top of page

What Does The Science Say?

Love this information from Illinois Coalition for Informed Consent:

I have real concerns regarding vaccines...


1. The ingredients:

**Vaccine ingredient list straight from the CDC: aborted fetal/animal (WI-38/MRC-5) tissue, aluminum, mercury compounds, formaldehyde, animal DNA, etc:

Leonard Hayflick created cell strain from aborted fetal lungs (WI-38)

MRC-5 cells (stand for Mount Royal College, where they were harvested from the fetuses)

WI-38 (stands for Wistar Institute)

USA & Canada: Aborted fetal cell line products:

The use of fetal bovine serum: ethical or scientific problem?

Cow components are often used simply because cows are very large animals, commonly used for food, and thus much material is available. Animal-derived products used in vaccine manufacture can include amino acids, glycerol, detergents, gelatin, enzymes and blood. Cow milk is a source of amino acids, and sugars such as galactose. Cow tallow derivatives used in vaccine manufacture include glycerol. Gelatin and some amino acids come from cow bones. Cow skeletal muscle is used to prepare broths used in certain complex media.

Some cows brought to slaughter are pregnant. After being slaughtered, their fetus - still alive - is extracted from the uterus by incision. A needle is then plunged deep into the heart, whose beats can draw blood without effort. This intracardiac puncture, deemed extremely painful and causes a slow death by asphyxiation.

"In some cases the cell lines (aborted fetal cell lines) that are used might be tumorigenic, that is, they form tumors when injected into rodents. Some of these tumor-forming cell lines may contain cancer-causing viruses that are not actively reproducing. Such viruses are hard to detect using standard methods. These latent, or "quiet," viruses pose a potential threat, since they might become active under vaccine manufacturing conditions.”

'Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) is a recently discovered human retrovirus that has been found in both chronic fatigue syndrome & prostate cancer patients. There is a potential safety concern regarding XMRV in cell substrates used in vaccines...'

"The use of tumorigenic and tumor-derived cells is a major safety concerndue to the potential presence of viruses such as retroviruses and oncogenic (CANCER) DNA viruses that could be associated with tumorigencity, Therefore, detection of persistent, latent DNA viruses, and endogenous retroviruses in vaccine cell substrates is important for vaccine safety, particularly in the development of live viral vaccines, where there are no or minimal virus inactivation and removal steps during vaccine manufacturing."

"Regulatory evaluation of transformed cell substrates could be improved by a better understanding of the processes involved in cell transformation. Thus, our laboratory is attempting to understand mammalian cell transformation, how transformed cells develop the ability to form tumors, and how these tumors actually develop. Our laboratory is also developing ways to evaluate the possible risks that might be associated with the genetic material (DNA) from tumor-forming cell substrates. DNA from these substrates poses two risks: 1) the possibility of transferring cancer-causing activity to vaccines, and 2) the possibility of transferring infectious microorganisms to vaccines.

To extend our work to include all aspects of the risks associated with tumor-forming cell substrates, we are developing ways to 1) determine whether DNA from such cells can be a source of cancer-causing activity and infectious microorganisms; and 2) evaluate the impact of addition of enzymes during manufacturing that would cause DNA degradation (breakdown) on the relative risks associated with these processes."


2. There is more formaldehyde in a pear then in vaccines and more aluminum in breastmilk then vaccines.

First off, the existence of a chemical in nature in small quantities and in the presence of co-factors doesn't mean that larger quantities of that same chemical aren't harmful when synthesized in a lab and injected. There's also a very big difference biochemically between introduction of a substance through the stomach vs intramuscular injection.

The immune system acts different to a vaccine than if it were to encounter the natural pathogen in the environment. First of all, the mode of entry of the pathogen is different. In normal circumstances, most pathogens enter a person through the nose or mouth. In most vaccinations, the pathogen enters through an injection, completely bypassing the normals lines of the immune system’s defense.

So, when you inject something into the muscle, it goes through your lymphatic system and is processed through lymph nodes before being dumped into your bloodstream to be filtered by your liver. When you eat, it is only partially absorbed by your intestines and the rest leaves with your feces. Much less danger by eating then injecting!

The vast majority of infections enter the body through the nasal passages (mucosal membrane) and the gastrointestinal tract, also known as the guts. Accordingly, 80% of the body's natural defenses are aligned at these junctures. This represents the body 's primary guard against incoming viral, bacterial & fungal pathogens. Vaccines are injected subcutaneously, or intramuscularly, a route which literally bypasses your natural defenses altogether. The contents of these vials go directly into the bloodstream, which is 90% water & 10% colloidal blood product - thereby getting direct access to the innermost reaches of the body.

You cannot compare natural occurring to synthetic nor can you compare ingestion to injection.


3. There has never been a study that proves that the fully vaccinated are healthier long term than the fully nonvaccinated.

Vaccines are tested by giving one group THE vaccine and giving the other group another vaccine; therefore, new vaccines are tested against an old vaccine whose side effects should be known, so how would anyone know if not giving a vaccine would be better? There are NO placebo studies comparing vaccinated group to non vaccinated group. To me that was a huge red flag.

Yes, it is unethical to do a placebo study but it is NOT unethical to compare 50,000 unvaccinated kids they could easily round up in the US for an epidemiological study and compare them with 50,000 in a control group.


4. "Your unvaccinated child is a risk to babies too young to get vaccinated and the immunocompromised."

The fact is that vaccination does NOT mean immunization and does not stop you from carrying bacteria or viruses in your nose, throat, intestines, airway, on your skin, or in your body. But many do not understand the significance of this FACT, and have been made to believe that if you’re vaccinated, you won’t carry viruses (don't forget some vaccines shed and the vaccine insert clearly states to stay away from the immunocompromised/newborns/ pregnant women up to 6 weeks after vaccination) , and therefore, others will be protected because you’re vaccinated. FACT: vaccinated or not you still can catch AND spread diseases!

Various vaccines cause “shedding,” or secondary transmission, where the person who is newly vaccinated actually carries around this illness for a length of time after being vaccinated.

Here is ONE vaccine insert (MMR-V) example:

**ProQuad package insert**

Varicella (chkpox)+MMR

"Risk of Vaccine Virus Transmission

Post-licensing experience with VARIVAX suggests that transmission of varicella vaccine virus may occur between healthy vaccine recipients (who develop or do not develop a varicella-like rash) and contacts susceptible to varicella, as well as high-risk individuals susceptible to varicella. High-risk individuals susceptible to varicella include:

  • Immunocompromised individuals;

  • Pregnant women without documented positive history of varicella (chickenpox) or laboratory evidence of prior infection;

  • Newborn infants of mothers without documented positive history of varicella or laboratory evidence of prior infection and all newborn infants born at <28 weeks gestation regardless of maternal varicella immunity.

Vaccine recipients should attempt to avoid, to the extent possible, close association with high-risk individuals susceptible to varicella for up to 6 weeks following vaccination. In circumstances where contact with high-risk individuals susceptible to varicella is unavoidable, the potential risk of transmission of the varicella vaccine virus should be weighed against the risk of acquiring and transmitting wild-type varicella virus.

Excretion of small amounts of the live, attenuated rubella virus from the nose or throat has occurred in the majority of susceptible individuals 7 to 28 days after vaccination."


5. "These diseases are very deadly!"

Actually, dying from these diseases decreased 93-98% prior to the introduction of vaccines!

Scarlet Fever, Tuberculosis, Typhoid, syphilis, appendicitis...the mortality rate also fell at the same time as the vaccine preventable diseases did and there was no vaccine for those mentioned above. As nutrition, sanitation, and the increase standard of living improved, ALL diseases/illnesses declined, whether or not there was a vaccine.

Also, if vaccines were responsible for the disappearance of diseases in the US, one must ask why they also disappeared simultaneously in Europe where mass inoculations did NOT take place?!

RIGHT FROM the very reliable CDC. Vaccines DID NOT eradicate the diseases!

"Vital statistics rates in US 1940-1960" (887 pages)

"American drinking water supplies are among the safest in the world. The disinfection of water has played a critical role in improving drinking water quality in the United States. In 1908, Jersey City, New Jersey was the first city in the United States to begin routine disinfection of community drinking water. Over the next decade, thousands of cities and towns across the United States followed suit in routinely disinfecting their drinking water, contributing to a dramatic decrease in disease across the country (Fig 1)."

Thus vaccination DOES NOT account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century"


6. Can vaccines be linked or cause cancer? How do you know....vaccines are NOT tested/evaluated for carcinogenic mutation.

Every vaccine package insert states this: " NON-CLINICAL TOXICOLOGY

13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility (vaccine name has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or impairment of fertility."

ONE example) SV40 is a virus found in some species of monkey. Soon after its discovery in 1960, SV40 was found in polio vaccine. More than 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine during the period (1955–1963) when some of the vaccine was contaminated with SV40. SV40 has been found in certain types of human cancers, but it has not been determined that SV40 causes these cancers. The majority of evidence suggests there is no causal relationship between receipt of SV40-contaminated vaccine and cancer; however, some research results are conflicting and more studies are needed. For more information, see the fact sheet".

SV40 (Polio Vaccine 1955-1963) linked to non-hogkin's lymphoma


7. There is no mandatory surveillance of adverse vaccine reactions in the US it is estimated that only between 10-20% of adverse reactions are ever reported, so there is actually no way to really know that serious vaccine reactions are "extremely rare".

FDA admits that only 10-20% of all vaccine reactions are even reported.

Also, by administering several vaccines at the same time it is almost impossible to place the blame on one specific vaccine when there is an adverse reaction. This is convenient for vaccine promoters and insurance companies but not so for the patient!

OVER $4 BILLION has paid out for vaccine injuries and deaths


8. Obviously there are some children who cannot tolerate vaccines but there is no test available to tell you whether your child will be one of these children, determine if your child is, in fact, a candidate for vaccination.

One example: The MTHFR gene mutation - which, in short, effects their ability to break down heavy metals in the body. It is estimated that 40% of this population has this gene mutation, and it is passed down from generation to generation. IF your child has the MTHFR gene mutation, they are at GREAT RISK for a vaccine reaction/injury.


9. The companies that produce vaccines have proven ongoing criminal and fraudulent practices and yet they are able to have enormous influence over the medical industry and the government bodies that are put in place to act as watchdog. They are also allowed to produce the safety studies that are used to recommend their own products for mass vaccination programs.

Merk Vaccine Fraud Exposed:

Merk lied about mumps vaccine


10. We have skyrocketing rates of ADHD, Allergies, Autoimmune disorders, Eczema, Asthma, Cancer(not saying vaccines are the only cause or even do cause to these things, but why are they not conducting studies?) we have 18,000 deaths and 50,000 permanent injuries annually from medical errors.

"Most high-risk medical conditions that were measured were more prevalent among vaccinated than among unvaccinated persons."

"CONCLUSION: Parents who refuse vaccinations reported less asthma and allergies in their unvaccinated children."

"The odds of having a history of asthma was twice as great among vaccinated subjects than among unvaccinated subjects The odds of having had any allergy-related respiratory symptom in the past 12 months was 63% greater among vaccinated subjects than unvaccinated subjects"

"Conclusions : There are significantly elevated risks of primarily emergency room visits approximately one to two weeks following 12 and 18 month vaccination. Future studies should examine whether these events could be predicted or prevented"


11. There is a large and steadily increasing amount of scientific evidence showing the dangers, risks, and ineffectiveness of vaccination.

Take for example the Whooping Cough "epidemic"; our own scientific researchers found that the vaccine itself was the likely cause of the epidemic and this explains why the majority of cases were found in the fully and partially vaccinated.

According to the CDC's OWN data- the majority of pertussis cases since 2012 had 3+ vaccine much for "immunity". You can check each years surveillance report here:

This was also backed up recently by another study done in Baboons that showed vaccinated primates when infected with whooping cough were just as infectious and for just as long as unvaccinated primates and were able to transmit the disease to others.

"This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease."

Additional studies:

Pertussis epidemic despite high levels of vaccination coverage with acellular pertussis vaccine.

An acellular whooping cough vaccine actually inhances the colonization of Bordetella parapertussis in mice; pointing towards a rise in B. Parapertussis incidence resulting from acellular vaccination, which may contributed to the observed increase in whooping cough over the last decade.

“Our unvaccinated and under-vaccinated population did not appear to contribute significantly to the increased rate of clinical pertussis. Surprisingly, the highest incidence of disease was among previously vaccinated children in the eight to twelve year age group.”​

Vaccinations create more powerful and virulent strains of bacteria and viruses. The reason for the current whooping cough outbreak. Read more here from the CDC​"Vaccination against 2 avian viruses, the Marek disease virus, and the infectious bursal disease virus, were associated with the emergence of more virulent strains (33). An important role of host immunity in selecting for virulence is also suggested by the co-evolution of the myxomatosis virus and rabbits (34). Furthermore, immune pressure was shown to select for more virulent Plasmodium chabaudi parasites in mice (35). Based on mathematical modeling, vaccines designed to reduce pathogen growth rate and/or toxicity may result in the evolution of pathogens with higher levels of virulence (36)."​

"After the fifth dose of DTaP, the odds of acquiring pertussis increased by an average of 42% per year."

This study shows that efficacy of the DTaP falls rapidly. At 2 years post-vaccination, it's just 75%. By 5 years, it's down to 11.9%. I think we know that vaccine failure is clearly playing a role here....

Pertussis 53 - 64% effective in adolescents and adults:

-Basically, the pertussis vaccine doesn't work, and any immunity from it wanes *VERY* fast.

Importantly, we demonstrate that acellular vaccine antigen-encoding genes are evolving at higher rates than other surface protein-encoding genes. This was true even prior to the introduction of pertussis vaccines but has become more pronounced since the introduction of the current acellular vaccines. The fast evolution of vaccine antigen-encoding genes has serious consequences for the ability of current vaccines to continue to control pertussis.


12. We are told that 95% herd immunity is the cornerstone to good public health, yet amongst our adult population vaccination rates are extremely low as shown in the latest figures from the CDC:

Children age birth to 18 years only account for 23% of out population. And further more Children ages birth to 5 , only account for 6% of our population.

So assuming that 100% of children (under age of 18) were vaccinated you could never reach the 95% with so many adults making up the population and a large amount of them not being up to date on vaccinations! But don't take my "opinion" please research for yourself in the following link

So how are our children a threat to herd immunity when adults are showing rates of around 20% or lower, per the CDC, in most recommended vaccinations?


PLEASE NOTE: The content, ideas, and views in this article are those of the presenter(s); Arvesa does not claim ownership of the content or the information provided above. Arvesa’s intention in sharing information is to provide access to said information so that viewers may come to their own informed conclusion(s).

FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER: Copyright Disclaimed under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use, including that of educational or personal use, is a use as permitted by copyright statute. Arvesa has uploaded this information as to preserve its integrity for educational purposes. Therefore, the use of material in this post constitutes a ‘FAIR USE’ of any such copyrighted material; the martial in this article is for research and educational purposes only.


bottom of page