“Falsehood flies and truth comes limping after, so that when man comes to be undeceived it is too late.
The jest is over and the tale has had its effect.”
This web page is NOT a directive to do anything. It is ONLY a DISCUSSION and may be at variance with current official government policy or views. This discussion is presented in accord with the United Nations Human Rights Charter.
Vaccination: Vacca (Latin) = cow,
in = to place inside,
ation = the act of
Literal translation: the placing of bits of a cow inside [a body].
Imagine being the following situation:
You are walking along in the a road with your young child in a farming area and you see a cow near
the fence. It is obviously unwell. It has weeping sores all over its body. The farmer notices you and
comes to tell you that he has called the vet as he thinks the cow has cow pox.
You remembering the work of Jenner the father of vaccination, and how milk maids in England had
immunity to smallpox as a result of being exposed (infected) with a similar disease which was much
less virulent (cow pox). You think of this and since you are going to Africa in a few months for a
holiday, you tell the child to go up to the cow and lick its sores.
I know ... you are horrified even at the thought of it. And so would I be if I ever heard someone
suggest such a thing. It goes against anything we have ever learned about hygiene. And yet the
vaccinators think it a good idea to bypass the defence systems of the body, The tonsillar tissues of
the mouth, the lymphatic system, the stomach acids all of which have a part to play in
eradicating pathogenic organisms that we may encounter in the hand to mouth feeding we all at
some point take part in. They bypass these defences by injecting into the body / blood stream the
pussy exudates that contain the virus or bacteria that they think you need to be protected against.
The mind boggles at the thought.
For less orthodox information on vaccination see also: Australian Vaccination Network
See all 4 parts. It is an eye opening interview between a medical doctor and Tedd Koren DC
There are three major reasons why this government push to vaccinate 84 percent of the U.S. population with a yearly flu vaccine is so incomprehensible:
1. The majority of flu shots contain 25 micrograms of mercury; an amount considered unsafe for anyone weighing less than 550 pounds! And which groups are most sensitive to the neurological damage that has been associated with mercury? Infants, children, and the elderly.
2. No studies have conclusively proven that flu shots prevent flu-related deaths among the elderly, yet this is one of the key groups to which they’re pushed.
3. If you get a flu shot, you can still get the flu (or flu-like symptoms). This is because it only protects against certain strains, and it’s anyone’s guess which flu viruses will be in your area.
So why would you take a flu shot – EVERY YEAR -- that has NEVER been proven to be effective, that can give you the very illness you’re trying to prevent, and has potential long-term side effects that are far worse than the flu itself? More
Because this method works so poorly, they place in the fluid to be injected, other substances. These
are called "adjuncts" or "adjunctive substances" or "adjuvants". Some of the common ones are:
Atypical Measles Syndrome
Atypical Measles Syndrome (AMS), only occurs in individuals who have been vaccinated
against measles. Immunization with inactivated measles virus does not prevent measles virus
infection. It can, however, sensitize a person so that the expression of the disease is altered,
resulting in AMS. (1)
back to top
Vaccines have never been fully tested.
"The gold standard of medical science is the double blind crossover placebo study. This test has
never been performed on any vaccine currently licensed in Australia. In an astounding leap of logic,
contrary to all rules of science, vaccines are assumed to be safe and effective and therefore, it is
considered to be unethical to withhold vaccinations for the purposes of testing them."
Scientifically this has to be:
a) unproven therefore an un-necessary treatment and a fraud against patients and tax payers
b) potentially harmful due to the toxic substances in the vaccines
c) unethical and a medical malpractice
back to top
Compensation for injuries or death attributable to vaccine administration was
$US902,519,103.37 for the years 1994 to 2004. These are payments made by the US government
(taxpayers) NOT by vaccine manufacturers virtually guaranteeing profits to manufacturers at
Flu Vaccination does NOT Lower Risk for Pneumonia in Elders!
In contrast to results of previous studies, flu vaccine did not lower risk in this study.
Previous observational studies have shown that influenza vaccination lowers risk for pneumonia in
older patients. In a population-based case-control study, conducted during the preinfluenza and
influenza seasons of 2000, 2001, and 2002, Seattle investigators studied managed-care records for
1173 older patients (age range, 65–94) with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and for 2346
age- and sex-matched controls without CAP. Both groups were equally likely to have been
vaccinated (roughly 60% before the CAP index date and 77% by the end of each influenza season).
In unadjusted analyses, vaccinated patients had a 40% lower risk for CAP than unvaccinated
patients in the preinfluenza period — when no biologically plausible explanation exists for vaccine
benefit — but the difference disappeared when analyses were adjusted for a wide range of chronic
diseases and functional impairment. No difference in risk for CAP was observed between vaccinated
and unvaccinated groups during the influenza season, whether analyses were adjusted or not, and
no difference was observed in risk for CAP that required hospital admission during peak influenza
Comment: According to this provocative study, influenza vaccination offered no benefit in
broad measures of risk for community-acquired pneumonia. Editorialists noted that this study has
several strengths that have been missing in many other studies: It was conducted during
seasons when the antigenic match between influenza strains and vaccine was good; CAP
was ascertained with [patient's medical] chart audit rather than by evaluating administrative data; the
analysis was controlled for a wide range of chronic disease and functional status measures; and
both inpatient and outpatient cases were identified.
— Thomas L. Schwenk, MD: Published in Journal Watch General Medicine August 12, 2008
Jackson ML et al. Influenza vaccination and risk of community-acquired pneumonia in
immunocompetent elderly people: A population-based, nested case-control study. Lancet 2008 Aug
Study Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18675690?dopt=Abstract
12 Babies Die During Vaccine Trials in Argentina
12 Babies Die During Vaccine Trials in Argentina vaccine, drug trial, GlaxoSmithKline, GSK,
Argentina, death, pneumonia, oregano, breast feeding. At least 12 infants who were part of a clinical
study to test a pneumonia vaccine have died in Argentina over the course of the past year.
The study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline, and uses children from poor families. According to
the Argentine Federation of Health Professionals, the families are "pressured and forced into
signing consent forms”.
The vaccine trial is still ongoing despite the denunciations.
* Trading Markets July 10, 2008
* Mercola.com July 31, 2008 - Issue 1141
Is a Pneumonia Vaccine Even Necessary?
Now, to highlight and compare the effectiveness level that a pneumonia vaccine can offer compared
to simple and inexpensive nutritional intervention, consider this: After reviewing a total of 10 studies,
investigators at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and the World Health Organization
(WHO) reported that zinc supplementation alone reduces the risk of pneumonia by 41 percent!
And in an ironic twist, a drug review by the FDA recently found that GSK’s rotavirus vaccine (Rotarix)
is associated with a significant increase in pneumonia-related deaths in children, compared to a
placebo. In essence, GSK is contributing to the very problem they’re supposedly trying to resolve
with yet another vaccine.
* Mercola.com July 31, 2008 - Issue 1141
HEP B vaccinne can be very damaging.
What Is The Herd Immunity
The herd immunity theory was originally coined in 1933 by a researcher called Hedrich. He had been studying measles patterns in the US between 1900-1931 (years before any vaccine was ever invented for measles) and he observed that epidemics of the illness only occurred when less than 68% of children had developed a natural immunity to it. This was based upon the principle that children build their own immunity after suffering with or being exposed to the disease. So the herd immunity theory was, in fact, about natural disease processes and nothing to do with vaccination. If 68% of the population were allowed to build their own natural defences, there would be no raging epidemic.
Later on, vaccinologists adopted the phrase and increased the figure from 68% to 95% with no scientific justification as to why, and then stated that there had to be 95% vaccine coverage to achieve immunity via this herd effect. Essentially, they took Hedrich’s study and manipulated it to promote their vaccination programmes.
"MONTHLY ESTIMATES OF THE CHILD POPULATION "SUSCEPTIBLE' TO MEASLES, 1900-1931, BALTIMORE," MD, AW HEDRICH, American Journal of Epidemiology, May 1933 - Oxford University Press.
Why Vaccine Induced Herd Immunity is Flawed
If vaccination really immunises, then your vaccinated child will be immunised and therefore protected against any disease an unvaccinated child gets. If he isn’t, his shots didn’t work. more
Please remember, the information presented here is for discussion only. It is NOT to be construed as a directive to anyone to either vaccinate or not. It is an attempt to provide material for discussion only.
Silence Dr. Andrew Wakefield watch video