[AVN] Do vaccines work?

[Guest guest]

This is a woman from the AVN list who responded fantastically to my

question, " Do vaccines protect against a disease at all? " .

From: Bronwyn Hancock <bhancock@...>

Well, the short answer is no they don't, at all.

The longer and more scientific way to answer the question is to say that

there is no scientific evidence that they are at all effective, from a

statistical or immunological point of view. In fact there is evidence that

they are counterproductive, in relation to the very diseases they are

supposed to be protecting against. I will address these points of view in

turn, and within each one address the evidence for their ineffectiveness

first, then for their counterproductivity...

Statistical evidence indicating ineffectiveness:

Looking at it from a statistical point of view, the statements we keep

getting that cases/deaths declined since the introduction of vaccines are

obviously meaningless, because they were already declining, in fact they

had already dropped by 90% this century by the time the vaccines were

introduced, as I think everyone reading this would know.

The only " evidence " that is ever provided to the public for their so-called

effectiveness (and even then not often!) is that after the introduction of

vaccines there was sometimes an actual acceleration in the decline in the

number of REPORTED cases of the disease. However the facts that

1) this accelerated decline in reported cases, which should be " repeatable "

to be considered meaningful in science, was not consistent around the world

wherever the vaccine was introduced,

2) there was no corresponding acceleration in the decline in death rates,

3) the diagnostic guidelines given to doctors were supplemented with " No

history of vaccination " , when the vaccine was introduced,

4) doctors, who base their diagnosis on symptoms, can be misled by the

distortion of the symptoms caused by the damage of the immune system by

vaccines, e.g. not getting a rash with measles, and consequently can be

less likely to correctly identify the virus or bacteria that is present in

such individuals,

5) it is well documented that doctors under-report cases in vaccinated

individuals,

6) in outbreaks of diseases, figures often indicate anyway that the

percentage of cases vaccinated are as high, sometimes even higher than the

uptake levels in the community, (e.g. 87% of cases in whooping cough in SA

from 1990 to 1996 were fully vaccinated, according to questionnaires to

parents, outbreaks in the U.S. where 95% up to even 100% cases fully

vaccinated), and

7) sometimes the vaccination programs were implemented at peak times of the

natural disease cycles (possibly deliberately on some occasions), resulting

in unearnt credit being given to the vaccine for the inevitable wane phase

of the cycle,

all tend to undermine the significance of this so-called evidence.

If you get into studying individual articles in medical journals, many of

course claim effectiveness, but there are various unscientific methods

researchers use to draw such a conclusion, other than those already covered

above, such as

1) using toxic injections as " placebos " for their control groups (even on

babies who don't even need placebos!),

2) having misleadingly strict definitions of " vaccinated " (e.g. defined as

meaning vaccinated only recently),

3) looking back in the past at incidences of a disease in the vaccinated vs

not vaccinated against that particular disease ignoring the fact that those

not vaccinated would usually have not been vaccinated for a reason, e.g.

a) already being immune-suppressed (quite possibly by another type of

vaccine!), or

low socio-economic status, yet these people also just happen to have

less healthy lifestyles, particularly poorer nutrition.

You may have heard that we are STILL, after many decades, waiting for a

true double-blind controlled study, but they will not do it, and amazingly

justify this by saying that to do it they would have to deny the vaccine to

the control group, which is supposedly too risky for those people! Hence

they are giving us a circular argument!

Statistical evidence indicating counterproductivity:

Further, there is statistical evidence that they are actually

counterproductive:

1) Outbreaks often occur soon after the vaccination programs

2) I am told (but I haven't been able/got around to confirm(ing) yet) that

measles in Europe, having virtually died out, actually rose again when they

started the vaccination programs,

3) Whooping cough in the U.S. has been rising for the first time ever in

recorded history since 1978 (or just after that to be precise), and

consistently ever since. (The 1996 level was the highest since 1967.) 1978

was when vaccination was mandated for school entry in the U.S.

4) The age distribution for the childhood diseases (i.e. whooping cough,

measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox) has altered in highly vaccinated

countries such that the highest incidence is no longer at the desirable age

of childhood, but in the more vulnerable infanthood. The reasons for this

appear to be:

a) the vaccines increases the susceptibility to the diseases, and

(well documented) the vaccines that the mother had herself as a baby

weaken the transplacentally transmitted immunity that she is supposed to

pass onto the infant to provide temporary protection.

Adolescences are also increasingly contracting these childhood diseases,

due most likely to

a) the harm done to the immune system such that the old " rule " that you

only contract each of these illnesses once and, having fully recovered,

then have full immunity, does not apply now as much as it should, and

the likelihood (Dr Scheibner's well considered opinion based on her

study of almost 100000 pages of research on vaccinations) that the immune

system development is retarded by the vaccines, so that by that late age

it's still only up to childhood stage.

5) Due to the damage to the immune system, ONLY the vaccinated are

contracting the atypical forms of the diseases, which are more serious than

the typical forms, e.g. the rash in atypical measles moves in the wrong

direction, heading straight for the vital organs instead of away from them,

resulting in those serious cases of pneumonia, meningitis, etc. Ironically

the establishment uses these serious cases to frighten parents into

vaccinating!

Immunological evidence indicating ineffectiveness:

Looking at it from an immunological point of view, the only " evidence " that

is ever provided for their so-called effectiveness is that the vaccination

succeeds in stimulating the immune system to produce antibodies. In fact

the degree of success in doing this is the way that the effectiveness is

often measured. However a false assumption is being made that the IgG

antibodies produced will bring immunity.

In reality the immune system is far more complex than this. It has actually

been established that there are very many processes that the body needs to

go through in order to develop immunity. One example, which is probably the

best of these understood (immunologically speaking), is that, at the

minimum, the activation of the secretory antibody IgA needs to occur, which

has an important role in the whole process. This, and many other processes

that occur in the outer levels of defence, are BYPASSED by injections*.

Dr Baratosy has drawn a good analogy, which is that vaccination is a

bit like trying to get a car to move just by pressing on the accelerator

without putting it in gear. It makes lots of noise but does not move a

single inch. So, as Dr Archie Kalokerinos says, you can have tons of

antibodies and still get the disease, even die from the disease.

He also goes further to say that you can actually have no antibodies and

yet still not contract the disease when exposed. In fact most of the time

we are exposed to a foreign invader, it does not even reach anywhere near

the deep level to which we are injecting it with vaccines - we deal with it

easily in the outer levels and might even develop immunity.

The polio vaccine is not an injection, but you still cannot artificially

induce immunity whenever you want to, as the process depends on various

dynamics which depend on the state of the body. Indeed many people actually

contract polio from the vaccine, which also by the way contains a different

form from the relatively harmless wild form, and the dose is not

necessarily small. Further, there are still very importantly all the toxic,

sensitising substances being swallowed with it. Of course we won't suffer

with polio anyway if we don't damage our immune system by interfering with

it via other vaccines, tonsillectomies, antibiotics, or any other stupid

idea that the medical establishment cares to dream up. Records indicate it

was not a problem in the past before they started all this interference a

century ago with the smallpox vaccine.

Immunological evidence indicating counterproductivity:

Further, there is immunological evidence that vaccines are actually

counterproductive. This evidence is the fact that they have a documented

sensitising effect. Interestingly, immunologists themselves are said to

feel uncomfortable about the fact that vaccine injections can only

stimulate a significant IgG antibody response if they include toxic

sensitising substances, referred to as " adjuvants " , in the concoction

( " Dirty Secrets " , New Scientist, Nov 1996).

Sensitisation is really the OPPOSITE of immunisation. Immunisation is

PROphylaxis, which means prevention. Sensitisation is another word for

ANAphylaxis (to various degrees) which indicates susceptibility is in fact

increased, and with the harm done to the immune system it " panics " when we

encounter harmless things (hence allergies, asthma, etc).

This panic attack is a stress response that does not, I believe, result in

any positive resolution, because the immune system is confused and

handicapped. (I will add here that Ian Sinclair, who is a natural

hygienist, does not accept this, as he believes that it is a positive,

cleansing process.)

Similarly, vaccination leads to the development of autoimmune diseases

because of this confusion, as a defect appears to occur in the immune

system's ability to tell the " good guys " from the " bad guys " , so that the

person's own cells are attacked.

Apart from statistics and immunology, we could also look at it from other

points of view such as:

a) the fact that the vaccination idea falsely assumes that germs are the

cause of disease, instead of infiltrating the system and flourishing as a

result of it, so it misses the mark. Worse, vaccination is

counterproductive because it introduces toxic substances, which ARE the

cause of disease (I went more into that in earlier emails), and

Mother Nature's rule that whenever we do anything unnatural it will only

harm us to some extent, not help us, as it will not fit in with the design

of the body, which is much more finely tuned than is appreciated by most.

Rather than specific research findings in themselves, one would describe

these statements as very credible theories which provide a broad

explanation for the many detailed specific statistical and immunological

observations that have been made and documented in medical research.

Does that answer your question?

Since I've spent all this time writing this, I think I must deserve the

opportunity for a free plug. Most of the above is covered in the video I

made called " Vaccination - The Hidden Truth " . The video doesn't go into as

much detail as I do above, but covers the whole subject of vaccination,

i.e. the ineffectiveness followed by the ingredients, the mechanism, the

real effects, the harmlessness/benefits of childhood diseases (in

unvaccinated well-nourished children!), why vaccination continues, legal

rights, countering vaccine damage, and the true key to immunity, in logical

sequence.

We are finding that it is effectively communicating and explaining the

reality to those who are totally new to it (including many previously very

strident pro-vaccinators). It derives its power particularly from the fact

that the truth is coming out of the mouths of 5 medical doctors, plus Dr

Viera Scheibner presenting multiple medical journal articles, and other

important and eloquent people including Greg Beattie (he won't like this

because he goes all funny when I complement him, don't you Greg?) and

friend (a father), Ian Sinclair, a dog breeder, Isaac Golden, Leanne

Hawkins, and a practitioner who effectively uses the LISTEN system to

evaluate and counter vaccine damage. It includes very revealing stories of

personal experiences as well as research findings.

Whilst I now basically rely on video sales for my survival I am quite happy

to lend copies of the video out just for the cost of postage, partly

because I want to spread the truth as far and wide as possible and partly

because so many who've bought it are people who wouldn't have known about

it or wouldn't have decided it was worth buying before they were lent it to

watch by someone else. (It costs $39.95 to buy, including postage)

Bronwyn