The topic of vaccination divides many people into opposite camps. The “pro-vaxxers” are supported by the power, wealth and prestige of the pharmaceutical industry, which in turn controls the mass media and government health agencies. The “anti-vaxxers” are comprised of a rag-tag band of well-informed parents and a few scientists courageous enough to speak up for what they have seen.
Suzanne Humphries is such a scientist. A hospital nephrologist with 19 years experience, she recounts how she first saw the vaccination issue:
“Like most doctors, I received a cursory summary of the childhood and adult vaccine schedules and was told that vaccines are safe and effective and to give them on schedule. I never questioned the vaccine schedule and was largely agnostic about it.”
Her perspective changed in the winter of 2009, when the H1N1 flu vaccine was given as a separate injection from the seasonal flu jab. Three patients in close succession were wheeled into the emergency room of her hospital with total kidney shutdown.
When Humphries arrived to talk with them, each one volunteered, “I was fine until I had that vaccine.” All three had normal kidney function at baseline as per their outpatient records. All three required acute dialysis. Two eventually recovered; the third died of complications several months later.
Humphries began to take vaccine histories on each of her patients, and she was startled to find how often kidney disease followed vaccination. But most shocking of all was the attitude of her hospital colleagues. On one occasion Humphries conveyed a small bit of her observations to the chief of internal medicine, with whom she had a cordial relationship.
“He became stiff, his face tightened, his body language changed, and he asked me why I was blaming the vaccine.” He then claimed that the kidney patients had simply caught the flu, which caused the kidney failure. After all, he said, “Smallpox was eradicated by vaccines, and polio was eradicated in the United States by vaccines.”
Nevertheless, Humphries witnessed a steady stream of patients with normal kidney function whose health suddenly declined within 24 hours of vaccination. Humphries researched safety trials for vaccines in kidney patients over the next few months. But there were no studies to be found. There were hardly any safety trials at all for vaccines, and the few that existed often lacked a valid control group.
So she decided to research the widespread assumptions about the flu, smallpox and polio vaccines. “What I encountered threw me into a tailspin that ultimately led me to become a full time researcher on the immune system and vaccination,” she said. She left behind a very lucrative practice and a shining reputation.
Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History is the fruit of many years of research by Humphries and researcher Roman Bystrianyk. The book relies on facts and figures from long-overlooked medical journals, books, newspapers, and other sources to paint a realistic picture of conditions in the 19th century.
Bit by bit it becomes clear that the infectious diseases of that era—typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, diphtheria, measles, smallpox and others—were fundamentally due to the rapid migration of people from the countryside to the cities during the Industrial Revolution and the squalid environment in which they lived.
After massive public health measures were initiated, the incidence and mortality of all infectious diseases declined steadily, long before mass vaccination was introduced. Sanitary infrastructure, understanding of hygiene, vastly improved nutrition, labor laws, advances in science and many other factors coalesced to create a radical shift.
In 19th century England there was also a fierce controversy between “vaxxers” and “anti-vaxxers.” Concerns over vaccine safety, effectiveness and governmental infringement on personal liberty and freedom stoked the fires of the anti-vaccination movement. People began to resist the government mandates and chose to pay fines rather than be vaccinated. Some individuals even accepted imprisonment rather than allow vaccination for themselves or their children.
The Leicester Experiment
In 1885 the value of the smallpox vaccine was definitively tested by a clinical trial involving over a quarter of a million people, inhabitants of the city of Leicester, UK.
In that year the city government was replaced with a new government that opposed compulsory vaccination. By 1887 the vaccination coverage rates had dropped to 10 percent. Nonetheless, the city enjoyed a remarkable immunity from smallpox.
There were never more than two or three cases at a time, and instead of locking down the entire population the city merely quarantined the affected individuals and their households. In every instance the disease was promptly and completely stamped out at paltry expense.
Even though it was clear that the “Leicester Method” was superior to vaccination, those who strongly endorsed vaccination believed that the success was temporary. Sooner or later the town would suffer a large smallpox epidemic, they predicted.
As the years rolled by the doomsayers were silenced. In an 1893 outbreak of smallpox, Leicester had a death rate of 144 per million while the highly vaccinated town of Mold, about 100 miles to the west, had a death rate 32 times higher.
The highly vaccinated city of Birmingham, about 40 miles west, had more than three times as many cases as Leicester, and more than four times as many fatalities.
With each successive smallpox epidemic, Leicester’s numbers continued to improve. In 1904 C. Killick Millard, MD, the Leicester minister of health, could report:
…the experience of Leicester seems to show that where modern measures are carried out, unvaccinated persons run less risk of contracting smallpox, even in the presence of an epidemic, than is usually supposed. It was predicted that once the disease got amongst the unvaccinated children of Leicester it would “spread like wildfire.” I certainly expected this myself when I first came to Leicester, and it caused me much anxiety all through the epidemic. Yet although, during the ten months the epidemic lasted, 136 children (under fifteen years) were attacked, inflicted largely by once-vaccinated adults, it cannot be said that the disease ever showed any tendency to “catch on” amongst the entirely unvaccinated child population.
Fixed ideas die hard, however. In 1914, 30 years after the Leicester experiment began, the New York Times had the assurance to write:
We can safely predict a dreadful reckoning in England… Those who openly oppose vaccination or who tell everybody to wait until they come to the bridge of danger before crossing it, are taking a heavy responsibility on their souls.
But the prophesied day of reckoning never came. In 1948 C. Killick Millard, MD delivered this summation in the British Medical Journal:
…in Leicester during the 62 years since infant vaccination was abandoned there have been only 53 deaths from smallpox, and in the past 40 years only two deaths. Moreover, the experience in Leicester is confirmed, and strongly confirmed, by that of the whole country. Vaccination has been steadily declining ever since the “conscience clause” was introduced [allowing religious exemption from vaccination]. Until now nearly two-thirds of the children born are not vaccinated. Yet smallpox mortality has also declined until now quite negligible. In the fourteen years 1933-1946 there were only 28 deaths in a population of some 40 million, and among those 28 there was not a single death of an infant under 1 year of age.
Why did the smallpox vaccine fail?
The duty of the scientist is to explain facts. Given that public health measures combined with herd immunity were the real reason for the disappearance of smallpox, one would nevertheless expect vaccination to have played a supportive role, speeding up the process. It did not. Heavily vaccinated areas were the last to see smallpox disappear.
The problem lies in the basic premise behind vaccination, a simplistic and reductionistic model of the immune system that has long since been disproven.
The immune system is a network of integrated components that coordinate to repel and disable disease. When exposed to a new type of germ, the immune system mobilizes white blood cells such as macrophages, natural killer cells and antigen-specific T lymphocytes, as well as various cytokines (immune system proteins). Antibodies play no role at all in this initial defense.
Only after you recover from an infectious disease are antibodies produced.[1] Over time these antibodies disappear, and the burden of protection is borne by so-called “memory cells.”[2] These cells memorize a short piece of the disease antigen so the right cell types can multiply rapidly and attack a related infection.
Memory cells provide immunity against similar viruses as well. For example, at least 30% of the UK population had immunological recognition of SARS-CoV-2 before it even arrived, because they had been previously exposed to other coronaviruses.[3]
So how important are antibodies in establishing immunity? Scientists studying measles were surprised to find that individuals who make no antibodies at all—due to an inherited condition called agamma-globulinaemia—contracted measles in normal fashion, showed the usual sequence of symptoms and signs, and were subsequently immune for life, even though no measles antibody was detectable in their serum.[4]
Even if high antibody levels provide some degree of protection, it is transient. A 2018 review of 11 recent studies on the durability of the influenza vaccine concluded that effectiveness can vanish as soon as 90 days after a jab. Other vaccines such as measles and pertussis last at most a few years.
A new Israeli study described by Bloomberg as the largest real-world comparison of vaccine immunity to natural immunity showed the latter to be vastly superior. The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit, found in two analyses that people who were vaccinated against COVID in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus. In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher.
Hence, to speak of achieving herd immunity by vaccination is blatant gaslighting. The original documenter of herd immunity, A. W. Hedrich, found that herd immunity to measles occurs when the percentage of immune children climbs above 68%. The immune children act as a buffer, preventing the rapid spread of measles from one isolated case.
Vaccination has never achieved herd immunity and never will. The number of children vaccinated against measles in California exceeded 90% even before the legislature banned religious exemptions in 2015, for example, yet outbreaks of measles continued to occur.
The term “vaccine immunity” is simply a lie. There are three criteria of immunity: 1) it is lifelong, 2) it protects one from disease variants, and 3) it is passed along from mother to infant through breast milk. Vaccination fails to meet any of these criteria. We should be talking about “vaccine immune suppression,” as vaccination suppresses levels of helper T-cells and killer T-cells, causing immune system functions to plummet.
Rewriting history
Thanks to the smallpox epidemic the vaccine industry grew in economic and political power, led by men such as John D. Rockefeller, who invested heavily in pharmaceutical companies.
In order to pave the way for more vaccines and more profits, history was rewritten. The true story of how smallpox was conquered disappeared down a memory hole, replaced by: “The smallpox vaccine eradicated smallpox, one of the greatest scientific achievements of the 20th century.” If you didn’t adhere to this dogma you lost your job, your funding, or the next election.
Did the Salk vaccine eradicate polio?
Since the early 1900s polio has been portrayed as a highly prevalent and contagious disease. This belief was seared into the public consciousness by the 1916 epidemic in New York City.
Three miles from the epicentre of the outbreak, Simon Flexner and his associates at the Rockefeller Institute on the Upper East Side of Manhattan had been passaging spinal cord tissue containing the polio virus from one Rhesus monkey to the next. The doctors had no awareness of what they were handling. By 1916, mutants of the original Rockefeller virus had been selected for replication in monkey motor neurones but were still capable of high levels of replication in other cells.
The significance of the 1916 polio outbreak is that it set the stage for the terror to come. Doctors and patients alike were pre-conditioned for an ominous future and thus ready and willing to do whatever was necessary to eradicate polio.
In the early and mid 20th century, the criteria for diagnosing polio were very loose. If you had partial or complete paralysis of a muscle group for at least 24 hours, it was “polio.” The cause of the paralysis could be anything.
In 1954 a massive polio vaccine trial was begun in the US involving 1.3 million schoolchildren. In 1955 the results were announced. It was claimed that “the vaccine was 80-90% effective against paralytic polio.”
But also in 1955, the diagnostic criteria for polio were tightened up dramatically. Now a patient had to have residual paralysis for 60 days, not just 24 hours. This change made a huge difference in the number of cases recorded, because at least 60% of paralysis cases resolved spontaneously prior to 60 days.
Further, diagnostic procedures were refined. Polio was distinguished from other paralysis causing diseases such as Coxsackie virus, aseptic meningitis, Guillain-Barré, and so on. Prior to 1954 all these cases were lumped together under the broad term, “polio.”
So the number of polio cases was predetermined to decrease in 1955.
Nevertheless, the roll-out of the Salk vaccine was a disaster. At least 220,000 people were infected with polio as a result of vaccination; 70,000 developed muscle weakness, 164 were severely paralyzed, and 10 died. Even though the damage was blamed on a single manufacturer, Cutter Industries, all the vaccine companies could have released active vaccine virus, as none of them met the “minimum licensing requirements” set by the FDA.
This information was concealed from the public for nearly fifty years. It was decided that “no lasting good could come to science or the public if the Public Health Services were discredited.” (Congressman Percy Priest, head of polio vaccine investigation). This rationale has been repeatedly invoked in the ensuing years to suppress the truth about vaccines.
The polio vaccine was subsequently filtered to reduce its virulence, but vaccine-induced infections continued to occur. Today polio continues to cripple thousands per year, but the cases are diagnosed as “acute flaccid paralysis” (AFP). All these cases would have been classified as polio before 1954. A campaign to eradicate polio in India sponsored by the Gates Foundation caused an acute flaccid paralysis epidemic that paralyzed 490,000 children in the period 2000 to 2017.
Ironically, wild poliovirus in healthy people was never a major threat. Natural herd immunity has always been protective. During the United States epidemics, roughly 50-80 percent of the population was naturally immune to at least one type of poliovirus.
Approximately 95% of persons infected with polio have no symptoms. About 4% have minor symptoms that resolve completely. Less than 1% of polio cases result in permanent paralysis.
The incidence of paralytic polio did decline after 1954, but much of the credit belongs to regulatory actions by the EPA in the late 1950s to prohibit many of DDT’s uses. In countries such as India, where polio continues to be a well-publicized problem despite aggressive vaccination programs, DDT is still widely available.
Conclusion
It is eternally true that those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. In the case of vaccination, the real history has been all but obliterated, and even homeopaths and other alternative practitioners are ignorant of the facts.
Dissolving Illusions is an essential book for all medical practitioners and should be required reading in all the homeopathic colleges.
Over the past century the Western mind has been steadily brainwashed into believing that germs equal disease, and that we are powerless to prevent it. The purpose of this propaganda is to convince us that we are dependent on patent vaccines and other drugs to protect us.
In reality the human immune system is quite capable of dealing with germs if it is allowed to develop naturally. The greatest obstacle to good health is toxins in our environment and toxins injected into our blood stream.
I have often observed in my practice that when several members of a family catch a cold or the flu, the child who is least vaccinated goes unscathed, despite constant exposure to the same virus. A new study confirms this observation, concluding that unvaccinated children have less health problems than vaccinated children.
This study adds to a growing list of published peer-reviewed papers (Mawson, 2017; Hooker and Miller, 2020) that share the same conclusion: These studies prove that we have long underestimated the power of natural immunity, and that the epidemic of chronic illness in children today is the sad result.
[1] A. Casadevall et al., “A Reappraisal of Humoral Immunity Based on Mechanisms of Antibody Mediated Protection Against Intracellular Pathogens,” Advances in Immunology, vol. 91, 2006, pp. 1–44.
[2] Ratajczak W, Niedźwiedzka-Rystwej P, Tokarz-Deptuła B, Deptuła W. Immunological memory cells. Cent Eur J Immunol. 2018;43(2):194-203. doi:10.5114/ceji.2018.77390
[3] https://lockdownsceptics.org/addressing-the-cv19-second-wave/, accessed Dec. 2, 2020
[4] “Measles as an Index of Immunological Function,” The Lancet, September 14, 1968, p. 611.
Thank you for such a well-written, informative article. I’m sharing it with others.