'Leaky' experiments.

A paper designed to show that ‘leaky’ vaccines may increase the virulence of Mareks disease in chickens is full of holes.

An article from 2015 in the National Geographic announced:-

“Leaky Vaccines Enhance Spread of Deadlier Chicken Viruses”

This was based on a paper by Read and Nair. The Geographic claimed that ‘All of this is consistent with the imperfect vaccine hypothesis. It doesn’t prove that imperfect vaccines drove the evolution of today’s extra-virulent strains, “and we may never know for sure why those evolved in the first place,” Read writes. Other factors, like the fact that modern chickens are genetically similar or raised in dense, crowded conditions, may have also played a role. Still, it’s at least clear that vaccines can keep virulent strains in circulation. “For the chicken industry, these results are actually an argument for getting the vaccine,” says Read. “Any chicken that doesn’t get it is at even greater risk than it would be in the 1950s.”

However, the Read and Nair study on Marek’s disease does not hold water. Both its design and execution are full of holes.

In order to show ‘vaccine escape’ researchers exposed both vaccinated (using turkey herpes virus vaccine) and unvaccinated chickens to 5 different cell cultures. The cell cultures were thought to be of different ‘virulence’. The most virulent allegedly caused the unvaccinated birds to die within 10 days. There were no deaths within their cages of the control, or sentinel, birds (ie unchallenged and unvaccinated). The researchers claimed that the vaccinated birds survived for 30 days or more, allowing for more transmission and the death of the sentinel birds in their cages.

Firstly the experiment on their terms:-

1. Unvaccinated chicks should have been injected with a placebo, preferably everything in the vaccine apart from the ‘herpes virus’, such as a cell culture made from sick animals but not thought to be ‘turkey herpes’.

2. The virus is allegedly highly contagious and is infectious from dust and feathers. However, the ‘challenge’ and exposure of chicks to the virus was not demonstrated this way, rather by the ‘intra-abdominal route’. This means that a relatively large amount of fluid was injected directly into their small abdomens, which is not (do I need to add?) how chicks are ever exposed to ‘viruses’. Is is unclear why some of the same day old chicks received twice as much cell culture challenge as others.

3. None of the chicks died as claimed. They were ‘humanely’ slaughtered before they allegedly were going to die of the infection. It is patently false and misleading to claim that they ‘died’. The symptoms indicating chicks were supposedly about to die were disorientation, reluctance to feed, reluctance to move, reduced weight gain and the ‘onset’ of paralysis and are therefore open to considerable subjective interpretation. There should have been a group of chicks cooped together, some injected with the cell culture challenge and some not, to show the robustness of the researchers ability to diagnose disease from non-specific symptoms. The symptoms may caused by the conditions of the experiment or being injected intra-abdominally with toxins. This is crucial to the credibility of the study.

4. The experiment was not blinded. Unconscious and conscious bias exists in all of us which is why billions are spent blinding both subjects and researchers. The vaccinated and unvaccinated were enclosed in separate clearly labelled coops and sentinel birds within them also tagged. The researchers would be expecting and therefore observed onset of symptoms in the unvaccinated group leading to requisite culling. A small study had previously been done in which they claim that a rapid onset phase of the disease occurred after injection of toxins. In the same way symptoms leading to culling in the sentinels would not have been expected once all unvaccinated birds had been killed and removed from the coop at 10 days. Once the sentinels in the vaccinated group, where the experiment continued for 20 more days, tested positive they were placed in isolators to prevent them from infecting others. This would have a huge impact on their failure to thrive, show other non-specific symptoms or test ‘postivie’. The sentinels in the unvaccinated group, even though the test birds had been culled at 10 days should also have been placed in isolators for 20 more days. The blinding of the entire study, vaccinated and unvaccinated, and which birds were the sentinels as well as treating the vaccinated and unvaccinated group’s sentinels in the same way is crucial to the credibility of the study.

5. The findings at post-mortem are ‘broadly’ in keeping with what is expected from a Marek’s disease death ie enlarged spleen and lymphoid changes. These findings are also in keeping with many other diseases. Taking cells from another species (ducks in this case) and other toxins used to culture viruses and injecting them directly into the abdomen of chicks is also highly likely to show these observations. The addition of a control group injected intra-abdominally with the challenge contents minus the virus is essential for the credibility of the study. The pathologist must be blinded to which birds are vaccinated, unvaccinated or sentinel.

6. Sentinels caged in both groups became ‘infected’. However the PCR is not suitable to show ‘infection’ in the birds, nor the presence of ‘virus’ in dust or feathers. This is because the sequences amplified have never been shown to come from inside a virus and therefore have no diagnostic specificity. The same amount of genetic material can also give wide ranging number of cycles so PCR cannot be used to denote ‘viral’ load nor ‘virulence’. Some of the genetic sequences may code for proteins involved in detoxification and homeostasis: much like fire fighters are found at fires but are not the causes of them. Testing positive may just indict presence of stress.

   

7. It is also possible that the results of the experiment are real. It could be that the symptoms of detox, either from the toxic cell culture injected into the chicken’s abdomens or from the conditions of the experiment, were suppressed by the herpes virus vaccine. The vaccine may cause ‘immune’ cells to recognise and bind to the proteins involved in stimulating detox symptoms. This enabled the vaccinated chickens to evade euthanasia by the researchers for an extra 20 days before they succumbed. However, there is no evidence that this makes them dangerous to the sentinels nor does it make them more ‘infectious’. It is never a good idea to suppress detoxification, as has been shown by the chicken pox vaccine.

Secondly the experiment on my terms:-

‘When "housing" a flock of chickens, the barn - which is rarely actually a barn, but a hall with thousands of animals - is completely treated with chemicals before the new animals move in, which the staff bring in wearing protective suits and gas masks. Due to the high risk to health...

The new birds then move in. Under miserable living conditions. Anyone who believes that the body of a chicken - with an average body weight lower than a human newborn - can survive this cocktail of chemicals, "vaccination", antibiotics, stress and food only rudimentarily labelled as food in a completely alien environment unscathed is either mentally ill or completely corrupt.’

To quote Florence Nightingale ‘Disease is an adjective not a noun-substantive’. ‘Disease’ describes a state of being caused by obvious factors in the life of the subject. The increased incidence of so called Mareks’ disease- a collection of common symptoms including onset of depression, muscle wasting, paralysis, disorientation, reluctance to feed, reluctance to move and reduced weight gain- shows no evidence of being caused by a ‘virus’. It is the result of inbreeding, genetic similarity, the ‘dense, crowded’, conditions in which, intelligent, sentient beings with highly evolved social structures are imprisoned. It is also due to the increasing number of toxic injections, also known as vaccines, that they are subjected to.

🐒