We have all been
repeatedly told that vaccination is both safe
and protective of children against dangerous
diseases. Many parents upon learning of adverse
effects realize that their trust has been
betrayed--that vaccines are not safe at all.
However, it is common for them to continue to
trust that vaccines are effective and that the
diseases they purportedly prevent are dangerous.
This creates a terrible dilemma for these
parents, who end up feeling that either way they
are taking a risk. However, with more
investigation increasing numbers of parents are
discovering that nature is not so cruel as to
force such a difficult dilemma on them. The full
reality is that not only do childhood illnesses
(provided they are properly managed) have a
priming and maturing role in immune system
development rather than being dangerous to
unvaccinated children[1], but also vaccines have
never prevented any diseases. Other factors have
clearly been responsible for the declines that
have occurred, and the very toxic and invasive
nature of vaccines that causes the observed
adverse effects also makes them
counterproductive for their very purpose of
protecting against diseases.
Rather than discussing the statistical
evidence, false assumptions and
misinterpretations relating to the myth of
vaccination effectiveness, which are covered by
various books and Web sites, what is far less
widely known, and what I will cover here, is the
actual effect that vaccines have on the immune
system, which causes them to be
counterproductive.
I must give credit for my awareness of this
to Dr. Viera Scheibner, who is arguably
unsurpassed in her width of knowledge and depth
of understanding of the vaccination issue,
having studied over 100,000 pages of medical
research on the subject. Having worked closely
with her over a number of years, I have read
much of the most revealing research that she has
uncovered.
There are two main causes of the problem: the
toxic nature of the ingredients in vaccines and
the invasive form of delivery.
Ingredients, the
Injection Process and the Result
The
Vaccination Information Service General Brochure
(PDF)
summarizes the subject and starts with a
list of the ingredients in vaccines, discussed
in more detail at Vaccine
Ingredients. In respect
to these, first there are those that are
poisonous by their very nature regardless of how
they are administered such as formaldehyde,
mercury, aluminum compounds, phenol, acetone and
antifreeze. It is well established that such
poisons, even on their own, are immune system
SENSITISERS. This means they make the immune
system more sensitive, or less able to cope
appropriately with foreign substances that it
encounters.
Then there are other ingredients such as
animal organ tissue and blood that our bodies
would not have a problem with IF they entered
the body orally because our digestive system
breaks down foreign proteins, unusable in that
form, into their constituent amino acids, which
are then absorbable and useable by the body.
However, our immune systems have not been
designed to deal with foreign proteins being
injected. In fact the injection of any foreign
substance is well known to suppress the proper
functioning of the immune system[2], and
vaccination is no exception[3].
Effects
The immune system becomes derailed and
confused, and often even when these proteins
subsequently are encountered by a natural portal
of entry (e.g. through the digestive system or
lungs), the immune system reacts. This of course
is what is known as an allergic response. One
manifestation of this, asthma, kills over 10,000
people annually in the United States.
Other effects include more serious "atypical"
forms of the targeted diseases[4] and a reversed
ratio of T4 and T8 cells[5] that characterizes a
host of modern immunodeficiencies including
autoimmune diseases, cancer (now in the young),
chronic fatigue syndrome and AIDS. All of these
conditions were unknown before the vaccination
era. (See accompanying brochure for a more
complete list of vaccination effects.)
Bypassing Vital
Defenses
Another problem with the injection process in
respect to any viruses and bacteria that are
being administered is that very important outer
levels of defense are bypassed, giving them deep
access into the body to cause damage. Hence, for
example, the now well known finding of the
vaccine strain of the measles virus in the gut
of a significant proportion of autistic
children.
It has also been found that animal, bacterial
and viral DNA, when injected, can be
incorporated into the recipient’s DNA[6]. No
wonder vaccination has been linked to cancer,
particularly considering vaccine ingredients
even include animal cancer cells (used for the
culturing of viruses because they continue to
multiply).
Some Babies Just
Cannot Cope
Some babies lose the battle against the
invasive toxic assault of vaccination in hours,
days or weeks. If the parents are "lucky" it is
diagnosed as cot death, or if an organ fails it
is classified simply as failure of that organ
(e.g. kidney failure). However, if injuries such
as subdural hematomas or retinal haemorrhages are
found, the parents (or other care-giver) find
themselves falsely accused of murder in the form
of "shaken baby" syndrome.
Vaccine-Induced
Antibodies Do NOT Indicate Immunity
What causes confusion to many medical doctors
is that part of the sensitisation reaction to
vaccination is the production of antibodies.
This is falsely equated with the opposite,
intended effect, which is to bring immunity. The aluminium compounds are even included for this
very purpose (as "adjuvants") to artificially
force the production of a significant number of
virus-specific IgG antibodies, because the
immune system does not naturally produce them
(in significant levels) on demand by
injections[7].
However, the IgG antibodies thus produced
only show that there has been exposure to that
virus. Their presence does not mean immunity.
The secretory IgA antibody, which does NOT get
produced by injections because injections bypass
the outer level processes of the immune system,
has been found to be a far better measure of
immunity[8].
This is why contracting tetanus, the well
known way being by a deep puncture wound, which
is just like an injection, does not bring
immunity. The result is even said to be
"sensitisation" to tetanus in the future.
Immunity can develop, however, if the bacteria
enter via the natural portals of entry, often
without the person even being ill with it. When
it comes in through the natural portals of entry
it is also in its aerobic form, which does not
produce the neurotoxins that cause the
characteristic tetanus symptoms such as locked
jaw and tetanic spasms.
Recently (as of
16/7/2004), a woman with a PhD in immunology
confessed that she was not in favour of
vaccination. When asked why, she said "Well,
looking at serum through the microscope I could
see that the antibodies went right past the
vaccine-injected antigens as if they weren't
even there." When she was then asked, "Would you
be willing to put that in writing?" she replied,
"No, I would lose my job."
However researchers of the immune system
researchers have indeed admitted in writing
something almost as definite as this. In an
article in
New Scientist magazine, 27 May 2000, page 17
("Behind the Magic") we are told the following:
"The
assumption that… vaccines work by simply
producing antibodies is almost certainly wrong",
quoting
Neal Nathanson, director of the US Office of
AIDS Research, and that
"basic ignorance of how ('successful' vaccines)
work is stalling the urgent quest for an AIDS
vaccine, claim leading HIV researchers".
The article goes on to say that the studies by Ron Montelaro of the University
of Pittsburgh "of a HIV-related virus that
infects horses, known as the equine infectious
anaemia virus, appears to confirm that the
antibodies which initially respond to an
infection can help spread the viruses around the
body. Some vaccines designed to protect horses
from infection make them die more quickly than
unvaccinated horses, he found... Montelaro
suggests that these early enhancing antibodies
actually help pull virus particles into the
cells they are trying to infect. 'It's an issue
people haven't wanted to think about. But we
might have to,' he says."
Variations in
Effects Occur, but No-one Benefits
The fact that some children do not have
noticeable adverse effects to vaccination does
not mean that for them the procedure is
beneficial, it is just that we have great
variations in:
- level, type and time of manifestation of
susceptibility between individuals, and
- levels of toxins between vaccine
batches--there is a lack of control of
toxicity levels
The effects are also accumulative, so a child
who reacts very little, if at all, after one
dose could be badly affected, even killed, by a
subsequent dose.
Summary
Vaccination does nothing clever. With all of
its good intent it just ends up being an
injection of a large variety of different kinds
of poisons deep into the body. The effect is an
increase, not decrease, in susceptibility to the
very disease it is trying to prevent; a host of
immune system problems and damage to any organ
or system. Even its purpose is unwanted
interference--an attempt to prevent diseases
that have an important role in immune system
development.
References:
[1] Ronne 1985 Lancet:1-5; West 1966
Cancer:1001-1007; Wrensch et al. 2001 Am J
Epidemiology 154:161-165; Alm et al. Lancet
353: 1485-1488; Johnston and Openshaw BMJ
2001 322:377-378
[2] Mosby’s Medical, Nursing and Allied
Health Dictionary - see "anaphylaxis"
(=sensitization)
[3] Kind, L.S. Sensitivity of
pertussis-inoculated mice to endotoxin. J
Immunology 1959:82 p32-7; Samore and Siber.
Effect of Pertussis Toxin on Susceptibility
of Infant Rats to Haem In Type b (=Hib). The
Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1992
165:945-8; Schreurs AJ, Nijkamp FP.
Bronchial hyper-reactivity to histamine
induced by Haemophilus influenzae
vaccination. Agents Actions 1984
Oct,15(3-4):211-5.
[4] Ibid -- see "atypical measles"
[5] Eibl 1984 NEJM: 198-199; Rook and Zumla
1997 Lancet:1831-1833
[6] Stroun, M; Anker, P.(Department of Plant
Physiology,University of Geneva) World
Medicine, September 22, 1971 and (same
authors) International Review of Cytology,
1977, Volume 51.
[7] Dirty Secrets, New Scientist, 2 Nov
1996, pp 26-29
[8] Bellanti, J. Biologic significance of
the secretory IgA immunoglobulins (E. Mead
Johnson Award Address), Pediatrics, Nov
1971, Vol 48, No. 5, pp 715-729.
|