Today we are very honored to have with us
Dr. Richard Moskowitz.
Richard has just come out with a book on vaccinations called Vaccines: A Reappraisal and I asked him to come over to the Hpathy Ezine and talk to us about it.
And here he is now! Richard, thank you for taking the trouble to come here, and for writing this book! I find the subject matter horrifying because children and parents the world over are being aggressively targeted by Big Pharma to submit to this medical ritual that is truly pointless, extremely risky and, increasingly, inescapable!
But communicating this even to our family and friends is next to impossible! Vaccination is seen as modern medicine’s finest hour! Everyone equates it with the momentous victory over polio; and consequently, we sound like conspiracy nuts and fanatics who don’t believe in science!
So before even trying to explain, we face an uphill battle! No one can believe that the vaccine “industry” has transgressed all the laws and principles of science just to make a buck!
No one seems to be familiar with the difference between science and the “science” that can be bought and paid for; or, as Robert Kennedy Jr. calls it, “tobacco science”.
Let’s start with your book’s opening assertion, that we shouldn’t even be trying to eliminate the childhood diseases! I know that will come as a shock to most people. But what we haven’t been told is that getting these diseases in childhood trains the immune system to handle viruses of all kinds and confers permanent lifetime immunity to them; and on top of that, you pass this immunity on to your children via your breast milk, AND, you are much less likely to develop chronic disease if you’ve been allowed to fight off acute illnesses in childhood!
“…a considerable volume of research has documented [that] adults who acquired the measles, mumps, chicken pox and influenza naturally in childhood, rather than being vaccinated…[are the beneficiaries of] a significantly lower incidence of asthma, allergies, seizures and a variety of autoimmune disorders…later in life.”
Vaccines: A Reappraisal, p. 12.
This leads to the conclusion that by vaccinating, you might be setting your kids up for life-threatening chronic illnesses instead of superficial, self-limiting viral diseases. What you seem to be saying is that UNvaccinated children are, for the most part, healthy; and vaccinated children are chronically ill, suffering with allergies, ear infections, frequent colds and flus…. Even the CDC admits that over 50% of American children have at least one chronic disease! What’s the most convincing proof that vaccines are the cause of this; because clearly, no one is going to believe it!
First, as a prelude to my answer, I’d like to say something about science. Actually, the words are those of the late Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist:
“Science creates power through knowledge, a power to do things. It does not give instructions how to use it for good rather than evil.
Scientific statements are approximate, never certain. We must leave room for doubt, or there is no progress and no learning. There is no learning without posing a question, and a question requires doubt. Before you begin an experiment, you must not know the answer. If you already know the answer, there is no need to gather any evidence; and to judge the evidence, you must take all of it, not just the parts you like. That’s a responsibility that scientists feel toward each other, a kind of morality.”
As for the scientific proof that vaccines are implicated in the rise in various chronic diseases, what to me is most convincing are, first of all, the numerous studies showing that coming down with and recovering from acute diseases with fever during childhood, such as the measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, and influenza, are actually protective against developing asthma, allergies, seizures, type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, other autoimmune diseases, and cancer later in life. These are almost exact mirror-images of still other studies showing that people vaccinated against these same childhood illnesses are much more likely to develop several of the above-mentioned chronic diseases than those who were not.
As a corollary to them, still other studies show that the risk of dying or developing serious chronic diseases after being vaccinated has much less to do with which particular vaccine is given than with the total vaccine load, the number of individual vaccines given, both simultaneously at the same visit and also cumulatively over the patient’s lifetime. In other words, it is inherent in the vaccination process per se. This also tallies with the intuitive fears of many parents, since the immune system is “hard-wired” to mount a vigorous acute response to infection, resulting in the expulsion of the offending organism from the blood, whereas vaccines are designed to remain inside the body for as long as possible, by definition a chronic state.
This is all covered in detail in the book: Chapter 1 on the immune response, and the protective effect of coming down with and recovering from acute diseases with fever, especially in children; and Chapter 9 on epidemiological and clinical research on vaccinated and unvaccinated children. (Feynman’s sentiments are excerpted from the Dedication.)
Richard, I dare say that it has probably occurred to no one that being allowed to mount a defense against an acute illness and throw it off naturally actually strengthens the immune system and makes for a longer and healthier life!
That’s very interesting what you said about the vaccine being meant to stay in the child’s body and not be conquered by the immune system as it would be if the virus had been caught normally.
“When a vaccine is … injected … there is at most a brief inflammatory reaction at the portal of entry, but no local sensitization, no incubation period, no massive out-pouring of lymphocytes, macrophages and other phagocytes, no overt acute illness, and thus … no obvious mechanism or pathway for getting rid of it.”
Vaccines: A Reappraisal, p. 14
To the immune system, I would imagine that this means always being on the alert, always being on the attack against these vaccine viruses–since they never leave! What are the consequences of this? Does it mean the child’s immunity is unavailable for anything else–other than the vaccine virus? Do we use up our stores of antibodies by dedicating them to vaccine viruses, most of which are out of the population anyway? Does it leave fewer antibodies to deal with real viruses that are going through the school or daycare center at any given time? Are vaccine kids unable to fight these real-life acute diseases off?
These are all good questions, Elaine, that at the moment cannot be answered, because we don’t know, and the drug industry doesn’t want us to know, precisely, how vaccines act inside the human body. We don’t even know whether they know and simply aren’t telling, making it a “trade secret,” or they don’t know and would like to keep it that way.
But what is highly probable and we therefore have good reason to believe, is that vaccination can “succeed” in forcing the recipient to produce antibodies on a long-term basis solely by setting up a chronic state, technically a “disease,” of an autoimmune nature in many, if not in all, cases which I fear reprograms the immune system to respond chronically rather than acutely to things. This is admittedly a hypothesis on my part, but I can’t think of any other way to explain what I see clinically.
Instead of expelling the foreign organism in the wake of an acute disease, as our bodies are hard-wired to do, it is simply not plausible to imagine that our immune cells retain enough memory of the infection to continue producing antibodies throughout life unless some residue of the invader remains behind in those cells on a chronic or permanent basis. This is the stated purpose of aluminum and other adjuvants, without which the antibody response is inadequate. With the live-virus vaccines, which don’t need adjuvants, the attenuated virus must somehow attach itself to the genetic material of the host cells to achieve the same result. But we still do not know precisely how that happens in either case. What we do know for sure is that the molecular weight of those adjuvant-vaccine complexes are much too high for the kidneys to excrete.
So, in answer to your questions, I would say yes to all of the possibilities you mention; but at the moment we can’t be sure. You see how much legitimate research still needs to be done, that the industry and the CDC have studiously avoided doing.
And here’s the other thing, Richard; the CDC (The US Centers For Disease Control) actually owns vaccine patents! And it is the CDC that gets to determine the vaccine schedule! I doubt that anyone knows that! Dr. Paul Offit (“Mr. Vaccine”) owns the Rota Teq vaccine. He actually got to vote on his own vaccine! You can read about it below:
This is just corruption! Science goes out the window with such obvious conflicts of interest.
Another question I have: People seem to believe that there’s something “special” about the vaccine diseases; that they’re unlike the “ordinary” viruses going around school or the office–a whole other category! They believe that catching the measles would be life-threatening!
I’ve tried to explain that there’s really no difference, they’re all viruses and they’re all horrible, but they typically all involve the same thing: a runny nose, sore throat, muscle aches, fever, cough, head congestion, malaise, chills, possibly a rash in some cases, maybe diarrhea and upset stomach in other cases depending on the kind of virus it is…. Is there really any qualitative difference between “ordinary” viruses going around school and daycare, and vaccine viruses like chicken pox and measles?
It sounds like a noble goal–wipe out all the childhood diseases! There’s the assumption that by doing that, kids won’t get sick anymore; but… No! They are still going to get sick! Just as many sore throats, just as many coughs, fevers and runny noses…. What exactly are we accomplishing by cherry-picking viruses and saying, “You can have these, but you can’t have those.” Why? You’d have to be able to make a case that the viruses we vaccinate for are categorically “special” and different from all the other viruses kids get and that’s why we care about “these”, but not about “those”. Can doctors make that case?
Well, Elaine, the diseases we now vaccinate against are a mixed bag. The earliest ones were often serious and at least potentially life-threatening, like diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, and polio, which is why a lot of my patients still want to give some or all of those to their kids, even though they won’t get them from me; and while I can and do give good arguments for why they don’t need them, I respect their choice.
The MMR and the newer vaccines of the ’90’s and since, on the other hand, are either rare or seldom fatal, or both; and most of the parents I see who take the “religious” exemption (still available in Massachusetts) refuse all or nearly all of these. Measles, mumps, chicken pox, and influenza are illnesses that kids should get, ideally in elementary school, by which time they’ve already come down with and recovered from the “ordinary viruses” going around that you were referring to. Many studies indicate that acquiring these named illnesses are important for protecting against chronic diseases in the future.
Pneumococcus and HiB are mutant strains of organisms that are part of our normal flora; they are often cultured from ear infections, but can occasionally progress to more serious illnesses like pneumonia and meningitis. With them, the best preventive is to make friends with our normal flora. Rotavirus is a serious problem in Subsaharan Africa, but not in the US: the only reason it’s marketed here is that we can afford the hefty asking price, so those 2-paycheck families don’t lose any income from having to stay home and nurse their kid through a little diarrhea.
Hep B likewise is a threat mainly to IV drug users, and to surgical patients infected with their blood, which now happens much more rarely as a result of improved screening by blood banks.
Gardasil (HPV) targets cervical cancer, and is a bad idea, because that disease is already disappearing on its own, and natural antibodies to the HP virus, which is ubiquitous, are actually protective against cervical cancer.
You’re quite right to pick up on the implied but unstated subtext of all this, which is to attack and defeat all infectious diseases, simply because we have the technical capacity to make vaccines against any organism we can identify, utterly heedless of the inherent dangers of all vaccines, of vaccination as a concept, of creating a chronic disease to forestall an acute illness, to say nothing of the fact that most vaccines are also ineffective or, at best, only moderately and temporarily effective, according to their own minimalist criteria.
In any case, even if by some miracle, we could actually succeed in eradicating all the known infectious diseases of mankind, it is impossible to imagine that we would be any the healthier for it, that others at least equally serious would not quickly arise to fill their place.
What really scares me is that the accumulated load of so many vaccines will thoroughly reprogram the immune system to the extent of being much less able to mount acute, vigorous responses to infections of any kind, so that we will simply have nothing but chronic disease to contend with, immune systems that are crippled from birth, and hardly a glimpse of the ordinary good health that most people of my generation were fortunate enough to have grown up with.
Yes, I seem to remember that!
Already we have a population in which almost 30% of the children born today suffer from some form of brain damage, of which vaccines are certainly a major cause, and the CDC seems to accept that as simply our normal condition, which has unfortunately become very close to the truth.
When you say, “Measles, mumps, chicken pox, and influenza are illnesses that kids should get…” is it equally troubling to you that when kids do get sick in this way, the parents rush in with Aspirin, Advil, antibiotics and Tylenol and subvert the entire healing process? Isn’t it a fact that very few children are allowed to fight off an illness in a totally natural way? And how much damage does this do to the child’s immune system and overall health?
It’s troubling, but less so. Even with fever-suppressing medications, the child still recovers on his own. Antibiotics are worse, because they suppress the infection before the child has a chance to develop an immune response; but the illnesses I spoke of are viral, and antibiotics are not indicated or given for them as a rule. So antibiotics are somewhat damaging, especially when repeated and overused, as they so often are. But even they do not permanently alter the immune mechanism, as vaccines do.
On page 27 of your book, you say that vaccines cause viruses to morph into something new and unrecognizable, and I’m guessing something worse than the original disease. It seems like, by vaccinating, we’re creating new diseases. Are children still getting sick with the measles of long ago, or are they only coming down with “Vaccine Measles” nowadays?
It’s a good question, Elaine. It’s already happened with polio, which has resurfaced in the form of AFM, a more virulent version, “acute flaccid myelitis,” so named lest people think it a form of polio, which it is. The measles and mumps cases seem to be of the old wild-type variety, but I doubt anybody’s checking or at least reporting on that, yes or no. It has begun too happen with Gardasil (HPV), which targets certain strains of the HP virus and has thus predictably aided the prevalence of other strains. The other known examples (HiB, pneumonia, pertussis, meningococcus) are all bacterial rather than viral. But for sure we’re creating new diseases, or at least favoring new mutant strains of the old. My point, of course, was to correct the prevailing assumption that vaccines are effective.
Influenza is a special case, because it mutates so rapidly anyway that there’s no such thing as a fixed “wild type.” Whether the new flu outbreaks are more virulent than those of the pre-vaccine era would be interesting to look at, since the generic illness we call “the flu” is by no means limited to the influenza virus, and it is well known that flu vaccines are more susceptible to other respiratory infections. So you can see how much legitimate research remains to be done, having been systematically neglected for so long.
Richard, I’ve written a lot of articles on vaccination and read a lot of books on the subject, and I thought I knew just about everything, but something I read in your book really made my jaw drop! First of all, I thought there had been no vaccine studies, but according to your book, I’m wrong; BUT–and this is what’s shocking–in all the studies, the placebo group got either another vaccine, or aluminum! Now, let that sink in for a minute. Placebo is supposed to be an inert substance. It’s supposed to be a substance that causes no harm. Aluminum is a neuro-toxin, and to give the control group a neurotoxin or another vaccine as a “placebo” is simply astonishing!
There is supposed to be only ONE independent variable in any experiment so that in the end, if any change occurs, there’s only one way to explain it. If you introduce two variables into an experiment, you can’t make heads nor tails out of the results–scientists know this! I learned this is high school! Do these studies divulge the contents of the “placebo” or do they try to keep it a secret?
“In 2012, in response to persistent interrogation before a Congressional Committee, Dr. Colleen Boyle, a senior CDC official, reluctantly admitted…that the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, and the manufacturers themselves, routinely avoid using unvaccinated controls as a matter of policy, a radical departure from this widely accepted ‘gold standard’ of biomedical research. With ActHIB, Sanofi-Pasteur’s Hib vaccine, for example, the subjects receiving the Hib were given the DTP vaccine also, while the so-called ‘controls’ received both the DTP and either the oral polio or the hepatitis B for comparison.”
Vaccines: A Reappraisal, p. 29
And of course, the reason for this bizarre testing procedure would be for the control group to be as sick as the vaccine group! That way, you can’t infer that vaccines cause anything!
If you ask me, Richard, this is the smoking gun! They KNOW they can’t run a legitimate trial of a vaccine! It’s shocking!
Elaine, you’re entirely correct. The absence of a genuine (i. e., unvaccinated) control group does indeed make it impossible, according to current standards, to establish genuine causation, and (as you say) is clearly designed to make both groups as nearly comparable as possible.
So in other words, “The vaccine group had no more cases of autism–or anything else– than the control group; so, therefore, vaccines don’t cause autism–or anything else!” Meanwhile, no one was informed that the “placebo” group got the DTP shot! And, you know, the DTP has been deemed so dangerous that it has actually been taken off the market in favor of the DTaP. So the trial actually used a substance that was banned. What can I say? No regard for science, no regard for human life. The only regard seems to be for money.
It is indeed a smoking gun, Elaine, which the CDC has lamely attempted to justify by invoking and misreading the Helsinki Declaration, as I discussed at the end of Chapter 3. And there are 2 other smoking guns, also discussed in Chapter 3: 1) the minimal requirements for supervision ruling out the chronic dimension…
Yes, I remember that. If nothing bad happened in a certain minimal number of days, then all was considered to be well.
“Limiting the observation period to three widely separated periods of 14 days each already casts serious doubt on the results, because a primary antibody response to an antigen encountered for the first time requires at least 14 days; and in my experience, it can easily take longer than that, weeks or even months, for serious chronic conditions to develop and manifest. The obvious and inevitable result, if not the intent, of limiting the study period to 14 days after each dose, is thus to exclude almost all chronic diseases from consideration….”
Vaccines: A Reappraisal, p. 31
and 2) the absolute power vested in the Lead Investigator to decide whether adverse reactions reported by the subjects are or are not vaccine-related, according to guidelines about which we are told nothing whatsoever.
You are also right that in most cases the “placebo” consists of 1) the aluminum adjuvant, 2) another vaccine, or 3) we know not what. In a very few cases, genuine placebo is used (i. e., saline), but the numbers involved are too small to justify a definite conclusion.
In any case, the clear intention, and the inevitable result, is to minimize the adverse effects that are officially recognized. In practice, these are limited to the very few already identified, and actively solicited by the Investigator, so that those additional reports submitted by the subjects can usually be rejected.
So if a subject reports anything that’s not on the “list”, it’s ignored!
Here’s what I’m hoping Richard, with Christmas and other holidays coming up, people will put this book on their shopping list and make sure that all friends and family members who are expecting a child or who may already have a child, get this book! Click here to buy it on Amazon:
The price is reduced, by the way. Richard, I need to end the interview so we don’t miss our November deadline; but if you want to come back to discuss more on this topic, I’m all for it! Thanks for sharing this important book with us; I feel that somehow we have only just scratched the surface.
Yes, you’re right about scratching the surface: a lot of what we really need to know has remained either unexplored or a well-kept “trade secret” of the industry, for the simple reason that only the drug companies have the cash needed to fund the full-dress, prospective, double-blind trials needed to establish causation, so that independent investigators have had to rely on epidemiological surveys after the fact, which are persuasive, even compelling, but not conclusive. As it stands, those countless thousands of parents who believe and indeed know for certain, in the way that only parents can know, are readily dismissed as either lying or stupid, or at best tragically deluded by the extremity of their misfortune. That’s why this mounting crisis is a powder keg ready to explode at any moment, like the fall of the Soviet Union or the #Me Too phenomenon.
Yes, it’s exactly like the “Me Too” phenomenon! The “Me Too” phenomenon, for those you you who don’t know, refers to the current avalanche of “outings” in the U.S. of famous people who are, or were, secretly sexual predators (“Yes, so-and-so molested Me Too!”). In the past, these women or girls simply would not have been believed; now people are finally listening. The medical profession will have its day as well, and the truth will come out. They can’t continue on indefinitely in this insane lust for more and more money at the expense of children and families.
“In 2014, William Thompson, PhD, a senior research scientist at the CDC, issued a press release in which he admitted that a 2004 study claiming that the MMR vaccine did not cause autism had suppressed data showing quite the opposite….
Dr. Thompson confessed that he and his coworkers were ordered to destroy the data from the study by their two superiors at the agency, both senior executives at the CDC’s Safety Division:
‘The study co-authors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents…brought a big garbage can into the meeting room, went through and reviewed all the hard-copy documents that we thought we should discard and put them into the can.'”
Vaccines: A Reappraisal, p. 100
Bye everybody, see you in December!
Elaine Lewis, D.Hom., C.Hom.
Elaine takes online cases! Write to her at LEWRA@aol.com
Visit her website: www.ElaineLewis.hpathy.com