Posts Tagged ‘science’


Excerpts from this 5-star review follow:







Book resonates with the critics.


VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED is available via Amazon:











UFOs… Human or alien technologies?








Our first non-fiction book, The Orphan Conspiracies, is more conspiracy fact than fiction even if it was inspired by the 29 conspiracy theories featured in our international thriller series The Orphan Trilogy.

The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy by [Morcan, James, Morcan, Lance]

More conspiracy fact than fiction.


The Orphan Conspiracies  includes a foreword by leading scientist Dr. Takaaki Musha and an afterword by renowned historian Professor Richard Spence. In many ways, this exhaustively-researched work is the secret history of the 20th and 21st Centuries. But more than a history, it reveals what is happening right now behind the scenes – in underground bunkers, in the corridors of power, in prime banks and meetings of the world’s elite.


Topics covered in The Orphan Conspiracies  (in order of chapters) include:

Foreword by Dr. Takaaki Musha


1 False flag operations

2 The secret history of mind control

3 Puppet masters pulling strings

4 International banksters

5 Genius techniques of the elite

6 The multi-trillion dollar WW2 cover-up

7 Suppressed science

8 The Queen’s invisible riches

9 Elixir of life

10 Jonestown: suicides or mass murder?

11 Medical Industrial Complex

12 The Fourth Reich

13 The price of a free media

14 Above the President

15 The science of racism

16 Bankrupting the Third World

17 New World Order

18 Saddam Hussein: fabricated enemy?

19 Beneath the surface

20 Hidden messages

21 Real-life Manchurian Candidates

22 Blood minerals

23 Mysterious deaths

24 Secret prisons

25 Drug wars

26 Greenland aka Conspiracyland

27 The Catcher in the Rye enigma

28 Experiments on orphans

29 Area 51: human or alien technologies?

Connecting the dots

Afterword by Professor Richard Spence


The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy  is available via Amazon:



The following exerts from our book VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed?  address the inextricably linked issues of vaccine ingredients and child health:

It is impossible to determine the maximum amount of a substance one child or infant can have based on the amount given to another child. We see evidence of this every day in our daily lives. Let’s take 20 kindergartners for instance. It’s the first day of school and they’re all playing together in the same classroom. Some will come home sick while others won’t. We’re not saying this is the same thing, we are merely pointing out that humans can react very differently even when exposed to the exact same environment.

There appears to be enough toxic ingredients and unknown dangers packed into the solution we’re injected with. It should be mandatory to fully inform us before we consent to be vaccinated or have our children vaccinated. Such knowledge would empower us to make more informed decisions affecting our health and our children’s health.

To keep us in the dark on these dangers and force vaccination upon everyone feels highly unethical and undemocratic. To get a closer look at forced vaccinations, we visited a website for the vaccine schedules in EU countries[402]. It appears not all the countries in the European Union feel it’s necessary to force vaccinations on their children 18 months or younger. We discovered that although all 31 countries recommend vaccinations, 20 don’t mandate any of them.

Surprisingly, some of the countries don’t recommend the varicella vaccine. Only two (Italy and Latvia) mandate all the vaccines on the list (diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepB, polio, hib, measles, mumps, rubella, varicella).

Viruses are not considered living organisms and are unable to replicate without the help of a living host. It is therefore necessary to inject the vaccine virus into living cell cultures in order for it to make copies of itself.

“Leave your drugs in the chemist’s pot if you can cure the patient with food.” Hippocrates 420 BC. (Greek phycisian)

A paper on HUB in a DPT vaccine study on SIDS reported in 1992 that, to reconfirm what we said above, those who have a predisposition for SIDS or encephalopathy would not be given the vaccine for the study. Therefore, it doesn’t represent the actual risk of the vaccine[433]. Instead, these individuals are put in the unvaccinated group, which makes this group unfairly prone to illness or death.

In a nutshell, as we understand it, the authors of the study are expressing concerns that the study design is excluding the very people who are prone to adverse effects potentially triggered or caused by the vaccine. In their concluding remarks, they state: “The fact that such biases do exist makes it difficult to demonstrate convincingly that a vaccine is not responsible for rare, severe, adverse reactions.”

The WHO published a review on several DTP vaccine studies and infant deaths. They found the studies were designed or performed in a biased and inconsistent manner[435].

Perhaps the statement that stood out the most to us in the above-mentioned study was when the authors suggested that: “All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.”[438]

Another concern is when we vaccinate against a germ it can adapt to its environment and survive by changing its appearance enough so the vaccine doesn’t recognize it anymore. This means we now have a new germ strain created by the vaccines. Another side to this coin is the fact that usually germs already have multiple strains. Vaccinating for only one or few of them gives the other strains the opportunity to take their place.

And another concern we have is, if the criteria for what constitutes the symptoms keeps changing, should not the safety studies be reviewed or redone to mirror the updated criteria?

To be continued…



Vaccine Science Revisited  is available via  Amazon:

(Book’s Amazon review rating = 4.5 out of 5 stars).



The presence of glyphosate in vaccines is one of many concerns highlighted in our book VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed?

Excerpts from the book follow:

Since glyphosate isn’t really a vaccine ingredient, but rather a contaminant, how does it enter vaccines in the first place? Think about what vaccine viruses are grown in. The medium often consists of some type of animal source: “Contamination may come through bovine protein, bovine calf serum, bovine casein, egg protein and/or gelatin.”[344]

Of the 19 vaccines they tested, the vaccine that had the most glyphosate was the MMR II vaccine by Merck.

Both sugar beets and cow’s milk are contaminated with glyphosate. Keep this in mind when reading the ingredients of the medium (where the germ is grown). Think of yeast, for instance. The yeast needs to be living and therefore the medium is given nutrients[347] to keep it alive. These include nutrients such as galactose and glucose, or in simple terms, milk and sugar. The glucose being the sugar source and galactose is from the lactose in the milk.

The above paper says the MMR vaccine contained the most glyphosate, why is that? “This vaccine uses up to 12% hydrolysed gelatin as an excipient–stabilizer; as well as foetal bovine serum albumin, human serum albumin and residual chick embryo; all of w…

Monsanto realized that glyphosate kills bacteria, so, in 2010, they patented glyphosate as an antimicrobial[349]. The list of pathogens affected by glyphosate is very long. What needs to be considered also is the fact that bacterium that’s a pathogen in one part of the body is not necessarily a pathogen …

As a matter of fact, it has been shown that glyphosate “damages DNA and is a driver of mutations that lead to cancer.”[351]. This statement is based on using the US government GE crop data to find connections between glyphosate and 22 diseases, including stroke, diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), autism and multiple sclerosis (MS). This study also answers the question of how on earth crops can survive glyphosate while it’s killing everything else around it.

A ‘hazard assessment’ by the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was released in March 2015 stating that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.”[362]

Sleep is very important to human health. Stephanie Seneff, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)[369], explains that in order for us to get good sleep, we need “to clear cellular debris”[370].

In her presentation, Dr. Seneff explains how the pineal gland releases melatonin. The melatonin then enters the fluid in our brain and spinal cord. Melatonin puts us in REM sleep. Without the shikimate pathway, there is no melatonin because the shikimate pathway produces the precursor for melatonin[371].

Dr. Seneff continues to explain how lack of REM sleep, together with a calcified pineal gland, has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The pineal gland makes it possible for us to clean up our cellular debris, but when it’s calcified it doesn’t function properly…

Because the pineal gland is not protected by the blood-brain barrier (BBB), it’s more vulnerable to aluminum and mercury toxicity. When aluminum accumulates inside the pineal gland, it hinders its ability to clean cellular debris.

When a chemical that’s not supposed to be there enters our body, the consequences can range from not being a big deal at all to being life threatening. Most healthy individuals are able to take care of incoming toxicity and everything works out fine or at least seems to work out fine. We don’t always connect the dots to future illnesses.

Then there are individuals who have some dysfunction in their biological makeup they may not even know about. These dysfunctions may not cause any harm until they’re exposed to certain elements or toxins.

If glyphosate is so bad for us, why do we have so many research papers saying how great it is? A paper published in 2010, states that: “[…] glyphosate is a one in a 100-year discovery that is important for reliable global food production as penicillin is for battling disease.”[376]

Did the biological agent change? Did science change? How can they both be examining the same agent and reach opposite conclusions?

This is where science gets tricky and it’s easy to manipulate theories to mold a pleasing conclusion. Wordplay can be very confusing and misleading.  The minority report from the Congressional hearing in February 2018, which can be watched online[387], explains it this way: “According to IARC, a cancer ‘hazard’ is an agent that is capable of causing cancer under some circumstances, while a cancer ‘risk’ is an estimate of the carcinogenic effects expected from exposure to a cancer hazard.”

If you’re interested in Monsanto, we highly recommend listening to the entire hearing, where the Committee on Science, Space & Technology: “[…] describes some of the tactics Monsanto has used to control the public debate about glyphosate as well as the scientific studies that have been conducted to assess its potential harm. These efforts appear aimed at corrupting and disrupting any honest, thorough and complete scientific evaluation of glyphosate and its potential adverse impact on the public’s health.”[390]

We also find it difficult to know which papers are legit, but we feel the research showing how glyphosate affects our cells on so many levels is worthy of notice. Although the argument is that glyphosate doesn’t affect human cells, through the research we did for this chapter it’s evident to us that our gut bacteria, which contains the shikimate pathway, is vital to many of our functions, especially its co-operation with our pineal gland.

To be continued…



Vaccine Science Revisited  is available via Amazon:

(Book’s Amazon review rating = 4.4 out of 5 stars).


Research into concerns over the use of formaldehyde in vaccines is examined closely in our book VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed?

Relevant excerpts from the book relating to this vexing issue, and other issues concerning vaccine safety, follow:

When formaldehyde enters a cell, it attaches itself to the DNA strand. This can be concerning because it can cause certain genes to be turned off when we need them turned on. Once this happens it’s very difficult to reverse or turn back on[184].

Dexter French wrote a research paper on using formaldehyde in vaccines. He expressed concern about its stability: “Formaldehyde, however, owing to the very compact structure of the molecule and its high reactivity, is a particularly versatile reagent with a vast range of possible reactions.”[185]

On the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) Open Chemistry Database, it says that liquid form of FA (formalin) “is considered a hazardous compound, and its vapor toxic.”[186] It also says: “Formaldehyde is a Standardized Chemical Allergen. “Aqueous formaldehyde is corrosive to carbon steel, […]. “When liquid formaldehyde is warmed to room temp in a sealed ampule, it polymerizes rapidly with the evolution of heat […]”[187]  

Under the header Disinfectants, it defines formaldehyde as: “[…] used on inanimate objects that destroy harmful microorganisms or inhibit their activity. Disinfectants are classed as complete, destroying SPORES as well as vegetative forms of microorganisms, […]”[188]

It sounds to us like formaldehyde in liquid form can have harmful effects. We understand the dosing is the argument here, but a safe dose is not the same for every single person. And how does formaldehyde react…

Synergism Unfortunately, in vaccines, it seems the synergistic effects of the toxins have never been studied. However, other fields of study have expressed concern for toxic synergism and researched the synergistic effects it has on our bodies when exposed to multiple toxins simultaneously. As with the paper we mentioned earlier regarding accumulation of formaldehyde, this study shows synergistic effects when…

The interesting part of the study was the fact that when the mice were exposed to toxins alone or formaldehyde alone, it “had little or no effect on the mouse brain.” When the mice were co-exposed to air pollutants and formaldehyde, it “had a significant synergistic adverse effect.”[190]

The paper also states that “[t]hese safe levels for alone exposure turned into dangerous at co-exposure.”[193]

A study by the biopharmaceutical company, Pfizer, showed the impact formaldehyde and other impurities can have on the proteins used in their pharmaceutical products. The authors of this paper made note of the fact that p80 is efficient at forming formaldehyde: “Both formaldehyde and formic acid can be formed from oxidative degradation of polysorbates.”[196]

The authors don’t just concern themselves with polysorbates, of which polysorbate 80 appears most potent, they state that: “These residual impurities and contaminants can potentially impact the protein stability significantly.”[197]

In their conclusion they summarize the limitations of the manufacturing process by saying that: “Although many process-related impurities are routinely monitored, contaminants are generally not, […]. This is because the level of these contaminants in a drug product is often too low to be detected by traditional analytical methods, and does not lead to serious safety concerns.”[198] We find their comment that “it does not lead to safety concerns” after stating these “contaminants can potentially impact the protein stability significantly” rather interesting given much of the paper is about safety concerns.

So, we have known this for at least 25 years, yet when it’s put in vaccines scientists don’t bother to test it. It appears that once these substances have been added to the vaccine, the concern for toxicity magically disappears.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the potency of EtO and observed that in mammalian cells, its: “[…] effects include gene mutations, micronucleus formation, chromosomal aberrations, cell transformation, unscheduled DNA synthesis, sister chromatid exchange, and DNA strand breaks.”[234]

Sounds to us like the perfect recipe for causing cancer. And on that note, how much does vaccine research take into account long term, harmful health effects as opposed to merely childhood health risks? For example, how much research takes into account whether vaccines in childhood could cause autoimmune disorders in early adulthood, or cancer in middle-age, or Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in old age?

One cannot help but wonder about the vaccines’ role in all this. As our brain uses a lot of oxygen, it is prone to much oxidative stress. Compared to a healthy active person, the brain of an infant or an elderly person is less likely to be able to fight the stress. This can lead to such things as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and Parkinson’s disease in the elderly[252].

According to our calculations, this means that a substance needs to contain 400 ppb of thimerosal to be considered hazardous waste. Compared to the 50,000 ppb thimerosal in the influenza vaccine, we can safely say that it contains more than a hundred times more thimerosal than the legal limit of a toxic waste.

It’s important to note not all flu vaccines contain thimerosal. There are flu vaccines available that are labeled “thimerosal-free”. We encourage those who decide to be vaccinated against the flu to ask which flu vaccine you’re about to receive.

We’re not sure how relevant their findings are because, as we understand it, all they are saying is that it appears the GSH is clearing out the mercury as it’s supposed to do or that the body is actively eliminating the toxin. These are healthy infants, so this is to be expected. But the paper makes no mention of the expected amount of mercury to be excreted when injected with the vaccines these infants were given.

Since they didn’t collect stool sample from the control group, in order to compare and to see if dietary sources contaminated with mercury could be a factor, they chose nine other babies (unrelated to the study) who had not been injected with thimerosal-containing vaccine. The babies in this group, which was less than half the size of the regular control group, turned out to have a “significantly lower” amount of mercury in their stool. This is only to be expected and not at all surprising. God only knows why they deviated from the study design in this manner, omitting the control group infants and picking nine other infants who were not a part of the study, is a mystery to us. They didn’t explain this.

The researchers also measured the blood half-life of ethylmercury by measuring the mercury blood levels consistently over many days. In the end they estimated the half-life to be seven days. This means that when the mercury was no longer measurable in the blood, it was assumed to be cleared out of the body.

To be continued…



Vaccine Science Revisited  is available via Amazon:



We devote considerable space to the use of aluminum in vaccines in our book VACCINE SCIENCE REVISITED: Are Childhood Immunizations As Safe As Claimed? – as the following excerpts show:

A research paper on the effects of aluminum in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) from 2011 states: “Whilst being environmentally abundant, aluminum is not essential for life. On the contrary, aluminum is widely recognized neurotoxin that inhibits more than 200 biologically important functions and causes various adverse effects in plants, animals and humans.” [124]

A Dr. Thomas Jefferson[125] was “funded to investigate vaccine safety by the European Commission,”[126] and was at the time “the head of the vaccine division of the Cochrane Collaboration”[127]… In a research paper on aluminum in diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccines from 2004, Dr. Jefferson states that: “We found no evidence that aluminium salts in vaccines cause any serious or long-lasting adverse events…”

To help validate her argument, she continues to use Dr. Jefferson’s own words, this time from 2002 where he states that: “Most safety studies on childhood vaccines have not been conducted thoroughly enough to tell whether the jabs cause side effects. […] There is some good research, but it is overwhelmed by the bad.  The public has been let down because the proper studies have not been done.”[135]

We understand her argument and feel our notion on the studies’ lack of weight has been validated. The authors are suggesting we can actually make scientifically firm conclusions on limited data?

They also observed that the amygdala in the vaccinated monkeys didn’t mature with time as it was supposed to. The amygdala, incidentally, plays an important role in social interactions… What this means is the research showed that the social behavior of those monkeys that received the actual vaccines, where the DPN levels did not decrease, turned anti-social.

Scientists may not know exactly which parts of the vaccines our body decides to react to. Each person reacts so differently. But it seems likely there is validity in questioning vaccine safety when a concoction of substances is used to provoke our immune system.

Because each immune system is different, scientists can’t predict its reaction when presented with something foreign. Especially when the vaccine contains scientifically proven neurotoxins, such as aluminum.

When scientists use the entire germ in the vaccine, they have to kill it or weaken it substantially before putting it into the vaccine. In order to do this, they use a chemical. The most common chemical for this process is Formaldehyde (FA) or Formalin (liquid form of formaldehyde).

Many scientists have expressed concern about injecting embalming fluid into the bodies of little infants. We thought therefore we should take a closer look at the validity of this concern. In order to do this, we need to know which part of our body it affects and what formaldehyde does when directly exposed to our cells.

During our research digging we found it difficult to understand how so many scientific studies out there can be studying the exact same thing, yet their conclusions completely contradict each other. Formaldehyde studies are no exception. If each study can be replicated by a third party in the laboratory, how the results can vary so greatly?

Some health professionals are concerned about formaldehyde accumulating in the body. For example, Sherri Tenpenny, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO), who has great insight into the field of natural health, argues that by the time a child is five, they have received 1.795 mg Formaldehyde.

Dr. Tenpenny says: “Through sloppy and negligent math, lawmakers and manufacturers fail to throw up a red flag regarding the large amount of formaldehyde injected into young bodies with developing brains, neurological systems and organs.”[168]

We found a study that measured accumulated formaldehyde in the brain. Yes, apparently accumulated formaldehyde does exist. The study showed that the more it accumulates, the less there will be “cognitive abilities during human aging”[175]. The more severe the dementia in Alzheimer’s disease patients, the higher the formaldehyde accumulation[176].

Something else the authors of that study observed was when we age, the “accumulation of formaldehyde” prevents “new formation of spatial memory (i.e., learning difficulty)” [177].

Another observation was that in late stage Alzheimer’s disease there’s “chronic accumulation of hippocampal formaldehyde” which “induces loss of remote memory.” What caught our attention was the paper listed a correlation between the presence of both mercury and formaldehyde (as an environmental factor)[178].

This study was not done on children, but on adults with Alzheimer’s disease. We wonder if there’s any type of defect in our ability to clear formaldehyde out of the body and that somehow renders the aforementioned short half-life to be irrelevant? Can this formaldehyde accumulation start as early as with the administration of childhood…

To be continued…



Vaccine Science Revisited  is available via Amazon:

(Book’s average Amazon review rating = 4.4 out of 5 stars).