“The tendency of a mass vaccination program is to herd people. People are not cattle or sheep. They should not be herded. A mass vaccination program carries a built-in temptation to oversimplify the problem; . . . to discourage or silence scholarly, thoughtful and cautious opposition; . . . to whip up an enthusiasm among citizens that can carry with it the seeds of impatience, if not intolerance; to extend the concept of the police power of the state in quarantine far beyond its proper limitation . . . .1
—Suzanne Humphries, MD
Prepare to enter yet again the inner sanctum of The Church of Vaccinology. Prepare for another sip from the Holy Grail. Prepare to worship yet another golden calf—a golden calf responsible for filling the church’s coffers with billions of dollars in profits, a golden calf that combines unique human beings with unique genetics, medical conditions, and minds and then transforms each and every soul into an eight-billion-member herd.
Church administrators have branded the name of the calf deeply within the minds of virtually every member of The Herd. Let us praise the holy name of the golden calf: Herd Immunity. The doctrine of herd immunity is both a relic from a scientifically primitive time as well as a talisman held up for veneration and worship in the modern era—an era that one day will also be viewed as primitive.
The Church of Vaccinology was founded in a former era—an era that had barely grasped the concept of germs. It was observed that humans and animals gained a state of immunity following disease outbreaks. The great thinkers of the era surmised that if one germ is responsible for one disease, then one pharmaceutical compound could protect one person from that disease. From that line of simplistic thinking, it was not a huge leap to conclude that one vaccine administered to all people may artificially replicate immunity conferred by natural means. Such was the state of the science during the smallpox epidemics of the 1800s.
In 1923, scientists from the University of Manchester studied “The Problem of Herd-Immunity” in their immunization research on mice. They referred to “recent reports on experimental epidemiology from the Rockefeller Institute,” which led them “to believe that the question of immunity as an attribute of a herd should be studied as a separate problem, closely related to, but in many ways distinct from, the problem of the immunity of an individual host.”2
In 2011, Paul Fine, Ken Eames, and David L. Heyman, scientists from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, published an article in the Oxford journal Clinical Infectious Diseases in which they provided “a rough guide” of the history and concept of herd immunity. Though coined almost a century ago, the term herd immunity “was not widely used until recent decades, its use stimulated by the increasing use of vaccines, discussions of disease eradication, and analyses of the costs and benefits of vaccination programs.”3 The theory of vaccine-induced herd immunity gained traction in the 1970s, when scientists calculated and diagrammed decreased disease incidence based on increased vaccination rates.4, 5
Whereas the vaccines-are-safe-and-effective dogma assures parents and patients that vaccines safely prevent disease, the doctrine of herd immunity persuades parents and patients that they have a social obligation to vaccinate, that those who fail to vaccinate are “freeloaders”—people who freely reap the benefits of vaccines while failing to assume their share of vaccine risks. The two doctrines have now combined in an irrational yet powerful third doctrine: vaccines protect vaccine recipients but only if everyone else vaccinates. Thus, the unvaccinated have morphed from freeloaders into diseased and filthy child abusers, child killers, and murderers. It is this third doctrine that vaccine believers and sociopaths wield to justify discrimination, mandatory vaccination, and just plain nasty behavior.
By comparison, ancient believers once threatened to kill nonbelievers to help them see the value of converting to the religion of their more righteous oppressors. Modern vaccine believers believe their salvation lies in the conversion and baptism by vaccination of all of humanity. Thus, believers view the unvaccinated not only as vectors of disease but also as the indispensible key to their own salvation from the ever-threatening hell of infectious disease.
In truth, the third doctrine is a blatant disavowal of the doctrine of vaccine safety and efficacy, but vaccine sociopaths have long since banished Truth from fellowship in The Church of Vaccinology.
Paul Fine and his fellow British scientists documented several recent disease outbreaks, not due to “freeloaders,” but due to the failure of vaccines to achieve herd immunity. Of these failures, the researchers concluded:
. . . there is a need for immunization programs to maintain high vaccine coverage, together with surveillance and outbreak response capabilities, as numbers of susceptible individuals accumulate in older age groups. Herd immunity implies a lasting programmatic responsibility to the public.6
Their conclusion is one of believers still locked in a vaccine paradigm conceived and commercialized in the 1800s. The only possible solution such individuals can see to the problem of vaccine failure is the injection of more vaccines.
The problem of the failure of vaccines to measure up to the reality of natural herd immunity is only one of many problems associated with the practice of contrived herd immunity. An equal if not greater problem lies in the armies of pharma-funded scientists who are unable to even consider that the practice of vaccination often results in more harm than good. Such a concept blasphemes yet another sacred cow of the vaccine paradigm: the sacrificial offering of untold numbers of vaccine damaged or dead in the service of “the greater good.”
Many laboratory scientists and practicing medical professionals have concluded that the greater good doctrine is a smokescreen for what Eric Gladen, the producer of the documentary film Trace Amounts, refers to as “the greater greed.” Members of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons are included in this group. Executive Director Jane Orient, MD, argues against the greater good dogma in a 1999 letter to Congress:
Measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and the whole panoply of childhood diseases are a far less serious threat than having a large fraction (say 10%) of a generation afflicted with learning disability and/or uncontrollable aggressive behavior because of an impassioned crusade for universal vaccination.7
More recently, Physicians for Informed Consent (PIC) issued a press release in which the organization highlighted “the greater greed” ethos as perpetrated upon the American public with the MMR vaccine, stating:
There is a five-fold higher risk of seizures from the MMR vaccine than seizures from measles, and a significant portion of MMR-vaccine seizures cause permanent harm. For example, 5% of febrile seizures result in epilepsy, a chronic brain disorder that leads to recurring seizures. Annually, about 300 MMR-vaccine seizures (5% of 5,700) will lead to epilepsy.
Dr. Shira Miller, PIC president and founder, concluded:
In the United States, measles is generally a benign, short-term viral infection; 99.99% of measles cases fully recover. As it has not been proven that the MMR vaccine is safer than measles, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that mandatory measles mass vaccination results in a net public health benefit in the United States.8
In spite of facts such as these, few vaccine-informed medical professionals are willing to risk the sanctions meted out to those who expose the vaccine paradigm for what it is: a fraud and an illusion. Yet, their numbers are increasing and their message shines ever more light on the darkness of the paradigm. Former believers are stepping forth and speaking their truth.
Kelly Brogan, MD, was once a believer in pharmaceutical-based medicine. Her research and her clinical practice as a psychiatrist led her to the realization that chemicals in vaccines and other drugs are often brought to market by fraud and corruption and often do more harm than good. She, like many others, realized that human cells, tissues, and systems function by means of complex webs of interrelationships. Yes, injecting antigens and accompanying toxicants directly into an infant’s body may increase serum antibody levels, but doing so also results in a cascade of cellular and systemic reactions with immediate and lifelong consequences. Brogan wrote in her best-selling 2016 book, A Mind of Your Own,
Is it possible that vaccinology has applied a reductionist—one disease, one drug/vaccine—model to an evolutionarily adapted system with built-in complexities we have barely begun to appreciate? Is it possible that we have misunderstood immunity, or are still fundamentally learning about its most basic principles? If we are to accept that billions of years have gone into priming our physiology for interface with microbes, then we must acknowledge that there is more to immunity than simply jacking up antibody levels.9
Brogan further explained:
Vaccines were designed before we knew about DNA, viruses that contaminate cells used to produce them (SV40, retroviruses), the microbiome, or how toxic one chemical can be to one person while leaving another unscathed. One-size-fits-all medicine is no longer appropriate, and we just don’t know how to determine who might be at risk for adverse effects ranging from psychiatric conditions to death.10
Suzanne Humphries, MD, was once enjoying her career as a nephrologist when she objected to the routine vaccination of her patients who were suffering from severe kidney disease. From that experience, she launched into extensive research that led to discover that as much as scientists know about human functioning, they still have much to learn. In 2015, Humphries coauthored the book Dissolving Illusions, in which she wrote,
Nobody—not even the most educated immunologists—understands or can describe the complete cascade of events that occurs after injecting a vaccine. If physicians realized how little is known today about the immune system and vaccines, they would be duty bound to tell patients that there are no accurate scientific answers.11
Christopher J. Gill, MD, Boston University associate professor of global health, confirmed Humphries’s statement when he admitted that vaccine scientists don’t know what they are doing. Addressing the “startling global resurgence of pertussis, or whooping cough, in recent years . . .,” Gill said:
This disease is back because we didn’t really understand how our immune defenses against whooping cough worked, and did not understand how the vaccines needed to work to prevent it. Instead we layered assumptions upon assumptions, and now find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of admitting that we may [have] made some crucial errors. This is definitely not where we thought we’d be in 2017.12
Yes, human understanding of complex biological processes is yet in its infancy, and it’s nothing but hubris that allows scientists to ignorantly think that they can imitate natural immunity by injecting scores of foreign substances into human beings to raise targeted antibody levels without disrupting or destroying cells, tissues, systems, and processes. Immunologist and author Tetyana Obukhanych states as much in a 2012 interview:
We would expect that vaccinated individuals would not be involved (or very minimally involved) in any outbreak of an infectious disease for which they have been vaccinated. Yet, when outbreaks are analyzed, it becomes apparent that most often this is not the case. Vaccinated individuals are indeed very frequently involved and constitute a high proportion of disease cases.
I think this is happening because vaccination does not engage the genuine mechanism of immunity. Vaccination typically engages the immune response—that is, everything that immunologists would theoretically “want” to see being engaged in the immune system. But apparently this is not enough to confer robust protection that matches natural immunity. Our knowledge of the immune system is far from being complete.13
Like biological systems and processes, the doctrines of herd immunity, safety, efficacy, and the greater good are also interrelated. A problem in one is a problem in all. Following is what is certainly a partial list of the multiple problems that many modern vaccine enthusiasts ignore at their peril as well as the peril of their families and the human race:
1. Vaccination is not the same as immunization, and vaccine-induced immunity is not the same as natural immunity. Natural immunity results in lifelong immunity to a disease. Vaccine-induced immunity results in an elevated serum antibody level, which at best provides an incomplete and temporary form of immunity.
2. Vaccines are the same, while people are different. Treating all people as if they were the same, regardless of genetic vulnerabilities, past vaccine reactions, or a host of other factors is morally and scientifically indefensible.
3. Subsets of the population are “nonresponders” or “poor responders,” which means vaccine-induced herd immunity is unachievable.
4. Artificially induced elevated antibody levels are just that: artificial. The human organism works to return antibody titers to their natural levels, which means that whatever immunity was achieved with the elevated antibodies is lost with the body’s return to a natural state. This means that the majority of The Herd may well be fully vaccinated, but only a fraction is immunized in any given moment. Hence the need for multiple “boosters.” The industry is well aware of this fact and is working in collaboration with the US government to implement a profit-driven womb-to-tomb vaccination program (more in Chapter 24).
5. The efficacy of vaccines is known to decrease with every booster, while the risk of harm increases with every booster.
6. Natural immunity exposes a person to the risk of disease once in a lifetime. Temporary vaccine-induced immunity exposes a person to the risk of disease every time the pathogen is reintroduced into the body and every time the antibody titers return to their natural levels. Thus, over a lifetime, vaccinated individuals pose a much greater risk to herd immunity than do individuals who possess natural herd immunity.
7. Immunologists tend to view disease outbreaks in vaccinated individuals as the only negative measure of vaccine efficacy. But when measured holistically, efficacious vaccines may be more harmful than vaccine failures due to the fact that vaccination-induced reduction in disease outbreaks often results in increased rates of related and apparently unrelated diseases. One of many examples is found in the relationship between the chickenpox vaccine and shingles. The increased incidence of shingles is directly related to the “success” of the chickenpox vaccine and was, in fact, predicted prior to the vaccine’s commercialization.14
8. Natural immunity not only confers up to lifelong immunity against disease, it also confers numerous additional health benefits, including a more robust immune system and increased protection against cancer, heart disease, etc. This means that vaccination increases one’s risk of contracting several serious and life-threatening diseases.
9. Temporary vaccine-induced immunity has the potential to turn relatively harmless childhood diseases into more dangerous diseases when contracted by adolescents or adults. This is true for mumps, measles, and chickenpox.
10. A percentage of vaccinees contract the disease the vaccines are meant to protect against, and some contract more serious forms of the disease because they were vaccinated.
11. Breast milk is Mother Nature’s natural form of immunization. Breast milk provides natural immunity to a baby by working in concert with the infant’s natural anti-inflammatory state. Aluminum, toxic to both brain and kidneys, is added to vaccines to create an unnatural and unhealthy inflammatory state to increase antibody titers.15
The natural immunity of pregnant and breast-feeding mothers protects unborn and breast-feeding children. Vaccine-induced immunity in mothers provides no such protection to their babies through their breast milk. This means that vaccination increases the risk of illness or death to children of vaccinated mothers. Suzanne Humphries, MD, explains this point in further detail in her article titled “Herd Immunity: Flawed Science and Mass Vaccination Failures”:
Since most vaccines are delivered by injection, the mucous membranes are bypassed and thus blood antibodies are produced but not mucosal antibodies. Mucosal exposure is what contributes to the production of antibodies in the mammary gland. A child’s exposure to the virus while being breastfed by a naturally immune mother would lead to an asymptomatic infection that results in long-term immunity to that virus. Vaccinated mothers have lower levels of virus-specific antibodies in the serum and milk compared to naturally immune mothers and thus their infants are unprotected.16
12. Countless mothers have helplessly watched their babies lose the ability to breast-feed following infant vaccinations, resulting in reduced breast milk intake and increased formula intake. Breast milk contributes to natural immunity. Formula contributes to sickness and death (more in Chapter 10).
13. Live virus vaccines shed, which means that recently vaccinated individuals are disease vectors. Live virus vaccines include influenza, measles, rubella, rotavirus, chickenpox, and the polioviruses in the oral polio vaccine. Individuals who contract these diseases by natural means are also disease vectors exactly one time in their lives. Vaccinated individuals are disease vectors every time they are revaccinated. In 2014, the National Vaccine Information Center treated the subject of “Vaccine Strain Virus Infection, Shedding & Transmission” in a 42-page referenced report titled “The Emerging Risks of Live Virus & Virus Vectored Vaccines.”17
Inasmuch as “[t]here is no active surveillance and testing for evidence of vaccine strain live virus shedding, transmission and infection among populations routinely being given multiple doses of live virus vaccines, including measles vaccine,”18 public health officials have no idea whether disease outbreaks originate with vaccinated or vaccine-free individuals. And inasmuch as vaccinated individuals are exposed to live viruses every time they are revaccinated, they are a much more likely source of disease outbreaks than are unvaccinated individuals. Hospital policy supports this statement by prohibiting recently vaccinated individuals from visiting immunocompromised patients.
14. Just as the introduction of GMOs into the environment and the food supply includes countless known and unknown risks, the introduction of GMO-containing vaccines also includes countless known and unknown risks.
15. Vaccine strains of live viruses are laboratory-created novel life forms. Introducing vaccine strains directly into the bodies of vaccine recipients and indirectly through viral shedding spreads novel diseases, which presents myriad potential consequences.
16. Attenuated live virus vaccines have regained virulence, resulting in disease outbreaks.
17. Just as bacteria evolve and develop resistance to the pressure placed upon them by antibiotics, germs targeted by vaccines evolve, shift, and develop resistance to vaccines as well as resistance to antibiotics, potentially resulting in diseases of greater pathogenicity or lethality—diseases that never would have come into existence without the pressure placed upon them by vaccines. Jacob M. Puliyel, MD, head of pediatrics at St. Stephen’s Hospital in Delhi, India, addressed strain shift and antibiotic resistance in a rebuttal to an article published in The Guardian in 2010. “The pneumococcus strains prevalent in India are nearly all sensitive to inexpensive antibiotics like penicillin,” wrote the pediatrician.He added:
In the US which has been using the pneumococcal vaccine for some years now, there has been a strain shift—strains covered in the vaccine are being replaced by other strains. Ominously the new strains are more antibiotic resistant. . . . Vaccine has simply made the problem of pneumococcal disease worse.19
18. Irrespective of vaccine-induced immunity or efficacy, all vaccines result in various levels of vaccine injury. The question is not if vaccines injure recipients; the question is to what degree vaccines injure recipients. To believe otherwise is magical thinking.
19. The greater the number of vaccines administered, the greater the injury to vaccine recipients. To believe otherwise is more mystical thinking.
20. Long-term disease prevention or eradication results in population-wide loss of immunity, placing The Herd at risk of accidental or intentional reintroduction of pathogens. In other words, eradication destroys natural herd immunity. The only solution in such a scenario is to continue vaccinating everyone against such diseases or participate in an endless cycle of stockpiling, trashing, and stockpiling vaccines (more in Chapter 24).
21. Many vaccines simply don’t do what the public has been taught they do—they don’t protect against the spread of disease. On occasion, even the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics acknowledge this fact, as they did in June 2016, when they advised pediatricians to stop using the worthless “. . . live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV). . . .”20
22. Vaccine-based disease prevention blinds humanity to the powerful role that hygiene, sanitation, nutrition, and healthy lifestyles play in disease prevention. It also blinds public health officials to the fact that people who are suffering and dying from poor nutrition, etc., are by definition immunocompromised, and such people are far more likely to sustain vaccine injuries or death than are healthy individuals.
23. Vaccine-based disease prevention misappropriates billions of dollars in research funding and public health policy—money that would be more wisely spent on an increased understanding of the role of natural protective factors. An example of this is found in the development of the meningococcal vaccine to prevent meningitis. According to the CDC’s Pink Book, the incidence of this disease in the USA is less than 1 in 300,000 people, while it is epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa.21
Obviously, vaccinating to prevent this disease in the USA is insanity. Wouldn’t it make more sense to export what is already working in the USA: good hygiene, nutrition, and sanitation practices to disease ridden areas—factors that reduce the incidence of virtually all diseases—rather than export yet another problem-laden vaccine?
24. Vaccine-based disease prevention also casts aside effective and inexpensive treatments in favor of dangerous and expensive vaccines. Quoting again the Indian pediatrician Dr. Puliyel:
An analysis in the Lancet showed how the Pneumococcal vaccine reduces only 4 cases of pneumonia per 1000 children. . . . The cost for vaccinating 1000 children comes to $12,750. . . . Treating the 4 cases of pneumonia in India using WHO protocol, would cost $1. . . .22
25. The doctrines of herd immunity and vaccine safety and efficacy prevent the CDC and others from conducting much-needed research into vaccine safety. Those doctrines led to the IOM’s 2004 statement to stop conducting research into the relationship vaccines share with autism and several other disorders. Those doctrines disseminate from the government to medical education, medical journals, and into the minds of practitioners leaving them unable to provide informed consent, unable to exercise sound clinical judgment before vaccinating their patients largely blind to the reality of vaccine injury, and also unable to provide effective treatment for those who suffer vaccine injury at their hands.
26. Vaccine-based disease prevention places the health and welfare of every human being including fetuses, newborns, women of reproductive age, and the elderly in the hands of criminally run, profit-driven corporations and their counterparts in government regulatory agencies.
Few people in history have more experience related to vaccines and corruption in government than the recently deceased Dr. Shiv Chopra, whose résumé includes: Microbiologist, Vaccination Researcher & Specialist, Former Senior Scientific Advisor on Vaccinations for Health Canada, and author of Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower. Orthopedic surgeon Dave Janda, MD, interviewed Chopra in July 2016 starting with what might be the granddaddy of all vaccine questions: “Are there any vaccine programs that have been beneficial to society?” Chopra responded, “None.”23
Russell Blaylock, MD, an outspoken critic of concrete-thinking vaccinologists, states, “Herd immunity is mostly a myth and applies only to natural immunity—that is, contracting the infection itself.” The neurosurgeon holds a dim view of vaccine architects who believe that common people are too dim-witted to understand the miracle and the necessity of vaccines:
A growing number are made of those with a collectivist worldview and see themselves as a core of elite wise men and women who should tell the rest of us what we should do in all aspects of our lives. They see us as ignorant cattle, who are unable to understand the virtues of their plan for America and the World. Like children, we must be made to take our medicine— since, in their view, we have no concept of the true benefit of the bad-tasting medicine we are to be fed.24
Michael Gaeta, a doctor of acupuncture, has facilitated hundreds of presentations on what he calls the “vaccine scam.” He asks the question, “Is it truly so that vaccinating protects others, and that failing to vaccinate endangers others?” to which he responds:
For the precious few with the courage to question the forced vaccination propaganda, and accept the truth, based on credible, non-CDC science, [the answer] is no, or, more accurately, absolutely not.
Vaccine-induced herd or community immunity is scientifically impossible. It is a brilliant piece of marketing, using guilt to coerce behavior and drive drug sales. It is twisted genius in action, making intelligent, independent-thinking people ignore their honest, well-founded vaccine skepticism, and causing the rest to accept unlimited vaccinations without question.25
Marcella Piper-Terry is a vaccine researcher, founder of VaxTruth.org, and mother of a daughter who recovered from autism with biomedical treatments. According to Piper-Terry,
There is no such thing as vaccine-induced herd immunity. It doesn’t exist. It never has. The vast majority of adults have ZERO immunity from vaccines and we have not been having huge outbreaks of disease. Let’s please just stop talking about how we’re going to lose herd immunity if we stop vaccinating. We can’t lose what we’ve never had.26
Janet Levatin, MD, Board Certified Pediatrician and Clinical Instructor in Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, assumes a more moderate position than Chopra, Blaylock, Gaeta, and Piper-Terry, but even she has come to the conclusion that the modern vaccine schedule has jabbed the beloved doctrine of the greater good beyond “the crossover point”:
We have arrived at—indeed we have passed—the crossover point, that point at which we realize that the preventive measures we were prescribed cause more damage than the problems they were intended to prevent. When we realize we have crossed that point, it is time for us to inform ourselves as fully as possible and assume responsibility for our own healthcare and the healthcare of our children.27
It’s long past time for scientists to move beyond the reductionist science of the 1800s and their religious faith in the doctrines of herd immunity, the greater good, and vaccine safety and efficacy to justify the scientifically insupportable vaccine epidemic in the 21st century.
Previous chapters provided an introduction into the role the medical establishment plays in the government-pharma industrial complex. The following chapter takes a closer look at some of the numerous business relationships industry shares with an organization that claims to be “Dedicated to the health of all children.”