Major Problems with the Vaccine Procedure
By Bronwyn Hancock of Vaccination Information Service
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, 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
At the bottom of this article is a brochure that summarizes the subject and starts with a list of the ingredients in vaccines. 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 SENSITIZERS. 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 immune system, and vaccination is no exception.
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 and a reversed ratio of T4 and T8 cells 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. 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 hemorrhages are found, the parents (or other caregiver) 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 sensitization reaction to vaccination is the production of antibodies. This is falsely equated with the opposite, intended effect, which is to bring immunity. The aluminum 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.
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.
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 “sensitization” 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.
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:
1) level, type and time of manifestation of susceptibility between individuals, and
2) levels of toxins between vaccine batches–there is a lack of control of toxicity levels
The effects are also accumulative, so a child that reacts very little, if at all, after one dose could be badly affected, even killed, by a subsequent dose.
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. Even its purpose is unwanted interference — an attempt to prevent diseases that have an important role in immune system development.
For more information on vaccination, visit the Vaccination Information Service Web site and get a copy of their Vaccine Information Service General Brochure (PDF)
- 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
- Mosby’s Medical, Nursing and Allied Health Dictionary – see “anaphylaxis” (=sensitization)
- Ibid – see “atypical measles”
- Eibl 1984 NEJM: 198-199; Rook and Zumla 1997 Lancet:1831-1833
- 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.
- Dirty Secrets, New Scientist, 2 Nov 1996, pp 26-29
- Bellanti, J. Biologic significance of the secretory IgA immunoglobulins (E. Mead Johnson Award Address), Pediatrics, Nov 1971, Vol 48, No. 5, pp 715-729.