Boeknotities: The Other Side of Vaccines door Kate William

vr, 13/11/2020 - 22:57

Hoewel het boek volgens de titel de andere kant van vaccins belicht, gaat het over veel meer dan dat, zoals wel zal blijken uit de notities. De relevatie van dit boek is met COVID19 onbeschrijflijk groot.

  • Beginnen met de basis : "the germ theory":
    As it turns out, there may be another side to these theories… a) The Germ Theory The Germ Theory is the current paradigm that dominates modern medicine today. According to the theory, each disease is caused by a specific microbe or pathogen. Although not the first proponent of the ‘Germ Theory’, it was the experiments of Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) that convinced much of Europe that diseases were caused by ‘germs’. Pasteur was not a doctor, but a chemist. Although he is hailed as a hero today, it was discovered after his death that he committed fraud and scientific misconduct in some of his most famous works [1]. Among other things, he developed the first rabies vaccine in 1885. He administered it to an 11-year-old boy (unlawfully, since he had no medical license) who was mauled by a dog. The boy survived with no signs of rabies. Funnily enough, the dog also survived…with no signs of rabies.
    Although the chances of the boy contracting rabies were estimated to be only 10% anyway [2], the boy’s good health was chalked up to the ‘success’ of Pasteur’s vaccine, and this laid the foundation for what would become a global, multi-billion-dollar industry. The first Pasteur Institute was established on the basis of this success, for “the study of virulent and contagious diseases” [3], and still remains a highly influential organization today, with a global network of institutes around the world. The ‘germ theory’ was furthered by the work of German doctor Robert Koch (1843-1910), who believed each specific disease must be caused by a specific agent (‘germ’), and to this end, he developed a set of postulates, which are still regarded as the ‘gold standard in medical microbiology’ [4]. Koch’s Postulates are: The organism must always be present, in every case of the disease. The organism must be isolated from a host containing the disease and grown in pure culture. Samples of the organism taken from pure culture must cause the same disease when inoculated into a healthy, susceptible animal in the laboratory. The organism must be isolated from the inoculated animal and must be identified as the same original organism first isolated from the originally diseased host.
    Unfortunately, even Koch was unable to fulfil his own postulates, much less those coming along behind him, yet the ‘germ theory’ continued unabated and eventually became entrenched as a foundational ‘truth’ of modern medicine.
  • Zonder enig bewijs werd "the germ theory" een belangrijke voor waar aangenomen theorie in de medische wetenschap. De gevolgen zien we vandaag tot in het extreme. Dissidente stemmen worden nu genegeerd of het zwijgen opgelegd; dat was bij het ontstaan van de "theorie" ook zo:
    There were some eminent voices of dissent, though – one was Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902), founder of the ‘cell theory’, who believed that diseases were the result of abnormal cellular activity, and not from outside pathogens [5-6]. Another was Antoine Bechamp (1816-1908), an eminent French scientist - he believed that pathogens were the result of disease, and not the cause of it. It was later shown that Pasteur had plagiarized Antoine Bechamp’s work, and taken credit for some of his discoveries and ideas [7].
    Nevertheless, the ‘Germ Theory’ had so captivated the imagination of the scientific world, that by the time of his death, Bechamp’s illustrious career and discoveries were reduced to a short, dismissive obituary, published in the British Medical Journal which stated that he was ‘associated with bygone controversies as to priority which it would be unprofitable to recall” [8]. The discovery in 1914, that certain types of bacteria can mutate into other forms depending on the environment they are placed in [9], should have been pause for thought (and a re-visit to Bechamp’s earlier work, suggesting that ‘germs’ were the result of disease, and not the cause of it), however the ‘germ theory’ of disease has not only continued unabated, but has only grown in power and influence, to the point where voices of dissent are ridiculed as ‘science deniers’. More recent work shows that bacteria also changes form over it’s life-cycle, which has huge implications for how diseases are recognized and tested [10].
    When it comes to viruses, a number of new scientific discoveries, when looked at through the ‘germ theory’ lens, only raise more questions than they answer. One example is the discovery that viruses make up about 8% of the human genome [11] – one such viral gene was found to be essential for establishing the human placenta after conception takes place [12]. Researchers have also discovered that three-day-old human embryos – which consist of just 8 cells – produce retroviruses that are vital to the genetic activity of the developing embryo [13].
    In light of all this, we must ask – why do viruses seem to co-exist within our very DNA, without causing disease? Why do healthy people carry viruses and bacteria in their gut, or on their skin, with no symptoms of illness? If viruses can only reproduce in living cells, where did the first virus come from, and why did that cell begin to manufacture that virus? Are there ‘good’ viruses, and ‘bad’ viruses, like they now believe there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ bacteria? Why do cell-cultures in laboratory settings first need to have toxins added to them, before they will produce viruses? A full analysis of the germ theory is beyond the scope of this book, but these are a few points to encourage the reader to think critically about how disease is portrayed to us. Other theories exist in the realm of what is now known as ‘alternative’ medicine, namely that all disease results from an acute exposure to poisons, or a gradual build-up of toxicity and/or nutritional deficiency, and is the result of the body’s self-regulating and self-healing mechanisms. The role of bacteria and viruses in this scenario is not as a precurser or ‘villain’, but to scavenge and ‘clean up’ in the wake of this cleansing/healing process
  • Onze virologen/experts zijn toch wel heel éénzijdig gefixeerd op de antilichamentheorie. Maar is er wel een basis voor die theorie?
    Antibody Theory The second part of the theory that forms the foundation of vaccines is the belief that specific antibodies protect us from disease. We’re told by official health bodies that vaccines prompt our bodies to produce antibodies, which then protect us when we encounter that disease in the environment. When Edward Jenner first started vaccinating people, nobody had ever heard of ‘antibodies’ – they were not discovered until a century later, and were originally referred to as ‘anti-toxins’. Knowledge and science, however, have continued to evolve, and we now know that the immune system is so incredibly complex that even immunologists can barely grasp it. What has become obvious over the years, is that antibodies have very little, if any, role in the state we refer to as ‘immunity’.
    Here’s why:
    1. Numerous cases where antibodies had no influence on disease susceptibility. It was demonstrated over 60 years ago, that people with high levels of antibodies still got the disease for which they were supposedly immune to, while others with low to no detectable antibodies came through disease outbreaks with no sign of the disease to which they should have been susceptible [14]. Here are a number of examples in the scientific literature, where antibodies (or lack thereof) bore little or no relation to immunity:
    - Before the introduction of mass polio vaccination, it was discovered that some 85% of children under the age of 5 years had little or no antibodies to poliovirus, yet only 1 in 170 of those with ‘no immunity’ became ill during polio epidemics [15]. - In 1968, around the same time that measles vaccination was being introduced, it was discovered that children with congenital aggama-globulinemia (an inability to produce antibodies) contracted measles and subsequently displayed the usual symptoms, followed by immunity, yet they only had insignificant traces of antibodies in circulation [16].
    - Animal experiments published in 2013 revealed that mice with high levels of antibodies could still succumb to fatal infection with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV). They found that even though B-cells were essential, survival after infection "did not require antibodies or other aspects of traditional adaptive immunity" [17].
    - Even though 95% of children had measles antibodies after vaccination, vaccine efficacy was not more than 68%. In other words, 27% of people who got measles were supposedly ‘immune’ [18].
    - In 1992, three patients with severe tetanus were described in the Journal of Neurology. All three patients had levels of tetanus antibodies at least 100 times greater than the 0.01 IU/ml considered to provide immunity. One of those patients died [19].
    - Seven infants with clinical symptoms of tetanus, were found to have tetanus antibody levels 4 - 13 times higher than 0.01 IU/ml. A further two infants, also with clinical symptoms of tetanus, whose mothers were given multiple tetanus boosters during pregnancy, had levels 100-400 times higher than the level supposed to give protection [20].
    During the 1990's, large scale clinical trials of a HIV vaccine were conducted in Thailand, among intravenous drug users. The vaccines were deemed to be ‘effective’ in that they induced an antibody response, however, a decade later, the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled results showed that vaccine recipients had the same rate of HIV infection and disease progression, as those who had received a placebo [21].
    Modern medicine is viewed by many as being on the cutting edge of science, and yet, the discovery that antibodies are not responsible for immunity was made almost 80 years ago. The discovery, by immunologist Dr Merrill W Chase, seemed to attract little fanfare at the time, and has been largely forgotten over the years, despite his illustrious career at Rockefeller University, and publishing at least 150 scientific papers [23].
    Dr Chase, working in his laboratory, tried to induce immunity into a guinea pig, by vaccinating it with blood serum (which includes antibodies) from another guinea pig. The experiment failed to produce immunity. However, when he used white blood cells, the immunity from the second guinea pig was transferred to the first [23].
    2. Vitamin D is necessary for a robust immune system – yet Vitamin D limits antibody production. According to vaccine logic, the more antibodies you have, the more protected you are, but in a normally functioning immune system, antibody production is tightly restricted (for good reason – more on that later). It’s now common knowledge that Vitamin D is necessary for a healthy immune system, yet Vitamin D limits antibody production [25-26].
    3. Presence of antibodies enhances some diseases. In 1977, researchers revealed that the presence of antibodies to dengue fever enhanced infection with other strains of dengue fever [27]. They found that "dengue replicates readily in cultures of peripheral blood leukocytes (PBL) prepared from immune simian or human donors, but poorly or not at all in leukocytes from non-immune hosts." Note that their definition of ‘immune simian or human donors’ refers to those with evidence of antibodies. It was recently discovered that Zika virus infection is also enhanced by the presence of antibodies for dengue fever [28], due to cross-reactivity - both viruses apparently belong to the family known as ‘flaviviruses’.
    4. Antibodies are too late to prevent infection. The immune system is comprised of two parts – cellular immunity (also known as non-specific, innate, or Th1, immunity) and humoral immunity (also known as specific, adaptive, or Th2, immunity).
    Cellular immunity, which involves phagocytes and cytotoxic T-cells, is the first line of defence. Humoral immunity, which involves B-cells, is the last line of defence. The following graph, although simplistic, gives the basic idea… Th1 immune system Th2 immune system A.k.a. ‘Cellular’ or ‘non-specific’ immunity A.k.a. ‘specific’ or ‘adaptive’ immunity First line of defence Last line of defence Features lymphocytes Features antibodies Stimulated by natural infection Stimulated by vaccination
    Cellular immunity, which utilises T-cells, is the first line of defence against foreign invaders and pathogens. We don’t know exactly how many potential pathogens or poisons the cellular immune system effectively deals with every day, because they are dealt with early, and seldom produce symptoms [37], however it is estimated to be in the millions [38]. If we are constantly being bombarded with millions of ‘germs’ every day of our life, but we are healthy for the most part, then a) those germs are either not harmful, or infectious, and/or b) aspects of our Th1 immune system deal with them, without even activating the immune response that creates symptoms.
    The humoral immune system, which involves antibody production, is highly specific, and the last line of defence. This part of the immune system, which is located in the bone marrow, is what vaccines are specifically designed to target. Upon first exposure, it takes the body up to 14 days to reach peak antibody production [39], unless we are talking about HIV, which can purportedly take up to 30 months following infection to develop specific antibodies [40]. Yet, they tell us that infectious organisms are replicating at a tremendous rate. Take the H5N1 avian influenza, for example - it is said to be highly virulent, and have a staggering mortality rate above 60% in humans. This virus replicates so rapidly, that it reaches peak virus titers in the lungs, within 48hrs after infection, about ~107 PFU/gram, which means about 10,000,000 plaque forming units per gram [41].
    Upon second exposure though, the antibody response is rather quicker, because the naïve B-cells have now become ‘memory’ B-cells. The aim is that the vaccine ‘primes’ the immune system through training the B-cells, so that it recognizes the invader when we are next exposed to it, and gets those antibodies into action much faster. But there is one small problem. Even a ‘primed’ immune system produces antibodies rather too late to prevent infection by a virulent marauder. Upon secondary (or later) exposures, it still takes the body between 3 - 5 days to reach peak antibody levels [42-43].
    Given the rather tardy response by antibodies, it might be more accurate to define immunity as the ability of an organism to resist a particular infection or toxin, by the action of the innate immune system. If the innate immune system fails, you have an infection on your hands.
    5. Antibodies are highly inflammatory. When you discover that significant amounts of antibodies are produced too late to be effective in preventing infection, perhaps you may question why this would be so? Is it some defect in the immune system? Some fatal flaw of nature? Probably not. Nature, it would seem, has a good reason for this state of affairs.
    When antibodies are produced, and then bind with the antigen, together they form ‘antigen-antibody complexes’, also known as ‘immune complexes’ - intermediate sized molecules which then act as an antigen in their own right, and must be removed by the innate immune system [45].
    Basically, the innate immune system has to ‘mop up’ the after-effects of the humoral immune system activation. One of the ways the innate immune system tries to clear the immune complex, is via the complement system, which works through promoting inflammation, such as heat (fever), swelling, redness and, consequently, pain [46]. In other words, the symptoms we generally associate with illness, may be the side-effects of our body trying to rid itself of antibodies.
    Because the complement system can be highly damaging to host tissue, not to mention highly uncomfortable, its use is tightly regulated in a normally-functioning immune system. When there is an over-production of antibodies-turned-immune-complexes, the body cannot effectively clear them, leading to inflammation and damage in specific tissues, such as kidneys, lungs and often, these immune complexes end up lodged in the small blood vessels and joints. This process has been labelled ‘Type III Hypersensitivity’, and these reactions can occur hours, days or even years after exposure to the original antigen [47].
    Some examples of Type III hypersensitivity reactions are systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), vasculitis, skin rashes, fever, arthralgia (pain in the joints), and malaise - the latter four are sometimes grouped under the name ‘serum sickness’ [48]. Serum sickness was first noted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, following administration of diptheria antitoxin. It was found to be caused by the body's immune response to a foreign protein (horse serum) contained in the antitoxin [49]. More recently, researchers induced symptoms of serum sickness in dogs, by injecting them with human albumin. All of the dogs showed delayed reactions, 5 - 13 days later, including lethargy, edema, vasculitis, vomiting and lack of appetite. Despite treatment, 2 of the 6 dogs died [50].
    6. High antibody production comes with a cost. As previously discussed, there are two ‘arms’ of the immune system. In a properly functioning immune system, the two arms of the immune system work in harmony, and there is balance, known as immunostasis.
    However, when one arm of the immune system becomes dominant, the other becomes suppressed, leading to immune malfunction, and increased susceptibility to disease [54-56]. The issue with vaccination, is that it primarily stimulates antibody production, causing the adaptive immune system to become dominant. Its more complicated than that, but this is the basic explanation. Another mechanism, by which vaccines could potentially induce Th2 dominance, is via oxidative stress, caused by additives, such as mercury or aluminium [57-58].
    This inevitably leads to suppression of innate immunity – and there are numerous studies showing that vaccines can do just that [59-61]. Such an imbalance has far-reaching consequences for health and disease, since immune system imbalance - specifically Th2 dominance - has been implicated in a number of disease states.
  • Immuunsysteem: en dan denken we aan AIDS natuurlijk. Zijn antilichamen via het verzwakken van het immuunsysteem verantwoordelijk voor AIDS?
    There is a very famous disease that is characterised by this exact immune system malfunction – that is, impaired cellular response (macrophages) with an enhanced antibody response… It’s called AIDS. AIDS patients preferentially make antibodies, at the expense of cellular immunity [69]. This is the classic immune system imbalance, leading to Th2 dominance, that we have just explored. If antibodies were actually responsible for immunity, this would spell good news indeed for those diagnosed with AIDS. They would be less likely to suffer infections, than the average person. Unfortunately, this is quite obviously not the case. Research shows the higher the levels of antibodies, the quicker the disease progresses [70].
    What if a person has the hallmarks of AIDS - such as low CD4+ count and symptoms of immunodeficiency…but test negative to HIV? Obviously, they cannot be diagnosed with AIDS, because that does not fit into the currently accepted paradigm. Instead, they are diagnosed with ‘idiopathic lymphocytopenia’, also dubbed by some as ‘HIV-negative AIDS’ [71]. The million-dollar question, of course, is what would cause the immune system to be so skewed to cause AIDS/idiopathic lymphocytopenia? Maybe vaccines [72]? It makes sense, when we consider the net effect of vaccination on the immune system. Schuil, et al (1998), described the case of a 4- year-old girl with a history of encephalitis following MMR vaccination, who was later diagnosed with idiopathic CD4+ T lymphocytopenia. They deduced that the vaccine caused problems because the girl was immunodeficient, but perhaps the vaccine caused the immunodeficiency, too, given it was only diagnosed afterwards [73].
  • Is alles wat we weten over AIDS fout?
    Is it possible that everything we thought we knew about HIV/AIDS is wrong? From the beginning, there have been high-profile, outspoken critics of the HIV/AIDS theory, the most well-known being Peter Duesberg, a Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley [74]. Duesberg maintains that HIV is simply a ‘passenger’ virus, but the true cause of the immune changes seen in AIDS, is recreational drug use, malnutrition, and chemotherapy drugs – all of which skew the immune system towards Th2 dominance, (much like repeated vaccination does) [75]. Another is Kary Mullis, who won the 1993 Nobel prize in Chemistry, for his invention of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique which, ironically, is used to search for HIV fragments in AIDS patients. Mullis believed that a type of 'immune overload' was responsible for the disease known as AIDS [76].
  • Is AIDS het gevolg van vaccinatie = "immune overload"?
    It seems highly plausible that repeated vaccination could at least contribute to such a state of 'immune overload'.
  • Medicate tegen een uit balans geraakt immuunsteem leidde in een bepaald geval tot een "cytokine storm". Een aandoening die tegenwoordig veel wordt gelinkt aan covid-19?!
    Unfortunately, efforts to medically rectify Th1/Th2 imbalance have been ineffective at best, and downright dangerous at worst. In 2006, TeGenero Immuno Therapeutics went bankrupt after a Phase 1 clinical trial of the immunomodulatory drug TGN1412 resulted in all six (100%) volunteers being rushed to hospital, four of them with massive organ failure. The drug was supposed to stimulate the innate immune system. Treating doctors later confirmed that all six volunteers had suffered from a ‘cytokine storm and, ironically, their white blood cell counts had virtually vanished within hours of injection [77].
  • Vaccanatie en kinderen. Mogelijk verzwakt vaccinatie het immuunsysteem op latere leeftijd.
    Studies on animals suggest that vaccination during infancy not only skews the immune system towards a Th2 bias - as we have already discussed - but that effect may be permanent, affecting immune system status into adulthood [78].
  • Voeding kan het immuunsysteem terug in balans brengen, maar ook selenium en zink.
    This discovery has led to efforts to develop vaccines that would induce a Th1 response – like the response you get from natural infection. Experiments towards this end have involved novel DNA vaccines [79], selected adjuvants [80] and oral administration of bacterial extract [81]. If a Th1 type response is desirable, and natural infection elicits such a response, it really begs the question: Might we be better off diverting the billions of dollars currently spent on vaccine programs, into novel strategies to support normal immune function? What might national health-care systems look like, if widespread nutritional supplementation was promoted, to support a vigorous first-line Th1 response in the event of pathogenic/toxin exposure? Studies show that there are numerous approaches that can promote Th1 response, and down-regulate Th2 response. One of these is selenium, which is often deficient in HIV-positive individuals with disease progression [82]. Others include zinc [83], probiotic bacteria [84] and plant sterols [85].
  • Vaccins en het immuunsysteem nog maar eens:
    So, while antibodies may bind to antigens outside the cell, what happens to cells that have already been infected? Then you must rely on T-cells to orchestrate the killing of diseased cells, in order to stop the spread of disease - this is known as cell-mediated immunity. This is the natural sequence of events when a Th1-type response is generated, such as seen in natural infection [89].
    The natural Th-1 type response is to eliminate infection via externalising it - this is the classic disease symptoms we know so well, such as rash, fever, cough, mucus, swelling, etc [90].
    Let’s go over this one more time, because it’s extremely important. First: Vaccines are designed to stimulate antibody production. Second: Antibodies cannot stop infection, nor can they enter cells that are infected. Third: Due to immune imbalance caused by vaccination, infected cells harbour infection chronically, causing inflammation and auto-immune conditions. Fourth: Person shows only mild or no signs of acute illness, but becomes progressively burdened down by chronic health issues. So, what actually happens is that the vaccine has not prevented infection, it has simply prevented the body from expelling the infection.
  • Groepsimmuniteit via vaccins is dus een hopeloze zaak. Het omgekeerde wordt bereikt:
    With the growing number of immunocompromised people who cannot be vaccinated, waning immunity, lack of immunity passed from mother to baby, and pathogenic shift due to selective pressure…it has become patently obvious that ‘herd immunity’ via a vaccine is an impossible dream. The obvious failures of ‘herd immunity’ have been many and varied, over the past several decades. Here’s just a couple of examples: 1985: Measles outbreak among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, despite more than 99% vaccination rate [110]. 2011: Large measles outbreak in highly vaccinated population, in Quebec, Canada. Those who’d received two doses of vaccine were more susceptible than those who’d only had one dose [111]. 2015: Small outbreak of pertussis at Monterey Park School in Salinas, California. The school had a vaccination rate of 99.5%. All four students who were diagnosed with pertussis were vaccinated [112]. In a 2014 analysis published in the Oregon Law Review, scholars concluded that 60 years of widespread vaccination policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease”, and that “herd immunity is unattainable for most diseases and is therefore an irrational goal” [113]. Still, the desire to feel like we are helping protect the vulnerable is very compelling – researchers say that about 30% of parents cite ‘herd immunity’ as motivation for vaccination [114].
  • Oorzaken van "infectieziekten" zijn divers, en veronderstellen niet noodzakelijk een virus, eerder het tegendeel:
    During the 19th century, the population of London swelled by more than six-fold, from 1 million to more than 6 million inhabitants, to become the largest city in the world [1]. All across the western world, as the Industrial Revolution took hold, vast numbers of rural folk moved into towns and cities. For example, in 1750, only 15% of the population lived in towns, but by 1880, a massive 80% of the population were urban dwellers [2].
    With housing in short supply, unscrupulous landlords turned buildings into tenements, and leased every spare inch to desperate families – dingy, damp cellars, fire-trap attics and under-stair storage rooms, many without any ventilation or light. Just imagine the damp, mouldy air these people were constantly breathing – it’s hardly a wonder that tuberculosis and pneumonia were the biggest killers, accounting for one-fifth of all deaths [3].
    Entire streets had to share one outdoor toilet, which was usually in foul condition – cleaning supplies were expensive, and flies hung around in droves (and then made their way through open windows to nearby kitchens etc), and of course, diarrhoea was ever-present. Sewerage drained into waterways via open channels in the streets and lanes, or simply lay stagnant in stinking cesspools of filth. Henry Mayhew was an investigative journalist who, in 1849, described a London street with a ditch running down the middle, that contained the only drinking water available to residents. He said it was ‘the colour of strong green tea’, and ‘more like watery mud than muddy water’.
    With no environmental laws in place, raw sewage poured into drinking water supplies, as did run-off and toxic waste from factories and animal slaughterhouses.
    With slow, unreliable transport, and no refrigeration, food was often past its use-by date. Diseased and rotting meat was made into sausages and ham.
    During the 19th century, countless mothers died during, or soon after, childbirth. There were a number of reasons for this: a) Malnutrition was rife, b) Doctors took offense at the idea they had dirty hands, and refused to wash them [14], c) chloroform and forceps were used unnecessarily in uncomplicated labours [15], and d) many girls grew up with deformed hips due to rickets, which later resulted in problems during childbirth, which increased maternal mortality.
    And to make matters worse, many children were constantly exposed to poisons, such as arsenic, lead and mercury, which were being widely used in industries, such as silk and cotton spinning [24].
    Adulthood didn’t bring much change – hard labour, often for 12-16 hours per day. The terrible conditions and over-work, along with poor diet, aged people quickly...
    It’s no surprise that lung and chest complaints were rife. And then there was the ever-present stench of open sewage, rubbish, animal dung etc.
    Even today, an estimated 9000 people die prematurely each year in London alone, due to air pollution [28]. Yet the levels of pollution in Victorian times were up to 50x worse than they are today [29] – how many lives were cut short because of the foul air polluting their lungs?
    Not only did millions of babies miss out on the nurturing of their mother’s breast, but their formula was poor quality, and often made with contaminated water in unsterile bottles, and milk quickly spoiled during warm weather without refrigeration. It’s hardly a wonder that so many babies succumbed to diarrheal infections, such as typhoid fever.
    Without a proper disposal system in place, alleys, courtyards, and streets became littered with rubbish and waste – sometimes knee-high, which was not only offensive-smelling, but a great attraction for all kinds of scavengers - rats, pigs, dogs, cockroaches and swarms of flies [33].
    Animal slaughterhouses were located amongst high-density tenement housing – animals were constantly slaughtered in full view of the surrounding residents, and the sounds and smell of death were constantly in the air.
    Due to the burning of coal, and wood fires, cities were blanketed in a thick, black smog that covered everything in grime. Even if you weren’t working 12-16hr days in factories, you could barely hope to get a little sunshine in your time off, either. The murk was so dense that countless accidents occurred, including horses and carts running into shop-fronts, or over pedestrians, or into each other [36]. Vitamin D deficiency was widespread, and in the late 1800’s, studies concluded that up to 90% of children were suffering from rickets [37]. In young girls, this often led to deformed hips, and consequently, later problems in childbirth. 12.
    Treatment for syphilis included mercury rubs, bismuth injections, and arsenic injections – some patients endured more than 100 such injections [40]. It’s highly possible that the medical ‘treatments’ killed more people than the diseases they were intended to treat.
    Given that less than 2% of the urban population had running water to their homes [44], and soap/detergents viewed as luxuries, washing of hands, clothes, plates and utensils had to be done with dirty, contaminated water – or not at all. Note that items such as nappies and sanitary ‘rags’ also had to be washed – no ‘disposables’ in those days!
    We now know that stress and fear take a huge toll on the body, resulting in immune system malfunction [45]. Can you imagine the mental anguish of being surrounded by abject poverty, and seeing no way of escape for yourself or your children?
  • Edward Jenner, vaccines, en de Freemasons:
    Indeed, Jenner was inducted into the Royal Society in 1788, before his vaccination experiments began, on the basis of his writing about cuckoos [58]. Edward Jenner was a high-level Freemason, and he was inducted into the Royal Society while Sir Joseph Banks – a fellow Freemason - was president [59]. Jenner “maintained an active correspondence with other eminent Freemasons of the period who shared his theories and ideas; Freemasons such as Sir Joseph Banks…and Erasmus Darwin” (grandfather of Charles Darwin) [59]. In 1812, Jenner became Worshipful Master of the Royal Lodge of Faith and Friendship, based in Berkeley, Gloucestershire. That particular Lodge was frequented by the Prince of Wales – later to become King George IV [59]. Despite being inducted into the Royal Society, Jenner’s first attempt to promote his vaccine experiment to them, in 1796, was rejected. His manuscript provided short details of ten patients who had resisted inoculation several years after having cowpox, but Phipps was the only patient inoculated with cowpox [60]. Jenner must have realized that one example was not enough to convince scientific minds, so he expanded his experiment. He had to wait until 1798, a couple of years later, for another outbreak of cowpox. He then began a complicated set of experiments where he inoculated the first person, and then waited for a pustule to develop, of which the contents (pus) were used to inoculate a second person, and so on.
    Jenner sprung to the defence of his work, stating that none of his patients had ever developed more than a single pustule at the inoculation site. The problem, Jenner declared, was not his method of vaccination, but the Inoculation Hospital, where the “atmosphere, fixtures, and even Woodville himself (one of the doctors who carried out the trial), were so marinated in smallpox that he had accidentally contaminated his vaccine” [63]. (Ouch!) In 1802, supporters of Jenner then petitioned Parliament to give him an honorarium payment of 10,000 pounds, for income lost while developing his method of vaccination. Parliament voted in his favour, and Jenner found himself a wealthy man [63]. Ten thousand pounds was a huge sum for the time, and, according to online calculators, the rough equivalent of 840,000 pounds today, or $1.3 million US dollars. (Four years later, Parliament would give Jenner an even bigger windfall – a payment of 20,000 English pounds, ‘in recognition of his services’. That equates to roughly $2.5 million US dollars today) The following year, 1803, Jenner and his supporters founded the Jennerian Society in London, to promote vaccination amongst the poor, with Jenner as director. The Jennerian Society later became The Vaccine Establishment [64], but Jenner felt ‘dishonoured’ by the men selected to run it, and resigned his directorship [65]. Jenner had become a wealthy and influential man of society – he was presented to the King in 1800, and later, would be appointed physician extraordinary to the King. He was also made Mayor of Berkeley, and a Justice of the Peace [66]. Today, Jenner’s work is regarded by many as the ‘most important discovery in the history of humanity’, but did Jenner’s method really rid the world of smallpox?
  • Was Jenner succesvol? Heeft zijn "vaccin" de pokken uit de wereld geholpen? Nee dus.
    Smallpox outbreaks became more deadly after widespread vaccination was implemented. During the late 1800's, Japan enforced a strict vaccination program for all infants, children, and adolescents with additional vaccines during outbreaks, or upon entry into the armed forces. The scourge of smallpox was declared "all but unknown"… Alas and alack, several years later, smallpox returned, with more vengeance than ever before. Between 1889 and 1908, there are 171,500 cases, with 48,000 deaths - a mortality rate of 28% [75-78].
  • Polio:
    At the time, Landsteiner was prosector (a person who dissects dead bodies for investigation) at the Wilhelminenspital in Vienna. When a 9-year-old boy died with poliomyelitis symptoms, Landsteiner and Popper filtered the spinal fluid through fine filters known to trap bacteria, and then proceeded to inject it into the abdominal cavity of rabbits, guinea pigs and mice, but failed to produce any polio symptoms [123]. Undeterred, they then injected the spinal cord mixture into two monkeys of differing species. The first monkey became ill on the 6th day, and died two days later. No paralysis was witnessed, but upon dissection, changes in the nervous system similar to those seen in poliomyelitis were noted. The second monkey became paralysed in the hind legs on the 17th day, and upon dissection, also showed lesions consistent with poliomyelitis. However, a spinal cord concoction of those monkeys failed to produce any illness or death when injected into other monkeys (a technique referred to as ‘passaging’). Although they were unable to see any pathogen at work (microscopes not yet being advanced enough), they concluded that poliomyelitis is caused by an infectious particle, smaller than bacteria [124]. Others were later able to ‘passage’ the illness from animal to animal, which further cemented the theory of infectiousness. One of those credited with furthering this line of research was Simon Flexner (1863-1946), who was director of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, and a friend and advisor to John D. Rockefeller Jr. A read of Flexner’s published work, describes how he, and his assistant Hideyo Noguchi (1876-1928) managed to infect a continuous line of monkeys – and it reveals an elaborate method, so highly contrived that one wonders how any conclusions could be extrapolated as relevant to the ‘real world’ [125].
    Scientists still hadn’t figured out how this invisible, infectious micro-organism was being spread from person to person and causing outbreaks of paralysis. In their efforts to learn more, all kinds of materials were injected into monkeys to cause paralysis – including faeces and ground-up flies [127]. With the blame squarely placed on an invisible virus, the concerns and investigations of neurologists and toxicologists, and others, were virtually trodden underfoot in the stampede that ensued, to produce an antidote for this viral affliction. In 1916, New York experienced a deadly outbreak of polio, which claimed the lives of some 2000 people. The “epidemic caused widespread panic. Thousands fled the city to nearby mountain resorts. Movie theaters were closed, meetings were cancelled, and public gatherings were shunned. Children were warned not to drink from water fountains; amusement parks and bathing beaches were off limits. In some towns, visitors from the New York City area were turned away by armed citizens who feared the spread of contagion” [128]. Children under 16 were not allowed to enter New York or surrounding towns, unless they carried a health certificate from their own district, ‘proving’ they had been examined and found to be free of disease. Some towns surrounding New York hired guards and policemen who, brandishing red flags, pulled over passing automobiles and made thorough searches for any concealed children. Some children found suffering from polio were forcibly removed from their homes and placed into the Isolation Hospital [129].
  • Quarantaines en het mislabelen van de ziekte uit voorzorg (komt bekend voor?):
    People began to rebel against the harsh quarantine laws, and many people felt that normal children’s diseases were being mislabelled as polio “as a matter of safety” [129]. Approximately 72,000 abandoned cats were killed during the epidemic, by (ironically) the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Many were abandoned by their suspicious owners, who feared they were spreading disease [130]. Dingman (1916) noted that a small outbreak, involving eight cases from three separate Jewish boarding homes, in Spring Valley, New York, all used milk from the same source. “The house mothers of these homes were quite positive, even before the diagnosis of poliomyelitis was made, that the milk was the cause” [131].
  • Heeft polio wel veroorzaakt door een virus? Zijn er geen andere mogelijke oorzaken?
    Others made the same connection, linking polio outbreaks to ‘milk poisoning’, or the eating of dairy products [131]. We now know that arsenic can be passed via cow’s milk. (Arsenic can also be transferred readily through the placenta in humans, so the developing foetus has a similar exposure to the mother [132]). Other reports pointed to common water sources, as the mode of transmission in polio outbreaks. “Kling (1928) supported the theory that poliomyelitis could be spread by means of water supplies. He observed that the disease first broke out near the water supply in the hills, cases occurring successively as the stream descended. Paul and Trask (1941) found, during an epidemic of poliomyelitis, that the distribution of cases followed a water course” [131]. It was noted that polio outbreaks increased during dry or drought years. By now, there was not only lead arsenate being used, but calcium arsenate widely used on cotton crops…and every summer there were polio outbreaks in at least one state of the US. Animals also, continued to fall victim. In 1920, J.W Kalkus published a report in the American Journal of Veterinary Medicine, of a disease he termed ‘Orchard Horse Disease’ – a fatal disease affecting horses and cows fed on hay raised in orchards, where arsenate of lead was sprayed [133].
  • Had Roosevelt wel polio?
    In 1921, ‘infantile paralysis’ claimed its most famous victim – Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1885 - 1945), who would later become the 32nd President of the United States. It was a surprising diagnosis for a fit, 39-year old man, since the vast majority of cases were in children [134]. Later, while serving as President, he founded the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, which became the most visible and influential force in polio advocacy and the search for a polio vaccine. (In retrospect, though, modern scientists would later conclude that Roosevelt didn’t suffer from polio at all, but rather Guillain-Barre Syndrome [135]). At the time of his illness, Roosevelt was holidaying with his family, at their summer home on Campobello Island, in the Bay of Fundy. Reports suggest that Roosevelt had been swimming several times, shortly before falling ill - at least one of those occasion was in the Bay of Fundy, after accidentally falling overboard while sailing his yacht [136].
    At the time, upstream of the Bay of Fundy was heavily industrialised with ship-building, oil-refining, brewing, tanning, and manufacturing of hardware, paints, and engines [137]. At least some of those industries would have been using heavy metals, such as lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury and, as was common practice at the time, dumping the wastes into the bay. Is it possible that Roosevelt was paralysed by exposure to neurotoxic heavy metals? Perhaps we will never know…
  • De oorzaken van polio (maar Rockefeller Instituut wil er niet van weten):
    Meanwhile, by 1929, almost 30 million pounds of calcium and lead arsenate were being sprayed onto the fields and orchards of America, every year. In fact, the government was so enthusiastic about the bug-killing properties of arsenic, that a 1935 radio show, hosted by the FDA suggested the children's rhyme "A is for apple" should be changed to "A is for arsenate, lead if you please, protector of apples, against arch-enemies" [138]. Meanwhile, clusters of polio were noted in relation to fruit consumption.
    On an interesting side-note, 1953 was the same year a Dr Henry Kumm was appointed Director of Research at the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis. He had previously worked at the Rockefeller Foundation for Medical Research, and during World War II, served as a civilian consultant to the Surgeon General - directing field studies on the use of DDT to control malarial mosquitos in Italy [177].
    It wasn’t just the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis that had an inordinate amount of influence over polio research, and public relations. The Rockefeller Foundation during those years was the front-runner in virology research, and dominated science in America.
    We’ve already noted that Simon Flexner worked at the Rockefeller Foundation. Karl Landsteiner accepted an invitation from him, some years after he ‘proved’ that polio has a viral cause, and went to work at the Rockefeller Foundation. Henry Kumm also worked at Rockefeller Foundation, before moving to the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis. But they are not the only connections. Thomas Francis, who also worked for Rockefeller Foundation, helped establish the School of Health at the University of Michigan, and mentored Jonas Salk, teaching him how to formulate vaccines. Thomas Francis was later placed in charge of determining whether his student Salk’s vaccine was safe and effective – a blatant conflict of interest, by today’s standards[178].
    Albert Sabin, who would later develop the oral polio vaccine, worked for the Rockefeller Foundation during the 1930’s. Both Salk and Sabin were members of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis Committee on Virus Research. The field trials for the new Salk vaccine, in 1954, involving 1.8 million school-children, are lauded as the ‘largest clinical trial in history’, and required 300,000 volunteers to carry it out [179]. The National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis funded the field trials from public donations, to the tune of $7.5 million ($66.3 million in today’s money) [180].
    As already noted, Salk’s mentor Thomas Francis not only designed the trials, but was given the responsibility of evaluating and reporting the results. There was some criticism of how the studies were designed, and some pointed out that only those who received two shots were considered ‘vaccinated’. This meant that a child diagnosed with polio after receiving one vaccine, was considered to be ‘unvaccinated’ [181]. Every child who took part in the trial was awarded a ‘Polio Pioneer’ certificate and presented with a highly-treasured metal pin [180]. Because of the perceived urgency of finding a vaccine for polio, the Salk vaccine was rushed to market in just 6yrs [182]. (The average time-frame to bring a new vaccine to market is 10 – 15 years [183]).
    Just two hours later, the vaccine was licensed by the licensing committee (who had not even read all the information contained in the Francis Report - of which the final version was not published until two years later), and approved by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Oveta Culp Hobby. The first vaccine lots were released immediately, and within two weeks, more than 10 million doses had been distributed throughout America, almost all for use in school-children [186-187]. Salk became an overnight hero. In the minds of the American public, polio was all but defeated… Eleven days later, a little girl named Susan Pierce, who had received the new Salk vaccine less than a week earlier, “developed fever and neck stiffness. Six days later, her left arm was paralyzed. Seven days later, she was placed in an iron lung, and nine days later, she was dead” [187]. On April 26, six cases of paralysis following vaccination were reported. That was just the start of the tragedy that would unfold – now known as the ‘Cutter Incident’. It was blamed on Cutter Laboratories failure to fully inactivate the live virus (although a court trial would later exonerate Cutter from any negligence [187]). The truth was…other laboratories were having the same problems, but only Cutter vaccines were withdrawn, while Salk vaccines produced by other suppliers were still distributed [188].
    The children affected were more likely to be paralyzed in their arms, more likely to suffer severe and permanent paralysis, more likely to require breathing assistance in iron lungs, and more likely to die than children naturally infected with polio. Seventy-five percent of victims were left paralyzed for life [187]. While Jonas Salk had been team leader during development of the vaccine, Dr Bernice Eddy was vaccine safety tester. When she realized that the vaccine was causing paralysis in monkeys, she went to her superiors, and urged them to delay the release of the vaccine. She was ignored [187].
  • Sabin's vaccin tegen polio werd zelfs in de USSR gebruikt:
    Sabin’s oral polio vaccine was then tested on millions of schoolchildren in the USSR during 1959 – an unusual feat during the Cold War years [196]. Paralysis was also noted in some cases following oral polio vaccination (the very criticism that Sabin had levelled at Salk’s injectable vaccine – in fact, Sabin had called it “pure kitchen chemistry” [194]). However, it should be noted that oral polio vaccines, at the time, were administered to children together with the (mercury-containing) DTP vaccine [197], that had already been shown, years before, to cause ‘provocation polio’ in some cases. Since then, the polio vaccine has again been linked to cases of paralysis – but they are no longer diagnosed as polio. They are diagnosed as Guillain-Barre Syndrome [198], acute flaccid paralysis [199], transverse myelitis [200], or acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) [201].
  • Hoe een vaccin als een succes verklaren? Verander gewoon de definitie van de ziekte:
    Polio was eradicated - with the stroke of a pen? According to Herbert Ratner, former director of public health in Oak Park, Illinois, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis was so desperate to inflate polio statistics (before a vaccine was available), in order to keep the funds rolling in, that they were paying doctors for every reported case of paralytic polio [202]. In 1954, the first polio vaccination campaign began. Coincidentally (or perhaps not), that same year the U.S government authorities changed the diagnostic criteria for paralytic poliomyelitis [202]. Prior to 1954, a diagnosis of paralytic polio was given for paralytic symptoms lasting 24hrs or more – no laboratory confirmation required. As per the new classification, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days after onset of disease. This one change immediately ruled out more than 50% of paralytic polio cases [203]. In the years following the introduction of the vaccine, further changes were made to the diagnostic parameters of disease, which included analysis of cerebrospinal fluid and stool testing, along with ‘expert analysis’ [204].
  • Een andere manier om een epidemie kwijt te raken (na vaccinatie): verander de definitie van epidemie (mmmmm: zie ook:
    Another administrative change also helped to give the illusion that the polio vaccine had put an end to polio epidemics – by changing the definition of ‘epidemic’. As summed up by the Ratner Report, the transcript of a 1960 panel meeting, later published in the Illinois Medical Journal: “Presently [1960], a community is considered to have an epidemic when it has 35 cases of polio per year per 100,000 population. Prior to the introduction of the Salk vaccine the National Foundation defined an epidemic as 20 or more cases of polio per year per 100,000 population. On this basis there were many epidemics throughout the United States yearly. The present higher rate has resulted in not a real, but a semantic elimination of epidemics” [205]. 
  • Een ironie:
    It is ironic to note that the standard diet given to children following tonsillectomies was ice-cream…and then more ice-cream. It is also ironic, that Albert Sabin’s oral polio vaccine was administered via sugary syrup, or sugar cube, in the early days. High sugar intake affects Vitamin C status, too – but that wasn’t known until later… It was not until the 1970’s that Professor John Ely proposed his ‘Glucose-Ascorbate Antagonism’ Theory, after his research revealed that blood glucose (sugar) levels compete with Vitamin C, and high blood sugar levels hinder the entry of Vitamin C into the cells [221].
  • Het uitsluiten van alle andere mogelijke geneeswijzen (buiten vaccinatie) is ook niet nieuw:
    Claus Jungeblut, who was a prominent polio researcher in his time, reported in 1935 that Vitamin C was not only a preventative, but a cure for polio [222]. (He would later show that large doses of Vitamin C could also inactivate both diptheria and tetanus toxins too [223-224]). Albert Sabin then attempted to ‘confirm’ Jungeblut’s findings on polio, but only used about 35% of the dose that Jungeblut had used, and did not follow Jungeblut’s methods precisely. When this failed to show a protective effect, he concluded that Vitamin C was not effective against polio after all – and, unfortunately, his conclusion seemed to be accepted as final, by the medical establishment of the time [225-226]. Fred Klenner, an American physician, used high-dose Vitamin C to treat 60 polio patients, during a 1948 epidemic, and though two patients suffering ‘bulbar’ polio needed oxygen and drainage, all patients recovered [227].
    While early researchers focused on the Vitamin C’s ability to neutralize poliovirus, we also now know that Vitamin C is a powerful antitoxin, demonstrated to neutralize poisons from both natural causes (venomous snakes etc) [228], chemicals (such as benzene), and heavy metals, including mercury, arsenic and lead [229-230].
  • Wat was de oorzaak van het terugdringen van infectieziekten? (Hint: niet vaccins)
    McKinley and McKinley (1977) examined the decline of ten major infectious diseases and concluded: “In general, medical measures (both chemotherapeutic and prophylactic) appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900 – having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and mostly having no detectible influence.” “More specifically, with reference to those five conditions (influenza, pneumonia, diphtheria, whooping cough and poliomyelitis) for which the decline appears substantial after the point of intervention – and in the unlikely assumption that all of this decline is attributable to the intervention – it is estimated that at most 3.5 per cent of the total decline in mortality since 1900 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the diseases considered here” [248].
    Indeed, United States Vital Statistics 1940-1960, show that between 1900 to 1940 [249]: - Pneumonia and influenza mortality fell by more than half. - Tuberculosis mortality fell by approximately two-thirds - Diarrhoea, enteritis and ulceration of the intestine fell by more than two-thirds, to disappear off the list of Top 10 leading causes of death. - Diphtheria mortality fell by more than half, to also disappear off the list of Top 10 leading causes of death. All before antibiotics and widespread vaccination were introduced…
  • De wondere wereld van vaccinontwikkeling:
    There are currently two cell lines used in production of widely-available vaccines, although there are others being used in experimental vaccines, and those still in development stages. The two cell-lines most commonly used are WI-38 (Wistar Institute 38) and MRC-5 (Medical Research Council 5) [18-19]. WI-38 was developed from the lung tissue of a 3-month-old female fetus, in 1962 [20]. The reason given for abortion was that the parents felt they already had too many children [19]. MRC-5 was developed in 1966, from lung tissue of a 14- week male fetus, aborted for 'psychiatric reasons' [21]. The term ‘psychiatric reasons’ raises some interesting questions, as women who were deemed to be ‘feeble-minded’ were still coerced into being permanently sterilised in the 1960's, when the MRC-5 abortion took place.
    It is often claimed that while vaccines may be produced using animal and aborted foetal cells, these are all removed before the finished product. Not so, according to the FDA: "Small amounts of residual cell substrate DNA unavoidably occur in all viral vaccines, as well as other biologics produced using cell substrates" [40]. In 1986, a World Health Organization (WHO) Study Group met in Geneva, to discuss issues regarding the use of continuous cell lines in the production of vaccines and other biological products. It was decided that the limit for DNA fragments (from both human and animal cell lines) in the finished product should be 100 picograms, or less - a value that was "considered to represent an insignificant risk" [41]. 100pg remained the limit for a decade, however this limit was raised to 10 nanograms per dose (100x more), in 1997, as manufacturers could not always meet the limit [42]. It was also decided that, since several factors must be present for a cell to become cancerous, it was unlikely that this foreign DNA could cause cancers in the recipient. In 2015, research revealed that DNA fragments from aborted foetal cell lines in at least two vaccines - Meruvax II (live rubella vaccine) and Havrix (live Hepatitis A vaccine) contained both single-stranded and double-stranded DNA [43]. In 1997, the FDA's advisory committee discussed whether residual DNA fragments in vaccines had the ability to integrate into the recipient's DNA. According to FDA documents "It was decided that it was unlikely that DNA integration occurred at a high enough frequency to be a concern, although no data were available at the time" [44]
    Given the fact that their recommendations would affect some 300 million Americans, and likely be accepted, without further ado, by other countries around the world, this laissez-faire attitude seems quite extraordinary. One person who has tried to find out, is molecular biologist Theresa Deisher, PhD. Her research showed there was “spontaneous cellular and nuclear DNA uptake’ in host cells, from the DNA fragments found in vaccines [45]. Deisher states there is potential for ‘homologous recombination’ to occur – where a segment of cell’s DNA is substituted by another segment of similar DNA, during cell division or cell repair.
    In the past 20 years, another six adjuvants have been licensed for use in vaccines [62]. These are: a) Virosomes, which are vesicles with antigen enclosed within a phospholipid cell membrane bi-layer. Found in hepatitis and influenza vaccines. b) AS04, which is 3-deacyl-monophosphoryl lipid A, derived from lipopolysaccharide from salmonella bacteria and aluminum. Found in Hepatitis B and HPV vaccines. c) MF59, which is made from squalene. Found in seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccines. d) AS03, which is made from squalene and polysorbate 80. Found in pandemic influenza vaccines. e) Thermo-reversible oil-inwater, which is also made from squalene. Found in pandemic influenza vaccines. f) ISA51, which is made from refined mineral oil. Found in a new vaccine targeted at treating non-small-cell lung cancer. Studies show that the use of adjuvant means the vaccine ingredients stay at the injection site for longer before dispersal. This is deliberate, in order to provoke a greater response from the immune system. The use of adjuvant also more than doubles the exposure of the antigen in serum, and increases uptake by regional lymph nodes by 25-fold. Adjuvant also increases response by the humoral immune system, and leads to higher antibody counts [63].
    The mechanisms by which aluminium may affect breast cancer risk appears to be multifactorial, with the following factors having been explored in the medical literature: i) Aluminium can cause genomic instability and inappropriate proliferation in human breast epithelial cells [75]. ii) Aluminium can increase migration and invasion of human breast cancer cells [75]. iii) Aluminium acts as a metalloestrogen, and estrogen is considered a risk factor, known to influence multiple hallmarks of breast cancer [75]. iv) Aluminium induces DNA damage due to oxidative stress [76]. v) Aluminium may alter the breast microenvironment by causing disruption to iron metabolism, inflammatory responses, and alterations in motility of cells [77].
    There have been over 165 studies that looked at thimerosal and found it to be harmful [89]. Of these studies, sixteen specifically examined the effects of thimerosal on human infants and/or children, with reported outcomes including death [90], poisoning [91], malformations [92], allergic reactions [93], autoimmune reactions [94], developmental delays [95-96], neurodevelopmental disorders, such as tics, language delay, attention deficit disorder and autism [97-99].
    Vaccine production also involves the use of animal products. Some of these include [140]: i) Bovine serum albumin, or fetal bovine serum - serum extracted from the heart of unborn calves, after their mothers have been slaughtered at the meatworks [141]. ii) Insect cell, bacterial and viral protein -geneticallyengineered baculoviruses are used to infect fermented insect cells, which are incubated, and then purified, before being added to final product [142]. iii) Embryonated chicken eggs. iv) DNA from porcine circoviruses (pig viruses), which are unintended contaminants of the rotavirus vaccines [143]. There is some concern over the use of the monkey kidney cells, and the dog kidney cell proteins, due to evidence that they may be tumorigenic (cause tumor growth) [144]. The monkey kidney cell lines were capable of inducing tumor growths in 100% of mice tested, which exhibited some characteristics of kidney cancer, but later spontaneously resolved [145].
    Due to the use of animal products and human blood products in vaccine production, it is possible for viral contamination to occur. Contamination may occur due to several reasons: i) Contamination of primary cell cultures. ii) Contaminated due to the use of raw materials. iii) Contaminated via an animal passage. iv) Errors made by the operator [175].
    Viral contamination represents a serious concern, as viruses require more complex and sophisticated detection methods, and presence of some viruses can disrupt detection of other viruses, leading to false negatives [175].
    is also possible for vaccines to be contaminated with retroviruses – a class of viruses which replicate in a reverse process to normal viral replication. This reverse transcription process results in mutations, which makes retroviruses particularly hard to treat with antiviral drugs. Like viruses, retroviruses can remain latent for long periods of time, until a change in cell environment (possibly due to stress, illness etc), causes them to activate. Because of the long time-frame involved, sometimes many years, it is unlikely the victim will trace their symptoms back to vaccination [188]. The most common source of contamination appears to come from the cell lines used to culture vaccines. In a paper published in 2009, researchers discovered contamination of cell-lines by a recombinant (genetically-engineered) virus, while at the same time admitting that current screening methods simply cannot detect all possible contaminants [189]. In 2011, Judy Mikovits PhD, a molecular biochemist who has published over 50 peer-reviewed papers, discovered that 30% of vaccines were contaminated with gammaretroviruses. Her employment was subsequently terminated, and she was arrested for allegedly stealing her own data from her workplace, and placed under a 4-year gag order [190]. The retrovirus that Mikovits focused on was Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-related virus (XMRV), a geneticallyengineered mouse virus. The virus was propagated on cell lines derived from a mouse tumour, and presumably spread through contamination of laboratory samples during the 1990’s [191]. The retrovirus was later implicated in chronic fatigue syndrome, when 68 of 101 CFS patients tested positive for retrovirus DNA (67%) as compared to 8 of 218 (3.7%) of healthy controls [192]. This finding caused quite a furore in the medical science world, and the work was later retracted, however subsequent work also showed similar findings [193]..
  • De waarde van de globale vaccinmarkt is gigantisch groot:
    The global vaccine market was worth more than $32 billion USD in 2016, expected to reach 48 billion USD by 2021 [1].
    The global market for influenza vaccines alone, is worth an estimated $4 billion [3]. Of course, that market has been helped along enormously by expanded recommendations in the US, to vaccinate every person over the age of 6 months. From 32 million doses in 1990, to 135 million doses by 2013, flu vaccines are now given in shopping malls, drug stores and even drive-throughs [4].
  • Problemen met een cost-benefit analyse van vaccins:
    cost-benefit analysis does not take into account: a) The likelihood of strain shift, due to selective pressure of vaccines. b) The long-term side-effects of the vaccine, such as dysregulation of the immune system, leading to increased infections, autoimmune diseases, etc. c) The potential benefits of being exposed to the natural infection. d) The added societal and financial cost of developmental delays, and neurological disorders. Consider the parents who can no longer work, due to caring for their disabled children full-time.
  • Niet alle landen gaan goed om met vaccinatie & vaccinaties maken mensen blijkbaar niet gezonder:
    What works in one country does not always translate into best practice in other countries. Jacob Puliyel, head paediatrician at St. Stephens Hospital in Delhi, India pointed out that, although the World Health Organisation and other organizations were pushing for India to implement new vaccines, it was hardly in the country’s best interests. Analyses had revealed that 1000 people would need to be vaccinated, in order to prevent 4 cases of pneumonia. Vaccinating those 1000 people would cost $12,750, while treating the four cases of pneumonia using WHO protocol would amount to $1 [8]. How much has actually been saved by the introduction of vaccines, is overshadowed by the fact that health expenditures in Western countries, have done nothing but go up and up. (In dit licht is de tweet van Bill Gates dat vaccines "the best buy in public health" zijn toch wel heel wrang te noemen).
    In 1950, before the vast majority of today's vaccines were in use, health expenditure in the US accounted for 4.6% of gross domestic product. By 2009, that figure had more than tripled to 17%, "a larger share than all manufacturing, or wholesale and retail trade, or finance and insurance, or the combination of agriculture, mining, and construction" [9]. "It is difficult to see how the health sector can continue to expand rapidly at the expense of the rest of the economy, but every past prediction of a sustained slowing of the growth of health expenditures has been proved wrong" [9]. Over the past 25 years, health expenditure in Australia has tripled, growing faster than inflation, faster than the population, and faster than the rest of the economy [10].
  • Alles voor vaccins:
    The number of recommended vaccines has more than quadrupled over the past 40 years, in many Western countries. From 10 in the 1980’s, to 32 in the 2000’s, the vaccine schedule in Australia now specifies 48 vaccines by the age of 16 years - forty-one of those by the age of 4 years. That figure does not include the recommended annual influenza vaccines, or other vaccines recommended for ‘high-risk’ groups and travellers. All up, the number may exceed 70 vaccines by the time a child reaches 18 years of age.
  • De innige relaties tussen dokters en de producenten:
    1.) Drug Companies Influence Education of Future Doctors In 2008, it was revealed that the prestigious Harvard Medical School had substantial ties to industry. Out of 8900 professors and lecturers, 1600 admitted that they, or a close family member have financial ties to the industry, sometimes to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. When a group of medical students rallied on campus to protest conflicts of interest, a Pfizer employee was also there, photographing protesters via a cell-phone camera [13]. It was also revealed that the industry had donated more than $11.5 million to Harvard, in one year alone, for ‘research and continuing education classes’
    In 2008, the American Medical Student's Association (AMSA) decided to grade 150 US medical schools, based on the amount of money and gifts they receive from drug companies - the more goodies, the worse their grade. Out of 150 medical schools, 40 received an F - including Harvard. Only 22 (less than 15%) got an A or a B [13]. The situation in Canada appears to be similar - a study that ranked Canadian medical schools according to the stringency of their conflict-of-interest policies, found that only 4 of 17 schools - less than a quarter - scored higher than 50% [14]. The implication here is that many of today's doctors have been trained in a way that has been influenced and shaped by the pharmaceutical industry.
  • Opleidingen zijn zeer éénzijdig:
    One wonders if industry influence in medical schools is the reason why the average student receives 5 times more tuition hours on pharmacology - or the study of drugs - than on nutrition [17-18]? And how much do medical school students learn about vaccines? A study of medical students in France revealed that only one-third felt confident enough to answer questions regarding side-effects, or respond to vaccine hesitancy [19].
    A survey of medical students in Canada found that time spent on the subject of vaccinology ranged from as little as 1hr, up to a maximum of 50hrs. Only 21% of students felt they had received adequate training on the subject. According to the authors, ‘Important gaps were identified in the knowledge of graduating nursing, medical, & pharmacy trainees regarding vaccine indications/contraindications, adverse events & safety’ [20]. Delving further into the above-mentioned study, we start to get an idea of the kind of education these students have received on the subject of vaccines. For example, those who scored highest on the knowledge test were more likely to: a) Strongly disagree/disagree to the statement "Vaccines may cause chronic diseases and learning disorders because they contain small amounts of mercury, aluminium, and formaldehyde." b) Strongly disagree/disagree with the statement "Routine immunization should be delayed in individuals with moderate to severe illness, with or without fever." c) Strongly disagree/disagree with the statement "parental stress can be reduced by spreading necessary vaccines over several visits". From the above, we can deduce that the ‘education’ they received, was emphasising the safety and efficacy of vaccines to prevent disease, while downplaying sideeffects, risks and parental concerns. This conclusion is backed up by doctors too, who realized that if they wanted to really understand vaccines, they would have to educate themselves.
    Dr. Larry Palevsky, board certified paediatrician, received his medical degree from New York University School of Medicine, says: "I was taught in medical school residency that vaccines are safe, and they're effective…that there's absolutely no reason to question it, because we've done all the studies” [21]. Dr Bob Sears, board certified Paediatrician, received his medical degree from Georgetown University School of Medicine, says: "Doctors, myself included, learn a lot about diseases in medical school, but we learn very little about vaccines, other than the fact that the FDA and pharmaceutical companies do extensive research on vaccines to make sure they are safe and effective. We don’t review the research ourselves. We never learn what goes into making vaccines or how their safety is studied. We trust and take it for granted that the proper researchers are doing their job”.
    “So, when patients want a little more information about shots, all we can really say as doctors is that the diseases are bad and the shots are good. But we don’t know enough to answer all of your detailed questions about vaccines, nor do we have the time during a regular health check up to thoroughly discuss and debate the pros and cons of vaccines” [22]. Despite this, research shows "The public views health care providers as credible and trusted sources of vaccine recommendations. Many individuals cite the recommendation of their physician or nurse as the most important factor governing their decision to either become vaccinated themselves, or have their child vaccinated, and positive attitudes of health professionals have been shown to correlate with higher vaccination coverage rates” [23]. 2. Drug Companies Influence How Doctors Practice Medicine While the average medical student has a positive attitude towards vaccines, less than a third feel their education on the subject was adequate…so says one study conducted on medical students at the University of Central Florida, College of Medicine [24]. Now, add financial incentives to vaccinate…
  • Dissidentie wordt gestraft:
    Also, in 2017, Australian Dr. John Piesse had his office raided, and was later de-registered, after it was revealed he had helped families gain medical exemptions from vaccination. A conscientious objection is no longer accepted as valid by Australian government authorities [44-45]. New South Wales Health Care Complaints Commission urged members of the public to ‘dob in’ any doctors suspected of being ‘involved with anti-vax practices’ [46]. This message was reiterated again, in 2019, when the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority (AHPRA) issued a warning that “health professionals who spread anti-vaccination messages will be disciplined” [47]. The message, loud and clear, then, is don’t question or criticise vaccines, if you want to keep your career prospects intact. On the other hand, the rewards for doctors who encourage and promote vaccines are clear – security, safety, and acceptance from your peers.
  • Het geval Paul Offit (lid van het CDC!):
    Take Dr Paul Offit of the Philadelphia Children's Hospital, who famously calculated that a baby could safely receive 10,000 vaccines at one time [48]. Dr. Offit is one of the inventors of the genetically-engineered Rotavirus vaccine, currently on the childhood vaccination schedule. Offit was a member of the CDC's advisory committee, during the same period that a (different) rotavirus vaccine was first added to the Vaccines for Children program, a coincidence that was later noted by a Government Reform Committee, investigating conflicts of interest in vaccine development [49]. That particular vaccine would later be withdrawn (amidst safety concerns over a 30-fold increase in risk of intussusception– a medical emergency that involves blockage of the intestines) and replaced by Offit’s vaccine. An increased risk of intussusception from Offit’s vaccine has also been noted in some studies, though not as high as the original vaccine [50]. Dr. Offit hasn’t publicly disclosed how much he will earn in total from his involvement in developing the rotavirus vaccine, but according the Philadelphia Children's Hospital policy manual, he was entitled to 30% of the net income [51] - which was around $153 million [52].
  • Farmacie sponsort NOG's en charities:
    3) Drug companies fund charities and ‘think tanks’ Save The Children is an international aid agency that works in developing countries to promote education and healthcare - part of which includes childhood vaccines. In 2013, Save The Children announced they had formed a strategic partnership with pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline - maker of numerous vaccines [55]. While many hailed it as an exciting step forward, others working in aid were left feeling distinctly uneasy. It's not the first time the pharmaceutical industry has funded or worked with charities, and it raises questions over whether there could be a profit-driven motive behind it, rather than simply acting from the goodness of their corporate heart.
  • Farmaceutische industrie heeft innige banden met de mainstream media:
    4) Drug companies influence news and media The pharmaceutical industry spends $5.2 billion per annum on TV advertising - that figure rose by 60% in the four years from 2012 to 2016 [71-72]. Nine out of ten big pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than they do on research and development. As an example, in 2013, Johnson and Johnson spent $8.2 billion on research and development, and $17.5 billion – more than double - on marketing [73]. Besides overt advertising, the industry also employs the use of press releases and advertorials. A review of news and current affair items on free-to-air TV in Sydney, Australia, estimated that up to 42% may have “been triggered by press releases and other forms of publicity” [74].
    In 2009, the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) group conducted a study of nine major media companies: Disney (ABC), Gannett (USA Today), General Electric (NBC), CBS, Time Warner (CNN), News Corporation (Fox), New York Times Co., Washington Post Co. (Newsweek), and Tribune Co. (Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times). Out of those nine corporations, six had directors who also represented the interests of at least one major pharmaceutical company. They also showed that these interlocking directorates had an influence on how news outlets covered issues such as healthcare reform [75]. Rupert Murdoch, whose vast media empire includes The New York Post and Wall Street Journal in the US, The Australian and The Daily Telegraph in Australia, The Sunday Times in the UK, and HarperCollins books, has strong links with the pharmaceutical industry. Murdoch is co-chairman of the prestigious Partnership for New York City, whose Board of Directors reads like a ‘Who's Who’ of business, and includes Ian C. Reed, the CEO of Pfizer. The partnership is heavily invested in pharmaceutical and biotech ventures [76]. Rupert Murdoch's son, James was a non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline from 2009 to 2012 [77]. Was it just coincidence that within a week of the announcement that James had joined the board of GSK, the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times began their vendetta against Andrew Wakefield, via journalist Brian Deer [78]? Rupert Murdoch's daughter-in-law Sarah Murdoch is an ambassador (and a member of the Board of Directors) for the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. According to their website:
    "The Vaccine and Immunisation Research Group (VIRGo) at Murdoch Children's Research Institute is an international centre for expertise in vaccine and immunisation research and has been a leading voice on the issue for over 20 years. With the largest and longest standing child and adolescent vaccine clinical trials program in Australia, VIRGo provides evidence to shape Government policy regarding best use of vaccines in national schedules.Key to VIRGo’s work is research centred on vaccine hesitancy and studying the factors that determine why parents refuse safe vaccines despite the widespread availability of services and information” [79]. Do Rupert Murdoch's links to the pharmaceutical industry ever shape the way vaccines or other pharmaceuticals are portrayed in the media? Maybe former Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbot said it best in a 2013 speech: "His publications have borne his ideals but never his fingerprints” [80].
    According to research, ‘the media can play an important role in influencing both the demand and supply of medical treatments, regardless of evidence of effectiveness [81]. Media coverage can increase uptake of the seasonal influenza vaccine by as much as 7%, especially if reported in a headline, and includes words such as ‘vaccine shortage’ [82]. When it comes to the vaccine issue, media articles are more likely to explicitly mention or support the mainstream position towards vaccination, than mention a critical argument against vaccination [83].
  • De varkensgriep als dry run voor covid?
    The so-called ‘swine flu pandemic’, which turned out to be more panic than pandemic, featured experts and academics making media appearances, promoting the use of retroviral drugs. It was later found that those who promoted retroviral drugs, were 8 times more likely to have links to industry - via research grants, honorarium payments, advisory roles, employment, board membership, speaker’s fees, etc - than those who did not comment on their use [84]. Yet another avenue of industry influence in the media is via cultivating direct relationships with journalists. Much like doctors, journalists seem to believe they are personally immune from being influenced by relationships with drug companies – despite evidence to the contrary [85].
  • Ook via de sociale media probeert Big Pharma ons te beïnvloeden:
    With the rise and rise of social media, the pharmaceutical industry has another avenue to reach consumers directly, and affect consumer behaviour. Official pages and channels of the major drug companies often have tens, or hundreds of thousands, of followers. Research found that around 40% of drug company posts include content that is consistent with what the FDA defines as ‘help-seeking direct-to-consumer advertising’ – this is where they ‘raise awareness’ about certain illnesses or ailments, without giving any particular remedy, and the end result is that people worried about said ailment, seek out their doctor for help…and hopefully the doctor prescribes their product [86].
  • En Big Pharma heeft een voet tussen de deur bij wetenschappelijke tijdschriften:
    5) Drug companies influence medical journals… The birth of the scientific journal, about 300 years ago, took a hodge-podge assortment of formats and research, and turned them into a uniform system with peer review and measures of quality control [87]. Unlike many other centuries-old inventions, the journal has not only survived, but grown in influence over the years. In 1960, there were 2815 journals published. By 2002, that figure had grown to 22,000 scientific journals, each publishing an average of 154 articles [88]. In 1999, researchers analysed the clinical journals of several leading medical organisations, including the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Clinical Infectious Diseases, and the New England Journal of Medicine.
    They found that the estimated revenue from pharmaceutical advertising ranged from $715,000 to $18 million—a total that they said could place the organisations in a position of dependency. Five organisations raised more than 10% of their gross income from a single journal's pharmaceutical advertising, and four organisations raised as much, or more, from pharmaceutical advertising as from members [89].
    As Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal once said, "your opinion may not be bought, but it seems rude to say critical things about people who have hosted you so well” [90]. Besides that, the evidence says that much of pharmaceutical advertising is misleading, either by overstating the benefits, or minimising adverse effects [91-92]. Many times, the promotional claims are not supported by the references they cite [93].
    Doctors claim they are not influenced by advertising, but that is probably inaccurate [91], and it seems doubtful that pharmaceutical companies would continue doing it, without return on investment. A drug company, however, will always prefer favourable editorial coverage over advertising - it lends credibility. To that end, a medical journal is more useful to a drug company for publishing trials than for advertising. A major randomised trial with favourable results, published in a prestigious journal, is a major win for a drug company, and an essential step in creating a ‘blockbuster’ product [94-95].
    We already mentioned the practice of ‘ghost-writing’ - an informal poll of freelance medical writers by the American Medical Writers Association, found that 80% had written at least one manuscript that didn’t mention their contributions [96]. The industry is aware that readers are sceptical if they know there is pharmaceutical company involvement in the article. Readers reported that they found the research ‘less interesting, important, relevant, valid and believable’ when they thought the authors were employees of a pharmaceutical company [97]. A 2010 review of six major medical journals found that studies funded by industry are cited more often than those funded by other sources - more than twice as often in some journals [98]. The authors suggested that medical journals should also have to disclose funding from industry, in the same way researchers are meant to.
    If industry-funded studies are not only more likely to find favourable results, but are then cited more often than other studies (whose findings may not be so positive), we can clearly see how industry may influence the general perception that a drug or medical intervention is not only well-researched, but widely accepted. At the heart of the scientific process is the concept known as peer review - where an author’s work is subjected to the scrutiny of other experts in the same field, before being published. The public perception is that the peer review process acts like a stop-gap that upholds the integrity of the scientific process, and filters out errors or fraud, but does it really? A systematic review undertaken in 2002, of all the available evidence on peer review at that time, concluded that ‘the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts” [99]. The British Medical Journal decided to test for themselves how reliable the peer-review process is, by inserting major errors into papers before sending to reviewers. Some reviewers didn’t pick up any of the errors, while most picked up only about a quarter. Nobody picked up all the errors [100-101].
    So far, the evidence suggests that the peer review process is “slow, expensive, ineffective, something of a lottery, prone to bias and abuse, and hopeless at spotting errors and fraud” [102].
    In 2009, it was revealed that Merck had paid undisclosed amounts to Elsevier (an academic publishing company), to publish eight compilations of scientific articles under the title Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine [107]. It looked like an independent, peer-reviewed journal, and it was sent out to some 20,000 Australian doctors - with no disclosure that it was entirely funded by Merck. Many of the articles referred positively to Merck's products, such as Vioxx and Fosamax.
  • En dan nog lobbying:
    In 2016, the pharmaceutical/health industry spent $248 million lobbying politicians in the United States [108], almost a third more than the second biggest spending industry - the insurance industry [109].
    The two trade groups representing the industry - Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization - lobbied on approximately 1600 pieces of legislation between 1998 and 2005 [111]. In 2006, before the Gardasil vaccine had even been approved, Merck had begun lobbying and ‘educating’ state politicians in a bid to make the future vaccine mandatory. Within a year of gaining approval, legislation regarding the vaccine was introduced in 41 states, including bills in 24 states that would make the vaccine mandatory for 6th-grade girls [112].
    It might come as a surprise to discover that, in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, the regulatory authorities that oversee vaccine and drug safety, are 100% funded by the industry [132-135]. It’s called a ‘cost recovery’ model, so that governments don’t have to fund the agency, but instead, forces the agencies to operate like a business.
    The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) also benefits from vaccines via licensing agreements [137-138]. Can an agency that benefits financially from a product, be trusted to make unbiased recommendations?
    A House of Representatives Government Reform Committee which looked into conflicts of interest in the FDA and CDC, following the withdrawal of the Rotashield vaccine, just months after it hit the market, concluded: "The Committee’s investigation has determined that conflict of interest rules employed by the FDA and CDC have been weak, enforcement has been lax, and committee members with substantial ties to the pharmaceutical companies have been given waivers to participate in committee meetings” [139].
    Britain, it would seem, suffers from the same vested interests. When the UK rolled out the Meningitis C program for infants in 2000, it was discovered that four members on its advisory panel had financial ties to the companies who make meningitis C vaccines [148]. Not only are regulatory agencies in the US, UK, Australia and Canada funded by industry, they also rely on industry to conduct the trials, provide the safety data, and notify them of any issues that may arise post-licensure. The agencies themselves do not conduct clinical trials [149-152]. In an ideal world, such a situation would not pose a problem. But what about when we are dealing with an industry that has a history of behaving as a law unto themselves? According to Transparency International, up to $300 million global health expenditure is lost every year to corruption and errors. Tactics include paying doctors to participate in surveys of medicines they have never actually prescribed, and companies secretly ghost-writing clinical trials research before passing it off as the work of impartial academics. Bribery and corruption, the report says, also allow some companies to get around manufacturing regulations, helping to create a situation where about a quarter of medicines consumed in low and middle-income countries are falsified or sub-standard
    2010: Council of Europe hearings into the World Health Organization’s handling of the swine flu outbreak. The inquiry hears that pharmaceutical companies pressured the World Health Organization into changing criteria so that the swine flu outbreak qualified as a ‘pandemic’. Allegedly, this was so that pharmaceutical companies could recoup the costs incurred by research and development of new vaccines after the avian influenza scare of 2006. The decision led to millions of people being vaccinated against what turned out to be a mild illness [156].
    In the last decade, the number of clinical trials funded by the pharmaceutical industry has increased by more than 40%, while government-funded trials have decreased [3]. Almost 75% of U.S. clinical trials in medicine are now funded by the pharmaceutical industry [4]. Naturally, the industry has a huge financial stake in the outcome of these clinical trials - a phase III clinical trial may enrol 1000 - 5000 people over many years, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars to complete. Average cost per trial participant is around $36,000 [5].
  • Meer over hoe Big Pharma de onderzoeksresultaten in hun voordeel proberen om te buigen:
    1) By choosing participants most likely to give the desired results. According to Wikipedia: "Selection bias is the bias introduced by the selection of individuals, groups or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby ensuring that the sample obtained is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect" [6]. Basically, what it means is that you can skew the results in the direction you desire, by choosing, or excluding certain participants from your study. 
    The problem is that the results of those clinical trials are extrapolated, and assumed to apply to the rest of the population, which includes those with history of allergies, history of seizure disorders, immunosuppressed, blood disorders and recent illnesses.
    2) By following up for inadequate time periods. Vaccines can cause adverse reactions in two ways - either via direct action on the tissues and organs by a component of the vaccines (such as aluminium), or via the body's own inflammatory response to the vaccine, and this can be either immediate and acute (Type I hypersensitivity), or later, and more chronic (Type III hypersensitivity).
    Given that antibodies can take 2 - 4 weeks to reach peak levels on first exposure, and 3 - 10 days on subsequent exposures, one would expect that many adverse reactions (perhaps even the majority), would not become noticeable until those time-frames following vaccination.
    And yet, so many safety studies do not even extend to capture side-effects during those time-frames. Take, for example, the safety studies found on the insert for Infanrix Hexa, a 6-in-1 vaccine recommended for children aged 6 weeks, 4 months, 6 months, and again at 4 years of age in Australia (and other countries).
    3) By comparing one vaccine with another vaccine, or a combination of vaccines against another combination of vaccines, instead of comparing a vaccine with a placebo saline injection. To illustrate this point, I went to pubmed and typed in "safety immunogenicity vaccine". The following is a random sample of the search results. - "Immunogenicity and safety of an E. coli-produced bivalent human papillomavirus (type 16 and 18) vaccine: A randomized controlled phase 2 clinical trial." (Compared a human papillomavirus vaccine with a Hepatitis B vaccine as the ‘control’) [11]. - "Immunogenicity and safety of a quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine compared with two trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines containing alternate B strains in adults: A phase 3, randomized noninferiority study." (Compared an influenza vaccine with other influenza vaccines) [12]. - "The Immunogenicity and Safety of a Combined DTaP-IPV//Hib Vaccine Compared with Individual DtaP-IPV and Hib (PRP~T) Vaccines: a Randomized Clinical Trial in South Korean Infants." (Compares a combined vaccine with individual vaccines) [13]. - "Immunogenicity and safety of a CRM-conjugated meningococcal ACWY vaccine administered concomitantly with routine vaccines starting at 2 months of age." (Studied a meningococcal vaccine, administered at same time as other vaccines) [14]. - "Safety and immunogenicity of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in infants: a meta-analysis." 
    4) Use an unsuitable placebo, or simply fail to disclose what placebo was used. The Collins Dictionary defines placebo as “an inactive substance or other sham form of therapy administered to a patient usually to compare its effects with those of a real drug or treatment, but sometimes for the psychological benefit to the patient through his believing he is receiving treatment” [16]. It seems rather odd then, that some scientists would consider an aluminium injection to constitute ‘an inactive substance’, suitable for use as a control in medical research. This is precisely what happened in the Phase 3 trial for Gardasil - the ‘placebo’ contained adjuvant, which happened to be aluminium hydroxide [17].
    5) Dismiss adverse reactions as not being related to the vaccine in question. Consider the following examples: Safety study on influenza vaccine - funded, conducted and reported by GlaxoSmithKline, which actually used a saline placebo control group [21]: "Nine participants reported 17 serious adverse events; none were considered causally related to vaccination." No reasons are given as to how or why this conclusion was reached. Note that this study only allowed healthy adults to take part, following medical history and physical examination. Anybody with prior or familial history of narcolepsy or sleep disorders was excluded. Anybody with prior history of known or suspected allergy was excluded. Anybody with a history of cancer within previous three years was excluded. Anybody with a previous history of neurological or psychiatric disorders was excluded. Anybody with previous history of Guillain-Barre syndrome following influenza vaccine in the past was excluded. Anybody whose screening blood tests did not fall within normal range was excluded. Pregnant women were excluded [22].
    6) ‘Cherry-picking’ the data.
    (Favoriete bezigheid van de virologen tegenwoordig). A meta-analysis looks at data from multiple studies, and are used as part of systematic review. Naturally, these are useful and important in the interpretation of data, and hold a lot of weight for scientific advisory and review committees.
    7) Cut the study short if it doesn’t provide favourable outcomes.
    8) Relying on assumptions. When you hear that a vaccine is ‘95% effective’, what it often means is that 95% of people in clinical trials developed the required measure of antibodies. It’s called immunogenicity. Unfortunately, as we have already seen, immunogenicity does not necessarily equate to immunity.

    A closer investigation reveals that, surprisingly, assumptions and beliefs are widespread in the field of vaccinology. For example, this startling admission came from a 2002 FDA workshop on non-clinical safety of vaccines [33]: “Historically, the non-clinical safety assessment for preventative vaccines has often not included toxicity studies in animal models. This is because vaccines have not been viewed as inherently toxic” (my emphasis).
    And this, from the World Health Organization (WHO) special committee on the Safety of Vaccines, in 2005 [34]: “The Committee considered the safety of adjuvants used in vaccines. This hitherto neglected subject is becoming increasingly important given modern advances in vaccine development and manufacture”. At that point, adjuvants had been used for some 90 years, injected into millions of people, yet it had received little scientific scrutiny.
    9) Fail to publish unfavourable results. Failing all that, a drug company may simply decide not to publish unfavourable trial results, even though doing so is considered to be scientific malpractice [38]. Research reveals that, less than half of government-funded clinical trial results are published in peer-reviewed medical journals within 30 months of trial completion [39]. One pharmaceutical company managed to suppress trial results for seven years, when they revealed that the drug in question was no more effective than cheaper generic formulations [40].
    Drug companies withholding trial data cost governments around the world an estimated $20 billion, when they made the decision to purchase and stock-pile supplies of Tamiflu, which turned out to be based on ‘slim and skewed representation of the total evidence base’ [41]. In other words, the company - Roche - had neglected to publish or share data that would have raised serious concerns about their product.
    10) Fail to consider those who discontinue the study Those who discontinue the study due to side effects are often not included in the end results. How might this affect the end results? In one vaccine trial, as many as 20% of participants failed to complete the trial [43].
  • Nog meer geknoei:
    Dosage: The dose can be manipulated in order to give the desired results. For example, a competitor drug may be given at less-than-optimal dosage, to make the studied drug look more effective. Or the competitor drug may be given at higher-than-optimal dosages, to make the studied drug look safer. v) Economic evaluations: These can be easy to manipulate, because they are too complex for the average journal editor or reader to fully understand.
  • Vaccinatie en kinderen: een goede zaak? Neen!
    In the 1980’s, Peter Aaby, a Danish doctor and anthropologist, head of the Bandim Health Project in Guinea- Bissau, West Africa, realized that vaccines had effects that went beyond the disease being vaccinated against. When DTP and oral polio vaccines were introduced for children aged 6 – 35 months in 1981, they noted during weigh-in sessions, that vaccinated children had significantly better weight-for-age scores than unvaccinated. They fully expected that this would translate into better health outcomes in vaccinated children. To their surprise, what they found was that, over time, the vaccinated children had double the mortality of unvaccinated children [102]. Given that many of the unvaccinated children had received no vaccines because nurses and mothers had deemed them too sick or weak, it’s likely that the negative effects of DTP vaccine were even greater. It wasn’t just the DTP vaccine, either. In 1989, the World Health Organization recommended vaccination of babies under 9mths, in measles-endemic areas, with a new, high-titer measles vaccine. Reports of increased mortality in females came from Guinea-Bissau, Senegal and Haiti, forcing the WHO to rescind their recommendations in 1992 [103].
    Even so, their results showed that despite unvaccinated children having higher incidence of ‘vaccinepreventable’ diseases, vaccinated children had more infections overall, which emphasises the information provided in this book, regarding the effects of vaccination on the immune system.
  • Waarom horen we zo weinig over de gevolgen van vaccines? Omdat deze onder de mat worden geveegd! Maar er zijn gelukkige mensen die wel hun job doen.
    A German homeopath started a website on vaccine injuries, after hearing numerous personal accounts of adverse reactions following vaccines. At the request of his readers, he began collecting data on unvaccinated children, and comparing it with Kiggs and other data. So far, more than 11,000 unvaccinated children from all parts of the globe have been surveyed, and the project is still ongoing [110] Compared with the unvaccinated children surveyed, the average rate in the highly-vaccinated paediatric population is: - 10 times more epilepsy/seizures - Almost 20 times more autoimmune disorders. - More than 10 times the rate of scoliosis. - More than double the incidence of allergies. - More than 3 times as much hayfever. - More than 15 times the rate of sinusitis. - More than 7 times the rate of asthma or chronic bronchitis. - 10 times more middle-ear infections. - More than 3 times the rate of hyperactivity. - More than double the rate of autism.
    For example, research published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases in 1988 found that one-year-old infants, vaccinated with measles vaccine, experienced a significant decrease in the level of alpha-interferon produced by lymphocytes. This marked reduction was still evident when the study ended a year later [1]. Researchers concluded that "the study showed that the measles vaccine produced a significant, long-term immune suppression". Interferons are a group of signalling proteins that belong to a class of immune cells known as cytokines. These molecules communicate between cells to co-ordinate immune responses that help to expel pathogens and interfere with viral replication. Interestingly enough, interferon therapy is now being used as a cancer treatment [2]. A study from 1996, also using the measles vaccine, found that vaccination decreased production of lymphocytes, with the most marked decreases found in children with the highest antibody counts.
  • Vaccins onderdrukken het immuunsysteem en verhogen dus de kans op ziektes:
    In 1984, researchers tested levels of T-lymphocytes in 11 healthy adults, before and after vaccination with a tetanus booster and found a significant, though temporary, drop in T-helper lymphocytes in all subjects. In four of the subjects, T-helper cells fell to levels found in active AIDS patients [5].
    There were a number of studies during the 1980's and 1990's, showing the immunosuppressive action of vaccines [6-8], which have since been largely forgotten, in the increasingly hostile climate of vaccine mandates, and disease fears.
    There have been numerous reports in the medical literature of vaccination making people more susceptible to other illnesses not covered by the vaccine. i) Annual influenza vaccinations have been shown to increase risk (by more than 4-fold) of non-influenza respiratory virus infections, such as coxsackievirus or rhinovirus [9]. ii) Annual influenza vaccination has also been shown to reduce immunity against potentially pandemic strains of influenza [10]. iii) MMR vaccine has been found to increase incidence of aseptic meningitis [11-13]. iv) Widespread vaccination against chickenpox (varicella zoster) is expected to cause an epidemic of shingles (herpes zoster) over the coming years [14], thought to be due to less exposure during adulthood to boost cellmediated immunity. Goldman and King [15] concluded that "When the costs of the booster dose for varicella and the increased shingles recurrences are included, the universal varicella vaccination program is neither effective nor cost-effective."
  • Toch stelt men altijd maar één oplossing voor: meer vaccinatie!
    No, the solution always seems to be more vaccines. Predictably enough, while admitting that Hib vaccination had caused a strain shift, and that non-type B strains were a cause of serious mortality and morbidity, these researchers proposed that a new bivalent (two-strain) vaccine might offer protection against both A and B strains [47]. The meningococcal C vaccine was introduced into the Australian schedule in 2003, and there are now clues that a strain shift is taking place [48]. One wonders why the powers-that-be felt it necessary to add the meningococcal vaccine to an already over-crowded schedule, for a disease that, although serious, was ‘rare’, and was already declining - probably due to less smoking, and less overcrowding [49].
  • Luister naar uw grootouders:
    Several decades ago, many mothers welcomed the onset of common childhood diseases [52], such as measles and chickenpox, knowing they were usually mild, and often preceded a quantum leap in development of the child. Indeed, the evidence shows that naturally-acquired childhood diseases provide life-long benefits to the child. These include: i) Proper development of T-cell mediated immunity [53]. ii) Protection against development of asthma [54-55]. iii) Protection against some neurodegenerative diseases [56]. iv) Protection against ovarian cancer [57-58]. v) Protection against glioblastoma multiforme (the most common and most aggressive type of primary brain tumour in humans) [59]. vi) Protection against influenza pandemics [60].
    In 1973, the British Medical Journal published a case study, describing remission of infantile Hodgkin’s disease after natural measles infection [61]. The 23-month-old child developed measles, before radiotherapy could be started, and the researchers noted, “much to our surprise, the large cervical mass vanished without further therapy”.
    In fact, vaccine-strain measles is currently being investigated as a potential treatment for cancer, with early results deemed as ‘promising’, with open trials still being conducted [62]. Earlier research stated that attenuated live measles virus demonstrated “propensity to preferentially infect, propagate in, and destroy cancerous tissue” [63].
    Unfortunately, there's some other evidence that they completely overlooked… i) Paracetamol reduces the body's ability to detoxify vaccine ingredients, due to depletion of glutathione - the body's most important endogenous (produced in the body) antioxidant [80-86]. ii) Paracetamol use is linked to autism spectrum disorder [87-91]. iii) Paracetamol disrupts hormones, especially in males [92-93], which in turn, affects behaviour and neurodevelopment [94-95].
    Idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura: is a bleeding disorder that results in low platelet count, and can manifest as easy, or severe, bruising, nosebleeds, and possibly bleeding on the brain (all of which sound similar to ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’). This disorder is very rare in small children, but there is increased risk in older children, above the age of seven, after receiving vaccines - most notably, hepatitis A, chickenpox and combined diptheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines [119-120]. Neutropenia: involves abnormally low levels of neutrophils, a type of white blood cell that is important for fighting infection, particularly bacterial infection [121]. In a small clinical trial of a genetically-engineered dengue virus vaccine, almost half of vaccinees developed neutropenia following the first dose, 22% of those were classified as severe, and 13% as moderate. Following the second dose, 9% of vaccinees developed neutropenia, but all cases were considered to be mild [122]. Vasculitis: is caused by inflammation and damage to the blood vessels, and the symptoms depend on the location of the blood vessels in question, but may involve skin, eyes, brain or other internal organs. Vasculitis in general, along with specific forms of vasculitis have been linked to vaccinations [123-124]. The specific forms of vasculitis reported following vaccination include Henoch-Schonlein purpura [125], Kawasaki Disease [126], and polyarteritis nodosa [127]. Kawasaki disease is most common in children under 5 years of age, with symptoms including rash, fever, swelling of the hands and feet, swelling of lymph glands in the neck, and inflammation of the mouth, lips and throat. Serious complications can involve heart problems [128]. It was first described in Japan in 1967, and the incidence has been rising over the past few decades [128-129]. The peak incidence occurs at one year of age. In 2010, a thirteen-strain pneumococcal vaccine replaced the seven-strain vaccine for use in children. Studies revealed that the incidence of Kawasaki disease within 28 days of vaccination with the new thirteenstrain vaccine was almost double that of the original seven-strain vaccine [130]. Trials of the current rotavirus vaccine showed a five-fold increase in Kawasaki disease compared to placebo [131]. 
  • Ipv. geld te verspillen aan vaccins zou men het geld beter ergens anders aan besteden (al zal Bill Gates daar niet wakker van liggen):
    Would the billions of dollars spent on vaccine programs to Africa, and other undeveloped parts of the world, be better spent ensuring a nutritious food supply, clean water and sanitation, first? Take Rwanda, for example. According to UNICEF statistics, Rwanda has 98%-99% vaccination coverage for polio, Hib, diphtheria-tetanuspertussis… yet 44% of children are stunted due to malnutrition. Eighty-five percent of babies are vaccinated for tetanus…but only 61% have access to proper sanitation [1].
    Despite the lack of clean water and sanitation faced by millions of Rwandans, Merck saw fit to donate enough free HPV vaccines to vaccinate 95% of the nation's 11-year-old girls. The freebies ran out after three years, at which time Merck offered the vaccine to the Rwandan government at ‘discount prices’. Such donations can have the effect of locking governments into programmes, which they later have to fund themselves, at the expense of more pressing issues, and may be more about ‘priming the market’ than charity, on the part of the drug company [2]. The GAVI Alliance (The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation) was created in 2000 "to improve access to new and underused vaccines for children living in the world’s poorest countries" [3]. GAVI is an international partnership between public entities, such as the World Health Organization, and private sector, such as pharmaceutical companies. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a founding partner of GAVI, have donated USD 4.1 billion, to date [4]. Any country with a GNP of less than US$1000 per capita is eligible to apply for GAVI support, which represents roughly half the world's population [5]. Global vaccine initiatives such as these, were credited with slashing the measles death rate in Africa by a whopping 91%. The news of this outstanding success was splashed across media headlines around the world [6], but a further look into the actual data reveals little proof for these sensational claims [7]. The figures are not based on actual reports, but rather, mathematical modelling, which is based upon how many people got vaccinated, how ‘effective’ the vaccine is (remember that this figure is based apon ability to induce antibodies, which doesn't necessarily equal real-world protection), and based on the assumption of what would happen if they hadn't got the vaccine [7]. Even the World Health Organization saw the pitfalls in such an approach, and belatedly attempted to apply some caution [8], saying "the assessment of a recent change in measles mortality from vaccination is mostly based on statistics predicted from a set of covariates such as the number of live births, vaccine coverage, vaccine effectiveness and case-fatality ratios. It is understandable that estimating causes of death over time is a difficult task. However, that is no reason for us to avoid measuring it when we can also measure the quantity of interest directly; otherwise the global health community would continue to monitor progress on a spreadsheet with limited empirical basis. This is simply not acceptable." One wonders how all those measles deaths in the past were even verified? Without access to laboratory testing, how did they ever ascertain whether it was actually measles…or one of numerous other infections that manifest similar symptoms?
    In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 cases of Non-Polio Accute Flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) in India, with cases manifesting in direct proportion to doses of oral polio vaccine received [11]. NPAFP is clinically indistinguishable from polio, but twice as deadly. Although these cases were reported on, via the polio surveillance system, they were not investigated. Tens of thousands of vaccine recipients were paralysed…and nobody investigated? Five deaths following a new pentavalent vaccine in Sri Lanka did get investigated, by the World Health Organization. The investigators felt that three of the deaths may have been linked to the vaccine, however, the World Health Organization revised their classifications soon after, so that deaths seen during postmarketing surveillance can no longer be classified as "consistent with causal association with vaccine" [12]. Vietnam suspended use of the same pentavalent vaccine in 2013, after it was linked to 6 deaths. The WHO used the revised classifications, and concluded that "no fatal adverse event following immunisation (AEFI) has ever been associated with this vaccine" [12]. It seems as though vaccine programs must be implemented at all cost in undeveloped countries. If the citizens are reluctant to comply, other methods are employed. In a bid to persuade reluctant villagers to have their children vaccinated for polio, the Indian government and UNICEF co-opted religious leaders to promote the vaccine. Islamic leaders gave speeches before Friday prayer services, using quotes from the Koran, to encourage fellow worshippers to accept vaccines. Newspaper columns were prepared and signed off by religious leaders, who also conducted radio question-and-answer sessions [13].
  • Ironisch: hoger opgeleiden laten zich minder vaak vaccineren dan minderopgeleiden en armen:
    In 2007, Kim, et al, analysed vaccination records of 11,680 children from 19 – 35 months of age, to evaluate maternal characteristics that might influence whether the child was fully vaccinated, or not. They found that mothers with tertiary degrees and high incomes, were the least likely to fully vaccinate their children, while mothers in poor minority families, without high school diplomas, were most likely to fully vaccinate their children [36]. Similarly, a study in 2008 that investigated the attitudes and beliefs of parents who decided to opt out of childhood vaccine mandates, found that they valued scientific knowledge, were adept at collecting and processing information on vaccines, and had little trust in the medical community [37].
    In 2017, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare released their latest figures on vaccination rates. The national average was 93% of children fully vaccinated, yet in Sydney's upmarket (ie. Populated by highly educated, high income-earning professionals) inner suburbs and northern beaches, as few as 70% of children under 5 were fully vaccinated [38].
    The same story was repeated in Melbourne, with the wealthiest - and by association, better educated - suburbs having the lowest vaccination rates. There was an ironic, and rather telling, opening paragraph in The Age, when reporting these figures: "Four of the wealthiest, healthiest suburbs of Melbourne have the worst child vaccination rates in the state” [39] Statistics gathered from Canada tell a similar story - a higher percentage of anti-vaxxers held a university degree, compared to the national average [41].
  • Het vertrouwen in vaccins neemt intussen af (ondanks alle verwoede en allesomvattende pogingen van Big Pharma zie hierboven):
    Vaccine confidence has also significantly decreased in the Czech Republic, Finland and Sweden. In Ireland and Denmark, HPV vaccination rates have dropped to less than half, following widespread safety concerns, and coverage of adverse events [46].
  • Maar men geeft niet op: er wordt zelfs gewerkt aan een vaccin tegen stress (wat is er mis met wandelen?):
    Other scientists are working towards a vaccine for stress [17]. And Associate Professor Martin Moore, at Emory University is in the process of developing a vaccine for the common cold, stressing how inconvenient it is for parents to look after children suffering from a cold, and how dangerous colds can be for those with asthma, or compromised immune systems. There are 160 strains of viruses believed to be responsible for cold symptoms, and the vaccine would include 50 strains [18].
  • Maar het laatste verschrikkelijke idee is natuurlijk DNA-vaccins (de covid-vaccins van Moderna en Pfizer gebruiken een variatie van deze techniek: mRNA):
    How do DNA vaccines work? Basically, in plain English, the vaccine contains DNA codes for specific antigens. The DNA is injected into the host's cells, which then manufactures the antigen, that is then recognized as foreign by the immune system, and mounts a response [22].
    What could possibly go wrong here? If the host's own cells are co-opted into manufacturing the antigen that stimulates the immune response, what is to stop the immune system from attacking host cells or even our very own DNA? It also raises the question, if the DNA plasmid encodes itself into the host DNA, how will the cell know when to stop manufacturing the antigen?
    DNA vaccination of mice resulted in a three-fold increase of anti-DNA auto-antibodies, but did not affect the onset or severity of disease in lupus-prone mice. Incredibly, researchers concluded from this, that DNA vaccination is "not associated with induction of unsafe autoimmune sequelae" [23].