Infinite Patients
Immediate Results

Vaccination

Information on vaccination for people.

Vaccines are less tested than other medications because the

overall concept of vaccination is accepted and thought to be safe.

The Daily Telegraph ran the story about how the UK Government is now having to pay out £ms to parents of children who now suffer from Narcolepsy as a result of being given the Swine Flu vaccine with the normal "flu shot". Who in the Government agreed to sign the disclaimer that absolved GSK of any action in the event of adverse reactions and why should such a clause be necessary if vaccination is so safe? Clearly the manufacturers know (or knew?) better!!!

I. Persson, F. Granath, J. Askling, J. F. Ludvigsson, T. Olsson, N. Feltelius. Risks of neurological and immune-related diseases, including narcolepsy, after vaccination with Pandemrix: a population- and registry-based cohort study with over 2 years of follow-up. Journal of Internal Medicine, January 2014


I wonder how much compensation will be given to girls with premature menopause who cannot have children after having the HPV Vaccine?

Although I've had this report and link on my webpage for a couple of years now, it has started to come into the radar of mainstream medicine too... at least in the USA. See ACoP statement here

Thimerosal adjuvant dangers to human astrocyte mitochondria

Nosodes Work

In Cuba, homeopathic nosodes against Weil's Disease proved more successful than vaccination.

Link to paper here

Roger's opinion on Vaccination

Vaccination is a contentious issue within the human medical field. Contrary to popular belief vaccination was first performed by the Chinese. Whilst in Hong Kong, a friend of Edward Jenner saw vaccination being performed and told Jenner about it when he came home to the UK. Jenner tried the idea by using Cowpox to inoculate against Smallpox and the rest as they say is history.

There now seems to be an idealistic belief that it will be possible to vaccinate for a myriad of diseases from childhood diseases through to Cancer. IMHO this is unrealistic and fails to recognise that many diseases are multi-factorial and/or can have a number of aetiologies behind the same end result. There is also a failure to learn the lessons from veterinary medicine where over-vaccination in the poultry and pig industries brought about populations of birds and pigs respectively that have seriously compromised immune systems that struggle to cope with pathogens other than those specific strains against which they have been inoculated.

There are a number of fundamental problems with vaccines as follows.

Single vaccines can only have a maximum of 3 components eg this means that there are only a maximum of 3 strains of the chosen influenza virus in the much promoted but proven to be largely ineffectual annual flu jabs. Nature has a predictable habit of mutating in unpredictable ways. There is no protection against a novel strain of virus.

Vaccines are often given by a different route by which natural infection would be achieved and in many cases stimulate a different branch of the immune system to that which would have to deal with a future challenge. How many of us contract flu by any route other than through our respiratory system? Even the developer of the human flu vaccine questions its efficacy and wouldn't have it himself!! A recent retrospective analysis of research into the human flu vaccine concluded that it only provided protection to approximately 1% of users. See here for a summary of that peer-reviewed paper

Anybody looking for a truly effective way to help resist flu and any other winter infections would do well to supplement daily with Vitamin D3, at least 2-4000iu /day.

Vaccines contain adjuvants which are necessary to stimulate and amplify the immune response to the viral/bacterial component of the vaccine. Adjuvants usually contain aluminium hydroxide and/or mercury in the form of thimerosal. Both Aluminium and Mercury have been known to cause their own health problems for over 100 years in the form of neurotoxic effects ranging from muscular pain and paralysis to Alzheimer's and behavioural changes which has been suggested is amplified if both types of adjuvant are used together. With the advent of supposedly milder vaccines using recombinant viruses etc the use of more aggressive oil-based adjuvants has been proposed to ensure an immune response including those previously thought to be too potent to be used in people. Indeed oil-based adjuvants are used in vivisection to induce auto-immune diseases in experimental animals. Squalene is one such adjuvant that has been suggested and has already been used. It was the adjuvant in the Anthrax vaccine given to many soldiers prior to the Desert Storm campaign in Iraq - but without being adequately tested. Many soldiers now suffer from Gulf War Syndrome. Jounalist Gary Matsumoto wrote after thoroughly researching the subject

"when an oil is injected, the immune system responds to it not only specifically, but with heightened intensity because the oil adjuvant resembles so closely the natural oils found in the body. A ‘cross reaction’ then happens, sending the immune system into chaos destroying any oils found anywhere in the body that resemble the adjuvant oil. Demyelinating diseases like multiple sclerosis are an example of this destructive autoimmune process"

Unfortunately it is unlikely that anybody being given a vaccine will necessarily be told which adjuvant it contains - not that it's a great choice. Whatever adjuvant is used it is a potential time-bomb ticking away. It is no coincidence in my mind that allergies are an ever-increasing problem with people. Over-vaccination alongside poor nutrition must bear much of the responsibility for this. It is commonly stated that it takes the immune system up to 6 months to fully recover (if it really ever does) from a vaccination.

The more vaccinations given together at a young age, the greater the difficulty in recovering especially in babies where the immune system is not fully developed when many vaccinations are now given. It has also been suggested that some childhood diseases are a natural stimulus in the development of the immune system and that by preventing babies and children from contracting these illnesses they are less able to respond to other infections. It cannot by denied that some children die from contracting these childhood illnesses but whether this is more symptomatic of a weakened health and immunity than an indication of pathogen virility is unclear. I suspect that, as with overuse of antibiotics, forcing pathogens to mutate has created an ever-increasing degree of pathogenicity alongside an ever-weakening immunity. I wonder where this leaves future generations?

We should also consider that through natural immune response and recovery from these childhood illnesses there is frequently a higher level of protection than if immunity is stimulated through vaccination. Those of us who lived in times of illness parties to help spread these infections to children to boost natural immunity and ensure we all encountered these diseases as children , a) survived and b) have life-long immunity unless otherwise immuno-suppressed. How children given mass and multiple vaccinations will fare if they meet these infections much later in life (when immunity has reduced) where some are known to have much more serious implications (eg, mumps and shingles) does not appear to have be taken into consideration. Is it another ticking time-bomb? I suspect so ...

Homeopathic Nosodes

Homeopathic nosodes are sometimes wrongly referred to as a homeopathic vaccine. Nosodes are homeopathic preparations of the pathogen but this in itself does not stimulate the immune response in the same way as a vaccination.

Nosodes will provide symptomatic cover only for the individual in the face of an outbreak of disease so that they will asymptomatically seroconvert in response to meeting the disease pathogen. The natural immune response to the pathogen will result in antibodies and memory cell production but it is as a result of being challenged by the pathogen itself and not as a result of the nosode. People who have given nosodes where a future titre test has shown antibodies present have mis-interpretted the meaning of this and have assumed that the nosode stimulated the immune response because they haven't witnessed the pathogen challenge that occurred during the nosode course because it was asymptomatic.

If an individual receiving a nosode does not encounter the pathogen at the same time, they will not seroconvert and will not have an immune response that provides future cover. It is entirely possible therefore for an individual that has received homeopathic nosodes but not seroconverted to meet the pathogen in later life and become ill with that disease. It is not a failing of the nosode itself - just a failing of the individual to meet the pathogen whilst they were receiving the nosode. I hope that clears up a common misunderstanding.