Thanks to @madevi for sharing this insightful presentation from Trevor Gunn BSc LCH RSHom - a British based microbiologist and healer who demonstrates nicely some of the details of why there is so much controversy surrounding vaccination policies and why so many people disagree. He shows the history of the medicine and how media sources and governmental bodies often misrepresent the facts in order to push an agenda that is not science based, yet is claimed to be anyway.
I have summarised the presentation for future reference and to make it available to those without video or intent to watch. I suggest watching the full video at the end of the post though as it contains additional information.
Claim: “Flu vaccines reported to reduce deaths in the elderly by 50%”
In 2004, Dr. Lisa A. Jackson, MD, MPH, set out to check these statistics and found:
A ‘healthy user effect’ - whereby the patients that were least healthy were not being given the vaccines and so the patients with lowest mortality were artificially being associated with the vaccine administration. The correlation of alleged mortality figures with the administration of vaccines was not a causal connection and the vaccines were not shown to be the cause of the statistical connection.
Dr. Jackson’s work was looked at by Prof. Lone Simonson at George Washington University and called ‘beautiful’ and ‘classic studies in epidemiology,they are so carefully done’.
An 'expert' at the (already repeatedly discredited) American Medical Association, stated that:
"To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat" - or in other words, that they will simply not accept that vaccines do not work and to do so would be such a huge challenge to prevailing understanding that it would be absurd.
Dr. Archie Kalokerinos (now deceased), a famed Australian Medical Doctor, noted that after vaccinations he found that some people became extremely ill and some died. He was quoted as saying:
You cannot immunize sick children, malnourished children, and expect to get away with it. You'll kill far more children than would have died from natural infection.
My final conclusion after forty years or more in this business [medicine] is that the unofficial policy of the World Health Organisation and the unofficial policy of the 'Save the Children's Fund' and ... [other vaccine promoting] organisation is: One of murder and genocide... I cannot see any other explanation.
So we have two totally opposed messages coming out from among 'medical professionals' who on the one hand claim that vaccines save lives and on the other hand say that vaccines kill people are even part of a deliberately evil plot.
The Challenge With Gaining Accurate Vaccine Research Data
The implications of vaccines being found to be ineffective are far wider than simply announcing that some drugs don't work. The medical infrastructure and education systems have claimed for decades that vaccines are necessary and safe/effective, so to then completely contradict that narrative would lead many people to totally question and reject the 'medical establishment'. When combined with an actual belief that vaccines really are saving lives, there is a strong resistance to performing rigorous (double blind) testing with vaccines.
It is claimed that it is 'unethical' to perform proper research on vaccines whereby one group is given vaccines and other group is not given vaccines - allowing the two groups to be compared. The failed logic in use is that 'we know vaccines work' so therefore to not vaccinate some people for research purposes would be unethical - even though the whole point of the research would be to prove that vaccines work (because scientific proof of the kind applied to medical drugs is not available in a complete way to this day for vaccines) AND even though there are plenty of people who refuse vaccinations anyway who could be used.
90% of the 'high quality' studies which are published relating to vaccine mechanics simply show that vaccines result in antibodies being produced, but they do not look at whether or not the vaccination truly prevents the disease.
Tom Jefferson, from the Cochran Collaboration on vaccines:
The inception of a vaccination campaign seems to preclude the assessment of a vaccine through placebo controlled randomised trials on ethical grounds. Far from being unethical, however, such trials are desperately needed and we should invest in them without delay.
The Justification for Using Vaccines
- Germs cause Disease and Disease can kill (Therefore germs kill)
- Antibodies give immunity to germs (Therefore you need antibodies BUT you don't always make them fast enough or enough of them).
- Vaccines can stimulate a lot of antibodies quickly (Therefore you need vaccines)
Where do we get the idea that germs cause disease?
Louis Pasteur discovered that microorganisms cause fermentation and disease. It is claimed that in 1864, Pasteur proved the existence of organisms (microbes) with which ordinary air was impregnated. The conclusion being then that diseases can be transmitted through the air from person to person.
A less well known contemporary of Pasteur was Antoine Bechamp, a French scientist who introduced the term 'Microzyma' and who effectively introduced the idea of microorganisms at a time when Pasteur and others were claiming Sepsis and fermentation were caused by 'spontaneous generation' - or in other words they didn't know what caused these phenomena.
Pasteur is commonly known to have plagiarised the work of Bechamp and promoted 'Germ theory'. Pasteur effectively stole Bechamp's work without doing his own research and went on to gain fame but Bechamp's actual scientific work yielded discoveries that told a different story to the one that Pasteur continued to promote.
Bechamp recognised that the microbes were present in people before, during and after the disease period and thus it was incorrect to think that simply 'killing germs' would end disease.
We have more microbial cells on our body than we have of our 'own' (non microbial) cells (cells that contain specific genetic information about the human form, rather than about the microbial form). Bechamp alluded to this reality, though he was unable to demonstrate it at that time in full.
Pasteur: "Each disease is caused by its own infecting microbe, therefore coming from outside."
Consequence: Kill the germ and avoid contamination.
Bechamp: "Disease is caused by the nature of the soil (the cellular environment of the individual human carrier), the microbes are always there." (E.g. The presence of diseases related to microbes is reliant on the underlying health of the human.)
Consequence: 'Address the soil' - Look at the nutrition, water, physical living conditions, physical stress/relaxation and toxins/sanitation affecting the person to eliminate microbe related disease.
Which Paradigm Was Adopted?
Clearly, Pasteur's version of reality was more widely adopted into life and this is partially due to the idea that 'someone else made you ill' is more psychologically palatable than the idea that you, through your own inadequate action or life conditions caused the disease yourself.
These events took place during the industrial revolution, when people were moving into cities and living in cramped conditions. It was far easier for the wealthy 'establishment' to deal with the idea that people were making each other ill than that the illness was due to poor nutrition, lack of food and other sanitation issues.
In other words, the Pasteur version of reality was more CONVENIENT to those who claimed 'authority'.
Despite the reality that we now know that disease related microbes can be carried by most/all of us without us getting ill (Flu, Mumps, Chicken Pox & Fungal infections being examples of less dangerous forms), Bechamp's message that the overall health of the individual is the determining factor regarding whether disease manifests or not - is still not widely understood.
Cellular Immune Response
Dr. Merrill W. Chase & Dr. Karl Landsteiner (nobel laureate winner) discovered in the 1940s that in addition to the antibody component of the immune system, there is a cellular component too. It was shown that in many instances the cellular components are more important than antibodies.
People who have an inability to produce antibodies are still able to heal from disease organisms, however, without cellular immunity they are far less able to.
If antibody response (the realm of vaccines) were the most important aspect of immunity, we would have far more effective vaccines than we do. Antonio Coutinho, Director of Immunology Research at institutes in France (CNRS) and Portugal (IGC) states that:
Centuries after Jenner's 'vaccination' and more than 100 years after Louis Pasteur's principle of 'attenuated' vaccines, we are still totally devoid of vaccines against chronic infections and against a large number of acute infections.
Several decades of 'DNA technology' and 'biotechnology' have failed to produce the new effective, 'no risk' vaccines that were expected.
Most vaccines used today are of the 'conventional' type, many of which were discovered when we had: 'little knowledge of immunology' and 'absolutely no information' on the sells and molecules of the immune system.
Obviously, the lack of clinical success means that our understanding of the immune system, despite decades of intense research, still remains elusive...
- European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO) Reports 2003
Despite a vast number of studies and papers being published on immunology, constantly - the results and improvements are minimal.
Comment From the World Health Organisation's Expert
Trevor asked Dr. Clements of the World Health Organisation's extended program of immunisations whether he was aware that it is possible to 'have antibodies and not be immune' or 'not have antibodies and be immune'. Dr. Clements confirmed that this was the case and that immunity is possible without any antibodies (which demonstrates the entire vaccine paradigm is flawed)
Dr. Clement went on to state that they know vaccines work because of the epidemiological studies that demonstrate that when vaccines are introduced, the number of disease cases drops.
Trevor received a letter stating:
You ask many questions in the text of your letter which would entail a considerable amount of work on my part to answer. While of great interest to you and me, I am not sure that it really benefits lay audiences.
So in short, the topic was bypassed because... non specialists wouldn't understand anyway!
Misrepresentation of Data Used to Justify Vaccines
Trevor shows us a variety of graphs that present incidence levels of various diseases, including Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping cough and TB. In each case there is a version of the graph which starts around the time when vaccines were introduced and appears to show that the cases of each disease drop off (down to close to zero) after the vaccine's introduction. This is the type of evidence that is typically used to demonstrate the effectiveness of vaccines. Trevor highlights that these graphs do not tell the full story and that if we look at the data from before the graphs begin we can see that each of the diseases had massively higher incidence levels prior to the vaccine introduction for a long time, but that all of them were already nose-diving due to other factors long before the vaccines were made available.
This misrepresentation of data is often used by media publications to present a false image of the success rate of vaccines.
Scarlet Fever was responsible for more deaths than all the other diseases combined and it also follows a similar reduction trend in incidence levels, yet there was never a vaccine created for it.
The smallpox vaccine was available many decades before the other vaccines and so it might be expected that cases of smallpox would be drastically lower than the other diseases. Smallpox vaccines were introduced in England in 1840 and made compulsory in 1853. Between 1857 and 1859 there were 14,244 deaths from smallpox. Between 1863 and 1865 after a population rise of 7%, the death rate rose by 40.8% to 20,059.
Therefore, the only disease that at that time was being vaccinated against is one which went up during that period. In 1867 evaders of vaccination were prosecuted. Those left unvaccinated were very few. Between 1870 & 1872 after a population rise of 9%, the death rate rose by 123% to 44,840.
Despite claims that smallpox was eradicated by vaccination, the actual data shows the opposite to be true.
In cases of epidemics of whooping cough, there are huge amounts of mis-reporting occurring, partially due to doctors thinking patients don't have the disease if they have been vaccinated against it, even when they really do have the disease. Many epidemics have been shown to involve primarily people who HAVE been vaccinated - despite media mis-representation to the contrary.
The numbers of cases of Polio were reported as dropping largely due to a reclassification of the disease into several other disease 'boxes' - essentially the disease was rebranded.
'Post Polio syndrome' is now called 'post viral syndrome', 'ME' and 'chronic fatigue syndrome'.
If you poison your cells, the cells will produce viruses. The evidence suggests that viruses begin with poisoning of the body, rather than arriving externally.
Trevor goes on to explain how to work with the body in a more intelligent way, understanding the fine details of what is occurring to create an environment of body health rather than attempting to suppress symptoms.
The body has natural functions and processes that are intended to protect the self, but modern practices attempt to bypass them and label them as problems in and of themselves. Even the mainstream medical publications sometimes acknowledge this:
I think that paracetamol should be taken off the market... If this were done to coincide with a national campaign explaining the benefits of fever then it would have a major educational effect on the general public. Consequently, this would reduce the number of consultations and would probably enhance the health of the nation.
- British Medical Journal 314. 75h June 1997 - page 1692.