Frequency Update: Measles Vaccine Complex 2.0

The latest research shows that polyomavirus is associated with autism. Frequency Foundation has determined the frequency set for this virus and added it to the measles vaccine series. About 50% of the people I test appear to benefit from the measles vaccine frequency set so they are made available to other researchers for further testing.

Substantial updates to viral frequency and the frequency for mercury have been included in this version. The frequency program developed for multiple types of Rife devices includes:

*frequencies for polyomavirus
*frequencies that help eliminate mercury, aluminum, and fluoride
*measles virus frequency set
*frequencies for helping to eliminate fatty deposits in the brain
*frequency for stimulating hypothalamus function
*a second virus frequency set that always appears with measles virus
*multiple strains of candida and other fungi
*multiple parasite strains
*multiple bacterial infections

These multiple organisms appear in every case tested, i.e. they always occur together, and with a specific focus in the hypothalamus which leads to inability to process external stimuli properly. This affects internal perception of the world and causes a negative effect on interpersonal relations. Chronic infection of the hypothalamus with an aging immune system may cause more serious complications. Therefore, these organisms should all be eliminated as soon as possible.
—–
Time Magazine reported on Autism recently. See “Inside the Autistic Mind” by Claudia Wallis, 15 May 2005. While this may be worth reading, you will get a lot more useful information from the New York Times:

Morrice, Polly. Evidence of Harm: What Causes the Autism Epidemic. New York Times, 17 Apr 2005.

Kirby, David. Evidence of Harm. New York Times, 17 Apr 2005. (First chapter of book)

Read David Kirby’s book. It’s enlightening!

Kirby, David. Evidence of Harm – Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controvery. St. Martins Griffin, 2005

Here, we can do some original research by doing Photo Analysis on the Time cover, assuming the boy is autistic. What does he have in his brain, particularly the hypothalamus? Visiting a physician colleague this week, I learned that his patients who look right through you and appear not to be home have a malfunctioning hypothalamus which he can easily fix in most cases.

The first thing I pick up is a parasite infection. Looks like one of the Lyme parasites he probably picked up from his dog. More important, he clearly has the measles virus in his brain and his gut. Autistic kids usually have serious intestinal problems.

Pulling out Netter’s Atlas of Human Anatomy and focusing on the brain, I find mercury and the measles virus located particularly in the hypothalamus. In addition, I find aluminum there. Kirby has documented the synergistic relationship between mercury and aluminum which allows the two together to kill far more neurons.

Since autistic children have altered physical structures in the brain, I looked for aberrant cells and found a frequency for fatty deposits. Finally, I identified the frequency for physically stimulating the hypothalamus.

Testing other people for this condition, I find that many people have the same problem in the hypothalamus. Mercury and aluminum evidently migrate to that area of the brain. Many people also have the measles virus in the hypothalamus, but not in the gut. Apparently, everyone that gets the vaccine has this problem, but not everyone is noticeably autistic.

Testing myself, I find the same contaminants in the hypothalamus. After developing an F165 program as a solution, I transmit the frequencies using one of my ABPA devices and find it has a soothing, relaxing, mellowing effect. The next morning I find it a little easier to focus, stimuli are less disturbing as I wake up, and I feel more comfortable with intimacy. Evidently, many of us are just a little bit autistic.

It should be noted that males, for genetic reasons, are far more susceptible to effects of this contamination than females, even though females also have mercury, aluminum, and measles in the hypothalamus. No wonder the women are complaining about the men all the time!

Running these frequencies stimulates the immune system and flushes out another virus, a strain of candida, two strains of babesia, and a bacteria. These do not seem to be present in the boy on the cover of Time. However, they seem to all be present across a group of adults that I have tested. This is yet another example of how compromising the immune system can lead to increasing negative effects with aging and associated exposure to other pathogens.

So autism looks like it is a combination of the mercury killing neurons and lowering immune function, in combination with other vaccine contaminants. This allows the measles virus to create a chronic infection. Those diagnosed with autism are genetically unable to eliminate mercury effectively, have higher mercury levels, and the virus chronically infects the gut and starts an autoimmune reaction. The hypothalamus is particularly infected.

Mayo Clinic Study Shows Flu Shot Increases Hospitalization Risk in Children

Long Term Study Shows Flu Shot Increases Hospitalization Risk In Children

child-flu An eight year study conducted at the Mayo Clinic, published by the American Thoracic Society suggests that there is a correlation between flu shots and risk of complications from influenza. The study evaluated every pediatric patient that was seen at the Mayo Clinic over the course of eight flu seasons to determine how much the flu shot prevented hospitalization from influenza in asthmatic children. ATS 2009, SAN DIEGO— The inactivated flu vaccine does not appear to be effective in preventing influenza-related hospitalizations in children, especially the ones with asthma. In fact, children who get the flu vaccine are more at risk for hospitalization than their peers who do not get the vaccine, according to new research that will be presented on Tuesday, May 19, at the 105th International Conference of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego…

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the American Academy
of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend annual influenza vaccination for all children aged six months to 18 years. The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (3rd revision) also recommends annual flu vaccination of asthmatic children older than six months.

In order to determine whether the vaccine was effective in reducing the number of
hospitalizations that all children, and especially the ones with asthma, faced over eight consecutive flu
seasons, the researchers conducted a cohort study of 263 children who were evaluated at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota from six months to 18 years of age, each of whom had had laboratory-confirmed influenza between 1996 to 2006. The investigators determined who had and had not received the flu vaccine, their asthma status and who did and did not require hospitalization. Records were reviewed for each subject with influenza-related illness for flu vaccination preceding the illness and hospitalization during that illness.

They found that children who had received the flu vaccine had three times the risk of
hospitalization, as compared to children who had not received the vaccine. In asthmatic children, there
was a significantly higher risk of hospitalization in subjects who received the TIV, as compared to those
who did not (p= 0.006). But no other measured factors—such as insurance plans or severity of asthma—appeared to affect risk of hospitalization.

Pseudoscience: Ignorance about Borna Virus

One of my friends called me last night. He had checked himself into the hospital because of his bipolar disease. He told the physicians he had the Borna virus and it was flaring up. We had used frequency transmission to deal with it on multiple occasions. The hospital physicians asked, “What’s the Borna virus?” They then proceeded to give him too much Lithium resulting in a two week hospital stay.

Ignorance masquerading as science is pseudoscience and medical error is the third leading cause of death, mostly based on “scientists” who are supposed to know what they are doing. When they used to do autopsies in real medicine to find out what was going on, physicians in the U.S. and the U.K. discovered a third of the patients that died in hospitals died of an undiagnosed disease. So they have pretty much stopped doing autopsies as it puts them at risk of being sued for malpractice.

If my friends physicians consulted PubMed they would have found over 862 papers in the medical journals on the borna virus. It is associated with a wide variety of mental illness, particularly bipolar disease and depression.

Why didn’t the physicians consult his medical records at his primary physician’s office? They would have found out that he had tested positive for the borna virus and the primary physician was handling it, including the appropriate does of lithium. This failure to review available medical information on a patient will be viewed as malpractice in the not too distant future. There is a national initiative to enable sharing of this critical patient care information. While we are waiting for computer systems to do it automatically, how about using an old fashion phone call?

The physicians should have immediately queried the internet about the patient’s problem. Every bipolar person I have ever tested has it, and so do most members of the family. The virus is very widespread and causes all kinds of problems in addition to bipolar disease.

They wanted to know how he caught it. They could have done a Google search on “borna virus.” They would have found that 8% of our DNA is actually borna virus DNA. Or they might read a comprehensive review of the borna virus from the National Institutes of Health We used to teach science in medical schools. I wonder what they are teaching students these days?

The effects of Borna virus were first noticed in Saxony in Germany in 1766 in horses – first they got sad, and then hyperactive, and then most of them died. But the virus got its name about a century ago, when it killed some 2,000 cavalry horses in the town of Borna in Germany. But only recently, in the 1990s, have we found a link between this virus and depression. Depression is a disorder of your mood or emotions. It affects some 5% of the population at any given time. There’s actually a bunch of diseases that go under the single name of “depression”, and they tend to come and go during your life. They do more than just make you a little bit unhappy. They can cause severe disability, greater than is caused by heart disease, diabetes or even arthritis. In fact, it’s thought that 70% of suicides happen in people suffering from depression. But what’s the evidence that this strange new virus called Borna virus can cause depression?

Well, much of this research has been done by two virologists, Hanns Ludwig from the Free University of Berlin, and Liv Bode from the Robert Koch Institute (also in Berlin). In 1994, they found that clinically depressed people were more likely to have some of the proteins associated with Borna virus in their blood. The next year, they found traces of the actual RNA of the Borna virus as well. In 1996, these virologists took some Borna virus from clinically depressed patients, and when they injected this Borna virus into rabbits, the rabbits became apathetic, sluggish, withdrawn and stopped their normal grooming – in other words, the rabbits started suffering depression. And in January 1997, they found that if they used the anti-virus drug amantadine in depressed patients, as the virus disappeared from the blood stream, so did the symptoms of depression.

When I was teaching medical students at the University of Colorado Medical School from 1975-1983, we did not go home with a question like this unanswered. And we had to do real work in the medical library to get the answer. Today it takes three minutes on the internet.

The current issue of Health Affairs discusses the appalling 17 year gap between evidence based findings in the leading medical journals and information that is resident in the typical physicians head:

Implementing Evidence

Evidence-Based Decision Making: Global Evidence, Local Decisions

Carolyn M. Clancy and Kelly Cronin

Despite the notable progress to date, evidence-based decision making has been largely overshadowed by the persistence of poor-quality care in the United States. Elizabeth McGlynn’s landmark report on U.S. health care quality, AHRQ’s National Healthcare Quality Report, and a recent cross-national report on quality indicators raise important questions about the gap between the promise of evidence-based health care and its current level of adoption. All stakeholders in the health care system presumably find the current seventeen-year delay from evidence to practice unacceptable. This translation chasm is even more intolerable, given the increased array of choices resulting from large public and private investments in biomedical science. Although many factors, including local professional norms and patients’ values and preferences, contribute to deviations from evidence-based care, a fundamental question remains: Why does the gap persist?

Limited resources. Investments in biomedical science have resulted in a wide variety of diagnostic and therapeutic options for clinicians and patients. The extant infrastructure for conducting systematic reviews–including AHRQ’s Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs), the worldwide Cochrane Collaboration, and independent private-sector organizations–has led to much progress in developing methods and conceptual enhancements for systematic reviews. Nevertheless, the field is not advancing as rapidly as it could because of limited resources.

Knowledge chasm. Moreover, by definition, systematic reviews rely on available studies. Since the link between decisionmakers’ needs and establishment of clinical research priorities is somewhat circuitous, the net result is that decision-makers have few resources for learning quickly which patients are likely to benefit from new options and which patients will experience marginal benefits or outright harm. Payers and consumers confront the same knowledge chasm and lack good information for coverage decisions, cost sharing, and treatment choices.

Need for a systems approach. We now know that knowledge about best practice is necessary but not sufficient to effect change in practice and policy. Impatient purchasers are testing innovations to identify incentives and programs that reward evidence-based (“best”) practice, but they have a limited knowledge base on which to derive or evaluate new approaches. Although the Institute of Medicine’s reports on medical errors and quality have reinforced the importance of a systems approach to improvement, major support for research to inform such an approach has only recently become available.

Poor accessibility. Finally, evidence is infrequently available in a form that can be acted upon at the time decisions must be made. From clinical encounters to policy decisions, there are few clear pathways between the evidence that is available through peer-reviewed literature reviews and the point of decision making. Clinicians searching for information all too often find that existing knowledge is not accessible in real time and may not necessarily map to the issue at hand. Also, although consumers are increasingly active in seeking information about health and specific conditions, most of this activity is peripheral to care delivery. Personalized decision making, including provider and treatment selection as well as self-management, looms on the horizon. Development and adoption of personal health records could support individual choice based on current information.