Do Vaccines Really Protect?
"I rebel against mass medication that puts the sick at the mercy of the commercial interests of the big pharmaceuticals and the murderous interests of vaccine manufacturers." Pie X11
There are many who believe that most epidemics have disappeared because of vaccination and who refuse to question the efficacy of this practice. Yet certain epidemic diseases that ravaged our country have disappeared without any vaccination and the pro-vaccine seem to ignore this fact. Moreover, the plague ran rampant for centuries across the world, yet has vanished without vaccination. Leprosy, which is still endemic in some countries, no longer ravages as in the past and great epidemics of it are no more despite the absence of any leprosy vaccine.
Generally speaking, the decline in a disease has always preceded the vaccine for it. And if the disappearance of epidemics is primarily due to vaccines, the diseases in question should have continued to prosper in areas that did not vaccinate or that abandoned vaccination, whereas epidemiological history demonstrates the opposite. In any event, the international scientific press attests to the fact that epidemics still occur in countries where immunisation is almost total.
In 1348 the black plague killed vast numbers in France and the cholera spread terror during several centuries in our country, yet both disappeared entirely without vaccination. It is perfectly possible that if vaccines had existed for them at the time, and been compulsory, they would have received the credit for eliminating these diseases. But clearly we must assign it to other factors. Since 1949, when compulsory vaccination was abandoned in Britain, the UK has demonstrably shown that dropping compulsion has not entailed a return of epidemics, which runs counter to the argument invoked by those who support continued vaccination.
During almost 50 years the countries of the West have systematically vaccinated, covering virtually their entire populations but, curiously, it is in these countries that diphtheria and polio have reappeared. Hence we must wonder if the vaccines have been as effective as claimed and if the strains used for them have changed, for we are seeing the re-emergence of more aggressive pathologies than those we thought to have been mastered. This phenomenon can be compared to the widespread use of insecticides with the appearance of more dangerous insects, along with the use of herbicides and associated increase in resistant plants.
The inefficacy of some vaccines is sometimes admitted by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. Thus the manufacturer of a hepatitis-B vaccine, SmithKline Beecham: This vaccine, obligatory for at-risk groups, merits being used more widely, particularly for the young since it seems that, in the USA, vaccination of those at risk had no effect on incidence of the disease there. (In Le Concours Médical, Vol 15, No 4, 1993).
Statements like these are particularly instructive in revealing the strategy of the pharmaceutical lobby and of certain public authorities. In this instance we have a pharmaceutical company admitting the failure of its vaccine, yet recommending a vaccine that has had no impact on the disease.
A similar view is taken in Le Concours Médical, No 8, 1993 (Vol 115) by Dr. C. Sicot, with other doctors, under the title, Medico-Surgical Consultations: If we look at the experience of the USA, the overall incidence of acute hepatitis B since vaccination for it began has not diminished but has increased from 55 to 63 per 100000 between 1981 and 1987. This disappointing result is not, however, unexpected: coverage of high-risks groups remains unsatisfactory. Zero times zero always gives zero.
It seems that the medical corps goes so far out of its way to avoid understanding why there is recrudescence of the disease after vaccination that it cannot admit that it may even be propagating the disease. On the contrary, it prescribes hepatitis-B jabs for everyone. So we can be sure that this infection will spread, if we are to believe these recent observations. And how can we not attach importance to them when they come down to us from such high places?
It is often noted that a recently vaccinated individual falls victim to the disease in question. Some observers decline to see these accidents as anything more than unfortunate coincidences; others, perhaps wiser and distinctly more curious, think of cause and effect and the dangers associated with injecting microbes and toxins into a healthy organism and thereby making it less resistant because of vaccine stress.
Partisans of vaccination rely on specific arguments to support the efficacy of their method. One such argument amounts to little more than It works! Then they bring out the statistics. But efficacy is very relative and can´t be verified simply by figures, which are often incomplete, approximate or just manipulated.
Moreover, disappearance of a disease after vaccination is invariably treated as scientific proof of efficacy whereas it is nothing of the sort.
Again, antibody level after injection is often the argument and the protection level declared is quite arbitrary. Clearly, any antigen will produce a reaction and, more often than not, the immune system indicates its response in the form of antibodies. But their presence does not prove that they will protect, i. e. immunise. They are merely evidence of aggression, like discoloration after a blow, or they simply indicate infection, as lighted windows show that the house is occupied.
We know now that, in some instances, antibodies play an inverse role: instead of protecting, as assumed, they assist the disease they act as facilitators. Moreover, the antibodies´ regulatory mechanisms may sometimes go into overdrive, the result being antibody-antigens or complex immunes, which are not destroyed but remain in the body. They can give rise to serious problems such as glomerulonephritis.
Duration of activity of induced antibodies is always shorter than that of natural antibodies, which suggests that vaccination activates very different mechanisms from those of the natural process. How does one determine, other than arbitrarily, what the neutralising antibody level is? Of course, vaccines are lauded to the skies if the infection under assault does not develop in the vaccinated, or at least not in the usual form.
Vaccines can provoke a sub-acute phase of the disease, which can appear gradually in more disconcerting forms. What then is the vaccine´s efficacy?
A Vaccine Can Pave The Way
A vaccine is intended to hinder the disease but it can pave the way for other ailments when there is weakening of the terrain, which can then be attacked by germs that proliferate and become virulent. Mirko D Grmek, Professor, History of Medicine at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes, has called this phenomenon pathocenosis, in relation to the appearance and disappearance of epidemics. (Mirko D Grmek, Histoire du SIDA, Payot, 1989, p. 261). Thus smallpox vaccine reinforced Koch bacilli, which helps to explain the widespread TB of the 19th century. Diphtheria vaccination, coupled with whooping-cough vaccination, made the polio virus virulent, hence the epidemics after several years of diphtheria immunisation. Polio vaccination, coupled with other, routine vaccinations, contributed to overload of the immune system and evolution of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. (Refer also to Dr. Jean Pilette´s La Poliomyélite: quel vaccin? quel risque? L'Aronde, 1997)
For Other Ailments
Hepatitis-B jabs complement the damage done by the others by attacking the nervous system and provoking auto-immune problems that pave the way to premature ageing.
Withdrawing smallpox vaccination led to a reduction spectacular in the 80s in incidence of TB. And, where scarlet fever rampant in the 19th century is concerned, this gave way to measles and diphtheria.
Vaccines, and even antibiotics, reduce natural resistance, with the associated effects tending to cancerisation. When it is argued that an individual does not develop a disease because he has been vaccinated and therefore immunised, the reality is that he has lost the vitality to react. Chronic illness can intervene where energy level is low, where the organism cannot respond vigorously because its vitality has been sapped from within.
According to Harris Coulter in Vaccination: Social Violence and Criminality (North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, 1980), any vaccination can trigger encephalitis, slight or severe, accompanied by demyelination, which hinders normal development of the brain with consequent pathological effects leading to handicaps and behavioural problems. In the USA one in five infants have suffered these effects.
Any demyelination can be directly attributed to vaccination, for research has revealed similarities between the make-up of vaccines and the protein structure of myelin. (In Science, Vol 29, 19 July 1985).
This discovery explains the appearance of auto-immune symptoms after immunisation procedures. The immune system confuses antigen with myelin and attacks the latter, hence some of the diseases that become so debilitating over time.
Immunologists are embarrassed by outbreaks of measles, polio, etc in vaccinated populations. In Medical Practice (No 467) Professor Lépine states: In several developing countries it is thought that a single vaccination campaign will resolve the problem. But we now see in some of these countries that the frequency of the disease has almost quintupled since vaccination.
Peter Deusberg, Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology at Berkeley University, puts another view: The credit is due to plumbers and farmers! Thanks to them we have better hygiene and nutrition. With good nutrition comes sound immune defences and we are no longer prey to these infections. (AIDS From Drug Addiction and Other Factors of Non-Infectious Risk, in Pharmaceutical Therapy, Vo 55, Berkeley, 1992).
Hygiene and Disinfection
Hygiene is the important thing. We owe a great deal more to Préfect Poubelle and to bleach than to Pasteur and vaccines. When it was discovered that cholera and typhus were transmitted by water contaminated with fscal matter a radical approach to water supply, coupled with purification, brought an end to epidemics of these diseases without recourse to vaccination.
Curiously, the medical corps was not entirely receptive to hygiene and disinfection. We need only mention the difficulties encountered by Dr. Semelweiss in Vienna: he wanted doctors to wash their hands in a chlorinated solution before delivering babies: a measure that would have reduced deaths from puerperal fever almost to zero. But he was laughed at and died insane. He would have been forgotten had not Dr. Louis-Ferdinand Celine come to his rescue by way of a book on his life.
The Dayton Times, 28 May 1993, published details from a study by the Department of Health which showed that half the victims of whooping cough in 1987 and 1991 in Ohio state had been vaccinated against it according to their medical records. It also disclosed for the same state that 72 per cent (2720 cases) of victims of measles two years earlier had received the measles vaccine.
Doctors rarely concern themselves with thorough follow-up, being conditioned to see vaccines as effective and inoffensive. Inevitably, therefore, they tend to assign the disease to other factors.
Professor Tara Shirakawa, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, has published the results of a study in Japan on 867 infants who received BCG vaccine and had tuberculin tests. Thirty-six per cent developed allergies, including asthma. The number of TB cases in the province under review appeared not to increase but, by contrast, the incidence of severe allergy clearly did. (Science, Vol 275, 3 Jan 1997.)
What was feared by an editor in the Petit Journal, 19 September 1888, and indicated by Dr. Xavier Raspail, son of François Raspail, chemist and politician, in Raspail et Pasteur, seems about be realised: If these hazardous inoculations contemplated by M. Pasteur are introduced generally, many people will eventually be transformed, tattooed from head to foot by the so-called protective jabs like a sewage collector of multicoloured vaccines.
Dr. Raspail enquires: Are we not poisoning humanity in small doses? It is diabolical that we are inflicting all these infections that have assaulted human beings at one time or another. It is stupefying this arrogant introduction into the blood of a cocktail of germs when for the slightest surgical operation we wage unremitting war against them.
Vaccinations and the Third World
Mass vaccinations in the third world have not reduced infant mortality. In effect, they have deprived these countries of basic nutritional requirements and clean water supplies. In his La Recherche Contre le Tiers-Monde (Editions PUF, 1993), Dr. Mohamed Bouguerra of the Tunis Faculty of Science and Associate Director of Research at CNRS, criticises the corruption and machinations of multinational pharmaceutical companies and proclaims the benefits of clean water supply, hygiene and adequate nourishment.
But he notes that these remedies do not generate profits for those enterprises: You would think a multinational pharmaceutical´s first response would be for the benefit of mankind, to ease suffering. Wrong. The sole aim is profit. When flu stuck India one of the multis increased the price of vitamin C instead of reducing it. It is about time we punctured the spurious proclamations of the multinational pharmaceutical firms. We are all involved. Research should not be at the mercy of profit. I believe that intelligent men should fight against such taking this route.
Risks of Vaccination
"In the past, tyranny resided in the egotism of princes at the expense of the multitude.
Today it is seen in the degradation and enslavement of the individual in the name of collectivity." Dr. Joseph Roy
We make much of the dangers of infectious diseases nowadays. We dramatise their consequences but make little or no reference to the potentially unfortunate effects of vaccines. A vaccine is an infectious agent that must be virulent to some degree to be active and everything depends on this virulence and the subject´s powers of resistance, a factor that receives only cursory attention at the time. In any event, each vaccine represents an assault on the immune system, and there are long-term consequences to think about since a virus can recover its pathogenicity.
The deleterious effects of vaccines are almost a taboo subject for many doctors, no doubt because of the range of side effects observed.
When they say that no adverse reactions have been seen, that does not mean that there have been none but that no study has been carried out or published. Such reactions are often out of the ordinary. Deterioration in the vaccinated can be difficult to evaluate and, in any event, adverse reactions are not necessarily reported loud and long. In fact, that is the last thing wanted since it might make the public inimical to vaccination.
In the British Medical Journal, 17 July 1971, Professor G. Dick, Middlesex Hospital Immunologist, reflected that: Few doctors are willing to attribute a death or complication to a method that they have recommended and believe in.
In Les Vaccinations, Prévention ou Aggression, (Vivez Soleil, 1995, 1995), Dr. Marie-Thércse Quentin tells us: At the Congress of the American Pcdiatric Academy in 1982 it was proposed by certain doctors that parents should be alerted to the dangers of vaccinations but it would seem that parents were considered incompetent in this respect the resolution was not carried.
In his Dictionnaire de la Médecine Ecologique (Le Rocher, 1995), Dr. Joseph Levy enumerates various factors predisposing to onset of multiple sclerosis. He cites, among others, vaccine and serums that ... probably play a part. According to the noted immunologist, Professor A. Good, the use of animal vaccines and serums provokes the transformation of human and animal lymphocytes. Such lymphocytes attack human cells as though they were foreign cells to be eliminated.
Isabelle Robard, a barrister specialising in medical cases, notes that In 1991 the Ministry of Health put the risk of post-vaccination encephalitis from smallpox at one in 400,000 whilst in the CEE member states the estimated risk is one in 10,000. The Ministry did not take account of consequences that led to court cases. (La Santé assassinée, Isabelle Robard, Ancre 1992). The disparity here illustrates all too well how figures can be manipulated.
Besides, every time that the Minister is attacked in connection with post-vaccination accidents, he cites the absence of a direct link between the vaccination and the reaction, finds in favour of the plaintiff and the state neglects to compensate the victims, who are often in dire straits. Hence more stages in the process of litigation and so complainants often withdraw from the seemingly interminable, and onerous, procedure, with the effect that the official number of victims is reduced, and particularly where a victim withdraws by dying. How many parents would relive a nightmare through a long legal process at the end of which they receive a sum that, in relation to the life of their child, is an insult?
It is, of course, very difficult to demonstrate cause and effect, and it is for the victims to provide the proof. Thus the authorities refuse to record as vaccine reactions what are then treated as unfortunate accidents. For want of the kind of evidence that would support going to law a large number of vaccine complications are not reported officially.
In Vous et Votre Sante, (Special Issue No 4, 1995) Dr. Marie-Benedicte Hibon explains: An infant´s immune system matures slowly, from the appearance in the embryo of the first marrow cells up to the age of 10-12 years before attaining adult ability. Only then is it really functional. In the first two years the child´s system has to deal with ten vaccine interventions (more if there are boosters). Who will link these with problems of dyslexia, hyperactivity, mental disturbance,and diabetes and whether apparent immediately or years later? Why not let the disease express itself naturally by the epidemic route?
Dr. Alain Scohy has noted that the vaccine dose is the same for a baby as for an adult. The baby´s immune system is incapable of establishing any protection. Abnormally stimulated or irritated tissue is likely to react by malfunctioning, then scarring and sclerosing, becoming inert and incapable of natural defence, especially in fragile infancy.
One doctor who has attempted to throw light on the problems of vaccination is Jacqueline Bousquet but her peers in the scientific community are disinclined to listen because she attacks dogma: The immune system should not be imposed on recklessly and experimentally when it is in the process of establishing itself in the young, or where it is still immature. The consequences are now all too evident AIDS.
Immunity Natural and Artificial
Apart from their toxic effects, vaccinations can have undreamed-of consequences. Even the pro-vaccine accept that artificial immunity does not last as long as natural immunity. In the USA adults are contracting whooping cough and complications are frequent. France is witnessing the same phenomenon.
Voici le temps des supermicrobes is the title of an article in Le Nouvel Observateur, September 1994. It included a table of calamities of the near future.
Traditional medical literature still treats microbes as responsible for disease and contagion, but the works of Béchamp, Tissot and others make out a case for microbes being evidence of disease, not the cause. So, when it is argued that viruses cause disease it is reductionist doctors who are presenting this view rather than homeopaths and doctors, who see man as more than a simple physical entity.
Louis-Claude Vincent a past professor at the Ecole d´Anthropologie, Paris, has conceived a bio-electronic method of defining state of health from physico-chemical data obtained from blood, saliva and urine. The method has interested famous names in medicine and biology but whereas it has not received much attention in France it has been taken seriously in Germany and the USA, where NASA uses it to monitor the health of astronauts in space. Professor Vincent has demonstrated to the Congress of Comparative Pathology that any vaccination against microbes, by upsetting the terrain, quite clearly predisposes to viral disease and cancer, as polio vaccination predisposes to TB. (See the Revue de Pathologie Générale et de physiologie clinique, January 1958, Vol 694, p. 10).
Professor Jean Dausset, Nobel prizewinner in 1980 for his HLA system (cell group determination), has said: Vaccination of infants against a series of diseases could soon be a thing of the past. Vaccinations would then be given only for high-risk diseases. We are on the verge of a new epoch when everyone will receive personalised treatment.
In Vous et Votre Santé Louis Bon de Brouwer sounds a warning: Vaccine damage is not accounted. With vaccination people become reservoirs of virus and their immune defences are so affected that new and incurable ailments appear... True medicine has been replaced by a pharmaceutical system whose only interest is profit, not patients. This holds good for medicaments in general but when medicine, in the name of prevention, institutes a vaccination regime which seriously pollutes the bodies of people who are perfectly healthy...
Our immune system, which depends on our genetic patrimony, ensures the endogenous functions that control hormones and antibodies as well as the cleaning of abnormal or infected cells. This equilibrium can be upset by injection of foreign proteins, whether attenuated bacterial (BCG), toxins (tetanus and diphtheria), killed or inactivated viruses (polio, whooping-cough, flu) or living attenuated virus (oral polio, measles, rubella, mumps). We should note that live viruses have been found in centuries-dead bodies, as also a live pathogenic virus in a Coptic mummy.
Viruses Can Recover Virulence
On 19 February 1985 Le Generaliste warned: A virus, even attenuated, can recover virulence in particular the polio vaccine virus, which becomes pathogenic and generally infectious after passage through the intestines. Cases of polio in contacts of those vaccinated with oral polio vaccine are well documented. In his book, Tutoyer Le Virus, Professor Lise Thiry, microbiologist, opines that viruses have been attenuated a little, thanks to luck. Could they be attenuated, thanks to luck, rather less than they would like us to believe? Previously, in 1964, in Maroc Médical, No 43, De Garcia Silva stated: There is no vaccine strain derived from monkeys that can be free from neurological virulence.
For some time Professor R Delong has considered the problem of living viruses. In Live Viral Vaccine, Biological Pollution, (Carlton Press, New York, 1996)., he asks: Have reason and logic abandoned epidemiologists?
Alarmed that live-virus vaccines could generate new diseases, malformations, chromosomal aberrations, mutations, or cancers, he writes: The intentional, unnecessary introduction of infectious viruses into a human body is an error deriving from profound ignorance of virology and the process of infection. [...] The ill that it does is incalculable.
That vaccines can recover virulence and disturb equilibrium worries him. All these risks, known for years, are important reasons for an immediate cessation of all vaccination with living viruses and their manufacture.
Immunologically, Professor Delong finds it inconceivable that most advocates of vaccines ignore what virologists have discovered in this field, and that they continue without scruple to infect humans in this way in the name of immunology: Living-virus vaccines are experimental at this time. May we hope that reason will prevail that this kind of vaccine will no longer be used?
His French counterparts are nowhere near so forthright. In March 1987, Que Choisir asked Dr. Louis Léry, who oversees vaccination services at the Lyons branch of Institut Pasteur, if, in seeking to reinforce immunity, we are allergising the population. He replied: I take your point but I´m not rising to it. Nevertheless, he added: But if we vaccinate against diphtheria, tetanus, polio, whooping cough and hepatitis B, that represents a total of 8 mg of aluminium hydroxide. Then at least one does not vaccinate allergic infants with this sort of vaccine.
In other circumstances (before the European Assembly), the same doctor affirmed: Vaccination must not be obligatory. It must be considered case by case and indicated or contra-indicated, and its efficacy must be determined under surveillance.
Thirty years ago in Tendance de la Médecine Contemporaine Professor Deloge had warned his peers: If we continue to make general use of vaccines and to introduce more of them we may see in the decades ahead a new pathology, the vaccinated society. This new pathology could be AIDS, unknown in Deloge´s time.
The National Cancer Institute has published studies showing that combined vaccines can entail more general mutations or recombinations than single vaccines. It would seem logical that our regulatory system could be upset by a confusion of vaccines Taking advantage of this situation, viral particles or the debris of genetic material could lodge in the organism in such an unforeseeable and insidious way as to induce teratogenic or carcinogenic consequences in the short or long term.
In Concours Médical, 20 January 1974, Professsor Pariente suggests that: To stimulate immunity, whether via tissue or serologically, is not perhaps without danger. And, in 1979, in Dangers of Immunization (published by Biological Research Institute, Warburton, Victoria, Australia, 1979)., Drs. Kalokerinos and Dettmann of Australia´s Biological Research Institute, tell us that: According to sophisticated research [...] the effect of vaccination programmes on T lymphocytes shows that the immune system is substantially damaged after routine vaccinations. A significant part of these lymphocytes is mobilised by the vaccine antigens and once activated they become immunologically inert, incapable of reacting to or defending against other antigens, infections or ailments. These discoveries tend to show that infant immunological capital is depleted by current immunisation programmes.
More recently, the Journal du CNRS, April 1995, No 64, in an item on Pasteur, raised the question: What can we say about vaccination´s prospects? The time is past when we thought this practice the solution to all the infectious diseases. Faced with AIDS, hepatitis C and malaria, the method´s limits and problems are apparent. The main difficulty is variability, which allows the pathogenic agent to escape the host´s immune response and establish persistent infection.
In Immunologie Fondamentale and Appliqué (Editions Medsi, Second Edition 1989), Professor Roitt states : Results with acute viral infections should be interpreted with caution. It may be possible to destroy viruses or infected cells in vitro but is difficult to evaluate the importance of these mechanisms in vivo.[...] The problem is crucial to vaccination. Since we do not know the functions of normal protection in human and viral infections, the production of vaccines remains empiricalThere is a real danger of activating inappropriate functions, thus provoking more serious diseases and an immune pathological state.
Vaccines and AIDS
Quotidien du Médecin, 9 May 1996, looks at an American study that shows that antigenic provocation at the time of a tetanus booster temporarily increases HIV 1 in infected individuals and renders the uninfected more susceptible to the virus. This apart, the study suggests that bacterial or parasitical infection seems to worsen HIV and even to predispose to HIV infection. [...] It has also been shown that replication of HIV 1 is increased after flu or hepatitis-B vaccination of HIV patients.
The same journal tells us that a team under Dr. Stanley and with Dr. Anthony Fausi has shown that vaccination seems to increase susceptibility to infection in vivo of peripheral lymphocytes in the non-infected: After vaccination, vircmia was multiplied by a factor of 2 to 36 (for 13 patients), then fell to initial values over six weeks, and the proviral charge (number of infected cells) was moderately elevated in the blood (11/13 patients) or ganglions (2/2). Moreover, the virus was more readily isolated from the lymphocytes after vaccination than before.
These publications stress the aggravating role of vaccinations in the development of AIDS and their role in the onset of HIV in the healthy. They confirm studies already done in Vienna showing that tetanus vaccination triggers a pre-AIDS situation, as indicated in the New England Journal of Medicine, No 3, 1981 (Vol 310). The Austrian research team established that between the third and fourteenth day after vaccination there was a significant reduction in OKT 4 and OKT 8 lymphocytes or, in other words, the vaccinee´s resistance was at its lowest point.
A similar warning is given in L´Eurobiology, No 216, 1995 (Tome XXIX): The consequences of HBs vaccination are now appearing in the immune-compromised (by drug addiction or iatrogenically), who are incapable of responding to attempts to stimulate antibody production or achieve protective level. [...] Specific cell immunity, which plays an important part, partcularly through the ability of cytotoxic lymphocytes´ to eliminate viral particles in acute infection, can be hindered by the appearance of mutants that escape early defences, notably by becoming defective in HBe antigens the absence of various cytokines. These anomalies are of concern as regards fulminant or chronic hepatitis B because of reactivation of secreted viral particles when a another episode of low immunity occurs. [...]. Evidently, any vaccination entails a reduction in immunity and they insist on vaccinating at-risk subjects against hepatitis B!
Diagnosis of a disease is frequently based on symptoms without any attempt to identify the micro-organisms alleged to cause them. Thus when a vaccinee contracts the disease in question, it may be diagnosed as a different disease. After the introduction of Salk polio vaccine, cases of polio were reported as viral meningitis and between 1955 and 1966 polio cases fell whereas viral and aseptic meningitis cases rose.
In 1995, Vous et Votre Santé put out a special issue (No 4) on vaccinations that everyone should read: Mass vaccination is blind, rigid, routine and heresy. It is retrograde and inappropriate and fails to recognise that immunity is different for each of us. When someone is injected who is already equipped with protective antibodies, as can happen, this is a case of someone incubating the disease in question.
Any therapy, whether curative or preventive, should be individualised, hence the terrain is taken into account, which runs counter to compulsory mass vaccination. Any vaccination should be preceded by a check on antibody level to eliminate those already immunised.
We stress here that any vaccination will produce a reaction, slight or severe, or even fatal. Any vaccination constitutes an assault that the subject may or may not be able to cope with. How many children find themselves in a special home because of a handicap after immunisation? How many suffer from chronic fatigue, autism, hyperactivity, cancer, leukemia. degenerative disease, allergies? How many are on dialysis or heavy medication, or were found dead in their cots?
Back to "Principles of Vaccination," Part 1