from various pharmaceutical companies?

Majors: We have to look first at is there a tie between the vaccine companies and the government? What’s going on there? We had no shot four months ago, and there was no pandemic, and why all of a sudden is there a pandemic? Where’s the research coming from? What’s proving that there’s going to be a pandemic right now? And who says that we can’t handle this? The key for me is I’m getting myself and my family ready by keeping ourselves as healthy as possible. Because remember whenever a virus gets here anyway, they’re making this shot now, and the virus isn’t even here yet, do we know that that virus that is in that vaccine is going to match up exactly with the virus that’s out there? Once a human gets a virus, that virus begins to replicate itself, and as it spreads, as it’s spread by human contact, the virus can replicate and become stronger and different and stronger, how can a vaccine then even wipe that out? I’m not for a vaccine, I’m not against a vaccine; I’m for getting ourselves as healthy as possible and following the right protocols of health to get the cells of the body, the body healthy, the immune system as healthy as possible, so we don’t have to worry about a shot or a pandemic.

We definitely don’t know enough about where all this research is coming from. Why is it that they’ve made all these vaccines? Did the pharmaceutical company make the vaccines, and are they now pushing the government into creating this? No one knows where this is coming from, nothing’s making sense, we have all these vaccines for a virus that may never even come, and we’re going to start injecting ourselves and we’re going to start injecting ourselves with a dangerous, dangerous vaccine. Remember that the research shows that a certain percentage of doctors aren’t taking this, a high percentage of nurses aren’t taking this; people do not want this shot, even medical people themselves aren’t taking it. Not all, but there is a certain amount. Because remember, in 1976, look at the research, same shot, and this shot was dangerous, but they pulled it. And now, where is the long-term research that will show that #1 it works, #2 that it’s safe. Where’s the long-term research?

That’s a choice the public has to make: Do you want to follow the protocols of good health to keep your immune system as strong as possible, or give yourself a vaccine that’s never been tested, it may not even work, and the virus may never come.

Obviously they’re trying to change the way they did that one because of what happened with that shot, but for the lay person what has really changed, what’s the difference between one vaccine and another, they all have a lot of adjuvants, you know, mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum, the viral DNA from another animal, which in this case they use chicken eggs to grow the virus, and we really don’t even know what we’re injecting in ourselves, so does the public really know what they’re putting in? We know that thimerosal is linked to a number of different diseases, so why would we take a chance on putting all these chemicals in our body for a pandemic that may never happen?

I’m not saying never worry about anything, I’m saying get yourself as healthy as possible, because we don’t know what’s happening out there.

If you look at the EPA and see how much [mercury] a human can have at one time, you’ll see that one vaccine is more than that, and three vaccines is a lot more than that.

That would be a great interview with someone from the EPA, without them even knowing what you’re doing it on, just say “listen, what’s the right amount of mercury a person can have in their body at one time?” To me, no amount of mercury is good in my body. It’s the second most lethal substance on earth!

How can something bad create something good? That’s just not possible.

If you have a real sick baby, a really sick child, can you give them a vaccine? The answer is no, it makes them sicker, so if it makes a sick child sicker, what do you make a healthy child? You make them sick, so the goal of vaccine is to create a temporary immunity—because that’s what it creates—against that virus. And you hope to God that the body’s healthy enough not to die from a different virus.

EH: I’ve heard that the seasonal flu vaccine isn’t as effective as it would be made to seem.

Majors: No, no—it’s never been effective. It’s made the year before the actual flu season comes. It’s never effective. If you look at all the research looking at the elderly in the nursing homes, and looking at the effective rate of the vaccine, it’s never that effective.

And the other question is: how long of an immunity will you have. If you get a swine flu shot today, how long will that immunity last?

EH: From what I’ve read on the CDC’s website, they expect it to last about a year.

Majors: So where’s the research that shows that it will last a year? If it lasts a year, then why are you getting two shots? They’re doing two shots to make sure that you have enough immunity. So why do you need a second shot if you have enough immunity the first time? So now they’re wasting their time with the second shot. If they tell you they’re using science, there’s no science behind it. Because how come they don’t know how long it lasts, and then how long you have immunity for?

EH: If there really are all these question marks, why would these government agencies designed to protect the well-being of the public be approving these vaccines?

Majors: Because they’re more scared of a virus than they are the shots. They don’t study the shots in that form. They trust a shot more than they trust the human body that God gave us. God needs no help, no interference. If we don’t interfere with the body, our body’s capable to heal anything. There are pandemics that happen all over the world and not everyone dies. It’s the people with the strongest immune systems that live. So we need to get the public focused on raising their immune systems and staying as healthy as possible so that they don’t need to rely on this. Because there’s going to be a lot of people not taking this.

EH: Okay. Now I want to back up a little bit and talk about this thimerosal, because I just picked this flyer up today and they do briefly mention this; they don’t mention that it contains mercury, but what they say is that “some people have suggested that thimerosal may have lead to some developmental problems in children. In 2004 the Institute of Medicine reviewed many studies looking into this theory, and concluded that there is no evidence of such a relationship. Thimerosal free influenza vaccine is available.”

Majors: That’s not an actual true statement because remember the court case that the pharmaceutical companies lost, the case proved that thimerosal did create her case and enhanced her condition that was already there. So they’re saying there’s no link but, what study was done, how long was the study done, how long did they compare the children? Right now they’re saying, “Well we took a lot of thimerosal out of the shots, but look at how the autism rate’s still where it is.” Well, you’re still giving kids flu shots with thimerosal in it, so you didn’t stop giving kids thimerosal, you’re only giving them less.

Now I also work with autistic children, and I don’t ever say that vaccines caused your autism, a whole bunch of toxicities created your autism. It’s everything, its antibiotics, its other medications, then on top of that vaccine, mother being toxic and having things in her body—it’s the accumulation of toxins, and then one finally puts you over the top.

You see, your body can handle a certain amount of toxins. Your cells, you are made of cells, your cells can handle it. It’s called the bucket theory, which is a theory that the buckets can handle a certain amount of toxins, but once those buckets fill to the top, then they overflow, and that overflow is where you get your symptoms. Which means if you inject a child today, his bucket fills halfway up, and he won’t have a symptom but he’s still sick? And then he gets his tenth vaccine, or another round of antibiotics, or he has an environmental toxin come into his way, and now he has an overflow.

EH: Something else that I came across in my research that I wanted you to clarify for me is the term “Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).” Can you talk about what this is and what the implications are?

Majors: Right now it is not a mandatory shot; you do not have to get the H1N1 shot. They highly suggest it. If there is a pandemic, there has been law enacted that they will be able to force vaccinate. That’s the way the law reads. That’s the way emergency law reads.

But as much as I may be angry and you may be angry at that, #1 we’re not going to have a pandemic. But #2 is that they think that they’re going to save the world by a vaccine. They’re doing it out of the goodness of their heart, in one sense. I mean, President Obama, he doesn’t study the pros and cons of vaccines, he listens to the people above him, and he does what he thinks is right; he doesn’t want people to die. And the vaccine, especially in 1976, but most mass vaccine doesn’t bring health to a community.

EH: Another ingredient that I wanted to talk to you about that is very controversial, that looks like it might be included in the flu vaccine although it’s never been approved for use in the U.S. before, and this is Squalene, it’s an adjuvant that contains aluminum. Do you believe that this adjuvant will be included in the upcoming vaccine?

Majors: Well remember that aluminum can go right to the brain. If you look at the history of Alzheimer’s, and the amount of flu shots given to someone, if you look that research up, if someone has received 10 or more flu shots it increases their risk of Alzheimer’s almost higher than anyone else.

But aluminum in the shots is definitely going to be the next thing they start looking at.

EH: Okay, because from what I’ve read is that aluminum is naturally produced by the body and necessary in the body, but the problem becomes when you inject it into the body.

Majors: Well everything is different when you inject it into the blood. I have no problem if you want me to give my kids a little bit of H1N1 virus and have them breathe it in naturally. Because remember that when you breathe something in naturally it goes thru the natural mechanism, you create a long-term immunity for the rest of your life. If we breathe in the virus, if we’re healthy and we breathe in the virus, then we create a long-term immunity for the rest of our life. So I want to create long-term immunity toward things, not short-term immunity. Because then I’ll have to rely on vaccines for the rest of my life for short-term immunities.

EH: So you’re saying that an injected vaccine is a short term thing?

Majors: An injected vaccine is an emergency immune response. That’s what it’s called; an emergency immune response. The body will send antibodies quickly to that area. If you cut your leg, that’s an emergency healing response. Your body has to send antibodies to clot that to stop that area from bleeding. If you inhale a virus naturally, it goes through your nose, through your whole immune system down into your body, so slowly your body can build up a long-term immunity toward it. It’s called cell-mediated, long-term. So when you pop someone’s skin open with a shot, what do you do immediately? You create an emergency response. The body has to quickly send antibodies there, and that’s why they have to put all those antibodies in there, because they’re trying to create longer immunity. That stuff’s there #1 to help preserve it. Mercury is there as a preservative. Because if there’s mercury in the shot, you can keep that shot longer; it has a longer shelf-life. And so aluminum and these other things are in there because they help trigger an immune-response. It helps the immunity. And you may get a longer immune response because of that aluminum in there. They’re reasoning for why they do this is that they’re trying to create the longest immunity that they can of a vaccine. The problem is you can’t ever create immunity by popping the skin open. You can only create immunity by breathing in a virus naturally. By getting it and then flushing the virus back out.

EH: So do you feel that the nasal vaccines would be more effective then?

Majors: Well if you think about it, it’s a live virus, it’s going into your nose, if you sneeze, guess what’s going everywhere. And there are still chemicals in there, that’s not just the straight virus, the straight flu.

EH: So you feel there’s reason even to be concerned with the nasal spray?

Majors: Yeah well again, you’re just giving yourself the flu. So why not just wait and get it naturally? This is what’s so insane about it, is if we keep ourselves healthy, our bodies will build up immunity, and we’ll never get that stuff again.

Follow the protocol of good health. There’s a nutritional protocol: avoiding your sugar. Sugar alone will destroy your immune system. So avoid sugar right now as much as possible, increase your water, increase your sleep, increase your vitamin D—Vitamin D reduces the risk of cancer and raises the immune system over 77%. There are certain protocols that, if followed, can raise the immune system higher than anyone else. So I teach people how to become as healthy as possible, and if you do decide you’re going to vaccinate your body can handle it, and if you’re not your body can fight anything that’s going on.

[The CDC] can never say they’re wrong, because if they ever say mercury is dangerous, they will have a multi trillion-dollar lawsuit against them. All they can do is slowly remove it.

Hannah’s case: There’s not a question. That aluminum and mercury go to the brain and it creates Ischemia. The key word to understand right now in vaccines is that it creates Ischemia.

Felicia Carner
Published: April 30, 2009

This past Friday the Colts Drum and Bugle Corps began preparation for their new season by performing a free debut of their show here in Dubuque.

The Colts' official season starts in the beginning of June and goes through most the month of August.

This year their show Fathoms will be hitting the field. It’s an 11 minuet ocean themed show.

Both students and staff are excited for the upcoming season and to reconnect and make new friendships.

Grandma Mary Deschepper has been with the colts since 1997 making this her twelfth year with the ‘family’ community that the Colts create is what keeps Grandma Mary traveling with group.

“They are all such wonderful young men and women and the staff treat us the best,” she commented.

Second year pit player Kyle Barshinger agrees, “I’m not just another member here, I’m a part of the family.”

Barshinger and the rest of his ‘family’ are ready to show the work off to both their audience and their competitors comments, “Be ready for us we are going to come out with a lot of notes and we hope everyone enjoys it.”

Felicia Carner can be reached at felicia.carner@loras.edu

LCTV13’s Phone Interview with Ingrid Evans-Olson, one of the women named in the lawsuit regarding same sex marraige that reached the Iowa Supreme Court.

Q. Who is in your household?
My partner, Reva Evans and our son Jamison Olson.

Q. Where at in Iowa do you and your family currently reside?
Council Bluffs

Q. What is the lawsuit?
It is a case that questioned the justification of denying same-sex couples the right to marry. The lawsuit struck down Iowa's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It was overturned on April 3, 2009, and will grant same-sex couples the same protections, benefits and rights that all other married couples in the state of Iowa receive.

Q.When will the new law, allowing same-sex couples to obtain marriage, be set in stone?
The ruling stated that the decision would be in affect after 21 days. So originally April 24th would be the first day a couple could get a marraige license and get married if they paid the additional $5 fee to waive the waiting period. Normally you have to wait 3 days to get married after requesting a marriage license. However, the dates were postponed because of budget cuts at Iowa courthouses. The earliest day to get a license is Monday April 27.

Q. What is your direct connection to the lawsuit at hand?
Both Reva and I were named in a lawsuit filed in December 2005.

Q. Why did you get involved in the lawsuit?
In November 2005 we asked for a marriage license and we were denied. They told us that Iowa marriage was between a man and a woman and so in December 2005 we filed the lawsuit with five other couples who were also denied a license.

Q. Were there any other reasons for getting involved in this process?
Reva was two months pregnant with our son, Jamison. He deserved to have their parents recognized and ultimately he was the one who really drove us to win this lawsuit. We wanted our family recognized. You do a lot more for your kids than you do for yourselves.

Q. Did you have any doubts of this getting passed?
No, people ask this all the time. We always replied no. We always thought we would win and personally we never questioned it. We have friends who would even say "no it’s not the time or place", but if it is not the time and place than when is it? In September 2007, Judge Robert Hanson said the State of Iowa doesn’t have any substantial reason to deny Iowa same-sex couples the right to marry.

Q. What was this amendment’s importance to you both?

Hugest thing we’ll ever experience. The tears that you might have seen were indescribable. The fiber of your being was just overwhelming with everything that happened on Friday. I was grateful and thankful for Iowa Supreme Court’s thought out decision. Political ideology was set aside. Justice Cady, an appointee under Republican Governor Terry Branstad, whp more than likely has conservative beliefs interpreted the law for what the law said. This law grants so many things; you can get married, you can add each other to health insurance. Reva and I factored how much we could save in health insurance if given this protection and it totaled $8,500 the year Jamison was born. With the current state of the economy this is a huge amount. Also children in Iowa with gay or lesbian parents can know their kids are going to school in a state that respects all families. This decision encompasses so many things that affect our daily lives.

Q. What were the feelings and thoughts going through your mind?
Just to hear our lead attorney’s first words “We won!” There were cheers and smiles and sighs of release. And when it was announced the vote was unanimous I started crying. I threw my arms up in the utmost happiness. The happiness that overcame our families and coworkers was an indescribable feeling. No words can fit the key hole to the description of this feeling.


Q. Do you personally have plans to get married?
We do but not right away. I’m going to be there at the courthouse but I don’t know if I’ll be there the first day. The first day is going to be chaotic. We want something more peaceful and a little more normal. I was actually looking for availability for reception halls and we’re actively looking and planning. We stood up for how much we needed this and so we are most definitely are going to take advantage of the fact that we can get married.

Q. Since you were one of the six drivers of this law did you experience any additional discrimination?
People were amazing. Regardless of people's views on the Supreme Court's decision people have been very kind. Working with the media has been 100% positive experience. We received congratulations from co-workers and family members. We personally are so grateful for our family that stood behind us. We did not receive much negativity. I don’t know about the other couples day to day. Life has been good because people are good in Iowa and I think the overarching message is in not only is the court ruling but that Iowans are good people.

Q. Since you won your lawsuit do you feel your job is done?
It’s not. This part of our story is over but we really think that Iowa is going to be a leader in this. Like they say with the Iowa Caucuses - " As Iowa goes so goes the nation." Mike Gronstal addressed the senate floor and addressed it from the view of the younger generation. He said the younger generation doesn’t care and they are going to win this in the end. Someday across the nation we are going to look back and say what was the big deal? Our marriage didn’t hurt and did not lessen the value of anyone elses marraige all it did was bring two people together and give them the legal protect ion they never had and never dreamed of having. Iowa is going to lead the country in regard to this civil rights issue.

In an email to LCTV13 Mark Wyatt, the head of the Iowa Bicycle Coalition, stated why his organization believes Iowa needs a law protecting cyclists.

The bill has passed one chamber of the legislature and will remain alive through next year.

The important part to note is bicyclists have rights to use the roadways as defined in the Iowa Code 321.234 and affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court (Vasconz v. Mills 2001). The bicycle safety bill attempted to clarify bicycle in instances where police or prosecutors felt the law was vague. I also think the law clarified passing and following of bicycles which would have made it clear to the motoring public, driver's education classes and the drivers examination. Passage of law or not, there is a lot of work to be done to educate the public and law enforcement about the rights and duties of bicyclists on the roads.

While auto deaths have been dropping, bicycle fatalities have been on the rise with 8 deaths in 2008. Nationally, there are 773 fatal bicycle crashes vs. 42,000 fatal automobile crashes. While we don't have an accurate comparison on vehicle miles traveled, the bicycle seems to be a safe mode of transportation despite it's obvious vulnerabilities.

The bicycle remains a healthy, clean, and green way to travel for transportation. Half of automobile trips are 3 miles or less - the same distance can be covered with a 20 minute bicycle ride at an easy pace. Also, bicycle are a means of transportation for children below 16 years of age. Yet, the CDC estimates in 2001 16% of kids walked or bicycled to school, whereas in 1969 42% of kids walked or bicycled to school. Local trends are matching the national statistic.

Best rides,

Mark Wyatt
Iowa Bicycle Coalition
P.O. Box 572
North Liberty, IA 52317
515-309-2867 office
319-626-6017 fax
319-936-4948 cell
www.iowabicyclecoalition.org
mark@iowabicyclecoalition.org

To read the full story and learn some bicycle safety tips click here to read our story.

Iowa's Supreme Court ruled unanimously today to lift the ban on same sex marriage in the state of Iowa. You can voice your opinion below in our poll and leave comments to this story on your thoughts and feels of the ruling today.