Last week, I made this bold statement:
“Vaccines have never been shown to work or to provide immunity for any pathogens.
As a matter of fact, there is no evidence that vaccinations benefited the human populations or contributed to the almost disappearance of infections over the last 100 years or so.”
I say “bold” because if you have not done your research, you would believe that it is nonsense to state something like this.
I was bashed by those vaccine promoters because of my boldness.
I am a scientist, and therefore, I should know better they claimed. They said that if I am being honest and read unbiased science, I should conclude that vaccines work, and they are the greatest thing that ever happened to humanity.
The interesting thing is that I provided more than 10 scientific studies to support my statement and none of those pro-vaxers could refute my argument. Obviously, that is why they went after me, instead of the science I provided.
Here’s the real question:
Could the antibody-based theory of vaccine-induced immunity no longer be supported by up-to-date science?
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Immunity to a disease is achieved through the presence of antibodies to that disease in a person’s system.”
This, in fact, is the main justification for using vaccines to “boost” immunity, and a primary focus of vaccine research and development.
In order, a vaccine leads to the production of antibodies by the immune system, which makes us immune to infections. So if you have antibodies against measles for example (supported by titers), you should not get the measles.
But this has failed so many times as we can see:
The fallacy of this (antibody theory) was exposed nearly 50 years ago, which is hardly recent. A report published by the Medical Research Council entitled ‘A study of diphtheria in two areas of Gt. Britain, Special report series 272, HMSO 1950 demonstrated that many of the diphtheria patients had high levels of circulating antibodies, whereas many of the contacts who remained perfectly well had low antibody.
In addition, research published in 2011 revealed that in some cases no antibodies are required for immunity against some viruses.
Published in the journal Immunity in March, 2011, and titled, “B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity (Immunity. 2012 Mar 23 ;36(3):415-26.),” researchers found that mice infected with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) can suffer fatal invasion of their central nervous system even in the presence of high concentrations of “neutralizing” antibodies against VSV.
The researchers found that while B-cells were essential for surviving a systemic VSV infection through the modulation of innate immunity, specifically macrophage behavior, the antibodies they produce as part of the adaptive immune response were “neither needed nor sufficient for protection.”
These findings, according to the study authors, “…contradict the current view that B cell-derived neutralizing antibodies are absolutely required to survive a primary cytopathic viral infection, such as that caused by VSV.”
If you have some basics in immunology, you would already know this. The first step of an immunological response is cellular immunity. Then, the body makes antibodies, which is called humoral immunity. If you skip the first step, like in the cases of vaccination, you bypass the normal immune response and natural immunity!
The discovery that antibodies are not required for protection against infection, while counterintuitive, is not novel.
In fact, not only are antibodies not required for immunity, in some cases high levels are found in the presence of active, even lethal infections.
For example, high serum levels of antibodies against tetanus have been observed failing to confer protection against the disease.
A report from 1992 published in the journal Neurology found severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers, one of whom died as a result of the infection.
This is the report: “Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers”. Neurology. 1992 Apr;42(4):761-4.
These research findings run diametrically opposed to currently held beliefs regarding the process by which we develop immunity against infectious challenges.
Does this strike a mortal blow to the antibody theory which underlies vaccinology, and constitutes the primary justification for the CDC’s focus on using vaccines to “boost” immunity?
Indeed, in vaccinology, which is the science or method of vaccine development, vaccine effectiveness is often determined by the ability of a vaccine to increase antibody titers, even if this does not translate into real-world effectiveness, i.e. antibody-antigen matching.
In fact, regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, often approve vaccines based on their ability to raise antibody titers, also known as “vaccine efficacy,” without requiring proof of vaccine effectiveness, as would seem logical.
The obvious problem with these criteria is that the use of vaccine adjuvants like mercury, aluminum hydroxide, mineral oil, etc. (all of which are intrinsically toxic substances), will increase antibody titers, without guaranteeing they will neutralize the targeted antigen, i.e. antibody-antigen affinity.
To the contrary, many of these antibodies lack selectivity, and target self-structures, resulting in the loss of self-tolerance, i.e. autoimmunity.
Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a beehive.
The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the “efficacy” (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern is in no way ensured.
To the contrary, the immune response is likely to become misdirected, or disproportionate to the threat.
It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not.
One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine.
On the opposite side, the vaccine is causing harm to the body, especially that of the developing infant and child, by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.
“Human trials generally correlate “antibody” responses with protection – that is, if the body produces antibodies (proteins) that bind to vaccine components, then it must be working and safe.
Yet Dr. March says antibody response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety. “Particularly for viral diseases, the ‘cellular’ immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected.”
Dr. Glen Dettman said in “The Great American Deception”:
“Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps get an antibody reaction, doesn’t mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are those you get naturally. What we’re doing (when we inject vaccines) is interfering with a very delicate mechanism that does its own thing. If nutrition is correct, it does it in the right way. Now if you insult a person in this way and try to trigger off something that nature looks after, you’re asking for all sorts of trouble, and we don’t believe it works”.
Whenever we read vaccine papers, the MD researchers always assume that if there are high antibody levels after vaccination, then there is immunity (immunogencity).
But are antibody levels and immunity the same? No! Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY.
The MUMPS vaccine fiasco in Switzerland has re-emphasized this point. Three mumps vaccines-Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn, and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it caused encephalitis) all produced excellent antibody levels, but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all, there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks.
Se this paper to support my claim:
Schegal M et al Comparative efficacy of three mumps vaccines during disease outbreak in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ, 1999; 319:352-3.
In conclusion, I still stand by my statement:
“Vaccines have never been shown to work or to provide immunity for any pathogens.”
God bless y’all 😊