'Vaccination Overdose' by Sylvie Simon

[Guest guest]

Z

 

 

'Vaccination Overdose' by Sylvie Simon

Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:16:15 -0000

 

 

" Civil responsibility is a form of protest and calls for more

responsibility. This principle will become more and more relevant with

the development of science and associated techniques. People will not

blindly believe in those who act on their behalf. The

contaminated-blood affair, among others, might perhaps never have come

about if someone had blown the whistle in time " . Andre Glucksmann

 

* * *

 

 

" Sylvie Simon's approach to the detail and data of the problem will

empower those who favour freedom of choice and, therefore, rejection

of obligatory practices sustained and perpetuated by dubious " experts "

who are out of date by being out of touch with the progress of science

in this field. Nor can we avoid the view that the objective is less

the health of the public than the profits of the pharmaceutical companies.

 

All this throws light on the scandals that disturb our daily life and

threaten our economy. Those responsible never pay, and the incompetent

or dishonest " experts " are always with us. That they are exposed by

the facts and even by some politicians, yet rest untroubled, is an

indication of the financial clout at their disposal.

 

Our thanks are due to Sylvie Simon for bringing us up to date on what

will be one of the great scandals of the future. Her work will enable

victims to understand how their condition came about, caused by those

– the " implicated but not guilty " – whose mission is to protect them. "

Jacqueline Bousquet - Doctor of Science (biology-Biophysiology) CNRS

Honorary Researcher

 

* * *

 

Principles of Vaccination

 

by sylvie simon

 

Translated by Harry Clarke

 

" We are still living with a deceitful government, a compliant press,

corruption and an overriding cynicism. " Jim Garrison (1988) – American

Prosecutor who led the enquiry into the assassination of John F Kennedy.

 

The history of vaccination is full of implausibilities and errors.

Everything has been said on the subject except what would have

discredited it in the eyes of the world and questioned its fundamental

basis. From the beginning, when Jenner wanted to vaccinate instead of

" variolate " , right up to the present time, everything depended on the

conditioning of minds.

 

Vaccinations are favoured today, for we have become dependent

consumers, always " wanting more " and manufacturers have well understood

this dependency. Vaccinations reflect the concept of having the

disease, the role of the doctor and the control of individual and

collective health, a concept that leads to reliance on others as

opposed to taking responsibility for oneself,

 

Vaccination was practised at a time when nothing was known about

microbes, viruses or the immune system. Nevertheless, it was soon

promoted to the first rank of general medical practice, routinely

applied and unquestioned. It took on the aspects of a faith rather

than of a science.

 

Convinced that in this practice they had a panacea, supporters imposed

it worldwide in mass campaigns, expanded programmes and laws making it

compulsory. It became an ideology to which a few had to be sacrificed

in order to protect the many.

 

An apparently easy solution, notionally simple, vaccination offers a

convenience unlike that of any other medical practice and, if its

development required a measure of investment, the compensation was

profit and commercial success.

 

It began at the end of the 18th century, to protect against smallpox.

The English doctor, Edward Jenner, experimented with inoculation of

the bovine disease, cowpox, which was considered similar to variola

(or small pox, as opposed to the great pox, syphilis), a disease of man.

 

Vaccination's fascination, with upper-class notables lauding it,

masked the reality since there was lively opposition from the very

beginning.

 

What did Jenner do? He simply replaced the pus of smallpox, which was

transferred from arm to arm (variolation), by the pus from the lesions

on the cow (vaccination). In time this pus was put through several

stages before administration but Jenner's first vaccine, crude and

empirical though it was, was given to millions across the globe.

Variolation was spreading smallpox. Vaccination stopped the spread by

replacing one pus with another, and by halting the multiplication of

sources. But it was no great advance for all that because it opened

the way for a more complex infection. For the first time an element of

another species was introduced, directly into the body, this being DNA

from the genes of another animal and, moreover, a sick animal. Thus

the consequences may be measurable only after several decades or

longer. At the end of the 18th century man had enabled the passage of

micro-organisms from one species to another. The species barrier had

been crossed, beginning the animalisation of man, or the

" minotaurisation of the human species " , according to Pierre Darmon in

La Longue Traque de la Variole (Pierre Darmon, Perrin, 1986). This

aspect, though unremarked by the public, should not have escaped the

attention of scientists, because it determined an ensemble of

unnatural phenomena which called for caution. Jenner introduced the

era of the apprentice sorcerers.

 

Observation had often shown that when an infectious disease is

contracted it is not contracted again – hence the idea of inoculation

of microbes or viruses whose toxicity had been weakened so as to

provoke a benign form of the disease capable of producing a reaction

and thus protect the organism against a future serious attack.

 

The concept was not without substance, for the procedure favoured

prevention, although the basis and harmlessness of the practice

remained unclear. That an organism could accustom itself to a poison

and thus acquire resistance to it is a principle recognised since

antiquity. It was immortalised by King Mithridate, who, according to

legend, had acquired immunity to poisons from stronger and stronger

doses. Each syringe contains a concentrated dose of vaccine, including

added material. VIDAL, the professional's dictionary of medicine notes

the components for each vaccine.

 

What's in a Vaccine ?

 

Standard manufacture uses a bacterial or viral antigen, e.g. a germ,

bacterium or virus, which may be killed, generally with formol or

great heat, or may be living but attenuated. The attenuation can be

obtained by heat (e.g. the whooping-cough vaccine) or by rapid passage

in a culture (BCG by 230 passages in potatoes mixed with beef bile; or

measles by 85 passages in chicken fibroblasts – cells derived from

eyelid mucus).

 

Bacterial vaccines can contain all of the bacterium (whooping-cough

vaccine) or can be acellular (only antigenic fragments). Diphtheria

and tetanus vaccines are " anatoxins " – they contain only the toxin

(attenuated) produced by the bacteria and supposed to be responsible

for the disease.

 

Cell cultures are required for viral vaccines since viruses lack

autonomy – they can exist only in a cell. The prerequisites are often

obtained from animals: from monkey kidneys for polio vaccine; from

hamster ovaries for hepatitis-B vaccine; from rabbit brain for rabies

vaccine; from chicken embryos for mumps vaccine; and from foetuses for

rubella vaccine.

 

Industrial production of vaccines requires cell lines from a vaccine

strain (e.g. Vero strain for polio vaccine) that is cancerised for

reproduction to infinity. The use of these continuous lines raises

problems of purity. World Healh Orgainisation report 747 (1986) raised

objections to cellular substrates for vaccine manufacture since they

could be contaminated with unknown viruses such as SV40, which has

been associated with cancer, by DNA contamination or by mutagenic

proteins.

 

Culture cells can grow only if nourished, generally by calf serum

containing growth factors (cf. National Cancer Institute Monograph,29

December 1968, pp 63-70). We may wonder if there is not a risk of

prion propagation. In the context of an evaluation of microbial safety

of medicines the French Medicines Agency has just withdrawn five

homeopathic remedies derived from human microbial strains. In

addition, by decree, 28 October 1998, the Health Minister has banned

" any homeopathic preparation from human strains, particularly when

ready-made or prepared specially " (Journal Officiel, 5 November 1998).

But vaccines escape this precautionary measure...

 

To avoid bacterial contamination of culture cells, which occurs

frequently, the laboratories use antibiotics, e.g. Neomycin, which is

to be feared by those who are allergic to Pentacoq vaccine, for

example. Hence Dr Jean Pilette, the Belgian doctor who has studied the

polio vaccine in particular : " Any product from living matter

presents unknown factors " . (See his La Poliomyélite... Which Vaccine?

Which Risk? L'Aronde).

 

To make these vaccines more active an adjuvant is introduced, with the

aim of augmenting the immune response, which might otherwise fail to

occur. Hence we deduce that the efficacy of these vaccines is such

that that their advocates are forced to adopt such tricks as adding

chemical toxins to their soups.

 

At present the adjuvant mainly used is aluminium hydroxide, and this

is a product that often causes serious allergies. And for a number of

years aluminium has been linked to Alzheimer's Disease. In VIDAL we

find that each dose of the hepatitis-B vaccine (Engerix or Genhevac) –

as also the DTP-polio – contains " not more than " 1250 µg of aluminium

hydroxide, whereas the official non-toxic dose is 15 µg/litre of

blood, and more than 150 µg is definitely toxic for the nerve cells.

Most vaccinations contain a preservative based on mercury, and VIDAL

refers to stabilisers and excipients in its less-than-expansive

remarks on vaccine ingredients. We learn also that a unidose of the

Pasteur DTP contains 0.5 ml of vaccine, of which 0. 005 ml is

phenoxyethanol (excipient) and 0.1 mg formic aldehyde for 1.25 mg of

aluminium hydroxide (preservative).

 

In other words, vaccines contain several potentially dangerous toxic

products that oblige the body to recognise and neutralise them, if

possible. These mechanisms are different from those called into play

in the natural response to disease. Thus vaccination puts different

demands on the immune system from those that apply when the real thing

comes along.

 

Vaccines are currently produced by gene techniques, i.e. instead of

using a virus or bacterium, certain segments of its chromosomes are

isolated and grafted on to others to obtain hybrid elements that do

not exist in nature. The result is not a synthetic but a recombinant

vaccine – a manipulation of live material. The antigen fragments are

then cultivated in substrates (e.g. yeast for the hepatitis-B

vaccine). Adjuvants, preservatives, antibiotics, etc are then added as

for traditional vaccines. We are told – untruthfully – that these new

vaccines are purer, therefore less dangerous. But they can activate

oncogenes, repress anti-oncogenes or modify genes in one way or

another. Hence they can be factors in the process of cancerisation.

 

Vaccines Adsorbed on Aluminium Hydroxide

 

Where tetanus is concerned, for example, the procedure to alter its

toxin requires precipitation on sulphate of ammonium, or an adsorption

(fixation of a substrate, molecule, atom or ion at the surface of

another substance). This operation provides a toxin that is attenuated

but possessing enhanced antigenic power by virtue of the new chemical

component.

 

Pasteur BCG contains 800 000 to 3200 000 units of Koch bacilli –

hardly negligible doses. Then, even attenuated or killed vaccines are

not dead or neutral, since they must retain immunising power if they

are to produce a reaction from the immune system. Their active

principle is therefore to cause disease and insofar as the

sought-after effect is to provoke the malady, vaccines represent a

traumatising jolt to the organism. Thus they entail permanent

modifications to the cells, for the product that is injected is not a

simple poison, which the body's elimination processes can clear,

filter and purify via the liver, kidneys, etc. It is not a matter of

Mithridisation for vaccination brings into play infinitely more

complex mechanisms. Our knowledge of these is very imperfect, immunity

as a science being only 50 years old.

 

The Immune System

 

Vaccinations are supposed to confer immunity, but what is immunity ?

It is our capacity to resist disease, the outcome of the activity of

our immune system, which regulates our defences to protect our

biological identity, just as the function of the blood system is to

irrigate the body, bringing nourishment and oxygen to the cells. But

the body is a whole and its different control systems operate in close

collaboration in that damage to one entails some effect on others.

Thus when pathogenic agents or physical or psychological shocks

threaten our equilibrium, the immune system organises and sets in

motion a chain of reactions each with an important role to play at its

own level. The mobilisation of all these reactions will be

proportional to the nature of the attack. Sometimes our defences are

overwhelmed and serious danger threatens, but our immune system is a

powerful mechanism of great precision and surprising efficiency: it

can withstand any assault so long as it is enabled to function optimally.

 

At birth, the system is not fully developed and it will be some years

before it is self-sufficient. During the first months the baby is

protected by the immunity passed on by the mother – it does not yet

have its own identity. Gradually, this " passive " immunity will be

replaced by its own, created by virtue of the germs encountered from

day to day. In time this acquired immunity will provide a stout armour

that will enable the infant to withstand the tests that life will

impose, such as childhood disease, the problems of growth and the

psychological crises that will help form the personality, different

for each individual. Vaccinations intrude on this process as

uncontrollable disturbances. In his 3-volume Constitution of Animal

and Vegetable Organisms; Causes of Diseases that Affect Them

(Published by Laboratoire de physiologie générale (3 volumes), Paris

1926,1936,1946), J. Tissot, Professor of Physiology at the Natural

History Museum, who had done experimental studies of microbes in vivo

and in vitro, puts us on guard : " Immunity by vaccination is

acquired only when it confers the chronic phase of the disease – which

is really to be avoided – a phase that entails fearsome complications

in the short or long term. "

 

We live in symbiosis with microbes. They surround us and are part of

us. We should not forget that they are living and, perforce, need to

feed and reproduce. Taking advantage of the opportunity provided by

humans, they try for a niche in which to exist. They do not seek to

attack us; they only want to live and are no more deadly pathogens

than any other cohabitants. To treat them as enemies is to adopt the

logic of war and runs counter to natural processes and imperils the

ecosystem.

 

The work of Antoine Béchamp, Jean Tissot, R R Rife, Léon Grigoraki,

and Gaston Naessens, to mention a very few, direct us to the same

theory: the smallest elements that govern life are endowed with powers

of transformation that allow them to take on various forms and have

diverse effects on our bodies.

 

It is not the germs that provoke disease; it is breakdown of metabolic

equilibrium. The germs begin to proliferate when the organism changes

and disorganisation sets in. Certain pathogenic agents can persist

without causing damage; others can trigger disease without the

presence of antibodies. Man is obsessed with the idea that polio can

kill or handicap endlessly, whereas millions of infants are infected

with the virus with no sign of the disease, the microbe being a " table

companion " in the intestines.

 

In nature nothing is lost, nothing is created, nothing dies, all is

transformed. The infinitely small changes unceasingly. A virus can

become a bacillus, then a mould (fungus), and inversely. Most of

life's elements undergo cycles and are protean. Man himself evolved

from fish to mammal. The Russian biologist, Bochian, has shown that

elements in the filtrate in tuberculin can revert to bacilli and

become pathogenic (Soviet Studies, July 1950). Micro-organisms are

principally endogenous and are compounds of more complex vital

elements. Their function is to participate in the maintenance of life.

 

In his article, A Possible Cause of Aids and Other Diseases, published

in 1984, Professor Richard Delong, Virologist at Toledo (USA)

University, wrote : " Everything supports the belief that that there

is a definite equilibrium between the human immune system and natural

viruses. Breaking this state could have unforeseeable consequences " .

(Medical Hypotheses,Vol 395, No 13, 1984).

 

In 1983 John Shaw Billings, the public-health specialist, had said :

" It is important to note that simply introducing microbes into a

living organism does not automatically provoke their multiplication

and the disease. The condition of the organism itself has a great

bearing on the result. "

 

 

True and False Heroes

 

" It seems to me a service to reveal the means employed by the immoral

to corrupt the moral. " Pierre Choderlos de Laclos

 

Many a famous man hides a very different face behind the image he

likes to present. Louis Pasteur (1822 - 1895) is an example. Adopted

as a hero, a model scientific researcher and a benefactor of humanity,

he has inspired a cult, a myth, a legend. Are the many honours

merited? Has his promotion to the halls of fame been to the detriment

of some of his contemporaries, whose work and discoveries were of

greater use to mankind? And if so, why?

 

Historians like Dr Philippe Decourt, Ethyl Douglas Hume, G Gerald

Geison, Xavier Raspail, Daniel Raichvarg and others have provided

answers. By close re-reading of the past they have breached the myth

and highlighted the real Pasteur. Like Pierre Thuillier, for example,

in La science existait-il ? , we can acknowledge that " contrary to

the golden legend, science advances thanks to extremely daring

conjectures, clever but often very doubtful experiments, and attempts

at success as diverse as irrational. " Nevertheless, Pasteur has not

honoured science, imperfect though it might be. Probity required that

he recognise his mistakes and be open to criticism, as any rigorous

researcher would. But Pasteur was too vain, too attracted by honours

and too partial to glory, and he sacrificed honour and truth to it

all. He claimed for himself discoveries made by others. Like a real

con man and with the help of accomplices he doctored unfavourable

experimental results and tyrannically refused to discuss them.

 

Over some years, Ethyl Douglas Hume consulted the Pasteur archives

and, in a book published in 1947, Béchamp ou Pasteur – A Lost Chapter

in the History of Biology, he came down against the celebrated founder

of microbiology and vaccination : " Pasteur, ambitious man,

opportunistic a genius at self-promotion, plagiarised then vulgarised

Béchamp's work.

 

" He stole his concept of small organisms but revealed only part of

Béchamp's discoveries, Pasteur declared that these organisms came only

from outside. He omitted to say that, in the open air, microbes and

other morbid microzymes (anormal) soon lose their virulence,And the

lie is perpetuated today.. " .

 

All these facts are reported in well-authenticated writings and should

be enough to diminish Pasteur and knock him off his pedestal. But not

at all; so well-anchored is the Pasteur myth in the public mind that

nothing has yet succeeded in shaking it loose. With chauvinism at work

from one year to the next France adds to Pasteur's laurels, but the

sad reality is that the French are adulating an impostor. For

imposture it certainly is. He usurped honours and amassed a

considerable fortune in doing so, as numerous episodes in his life

will illustrate. Let us look at three of these.

 

Rabies Vaccine

 

History has recorded it only as a success but forgotten that it

increased rabies deaths. Rather than a success it was a failure.

No-one has been able to prove its efficacy, at first because it was

practically impossible to prove that the dogs involved were rabid and

then because so many vaccinees died that nobody wanted to take account

of them. The deaths of six Russian peasants bitten by a wolf and

vaccinated by Pasteur makes one shudder, such was their suffering. In

Souvenirs des milieux littéraires, politiques, artistiques et médicaux

de 1880 à 1905, Léon Daudet relates the story and conveys something of

their agony.

 

Not many are familiar with this episode, but everyone has heard of

Joseph Meister, bitten on the hand by a dog. Pasteur " saved " him by

his Méthode pour Prévenir La Rage après Morsure (title of his

communication to the Académie des Sciences, 26 October 1885) but he

had no trumpet to blow. Firstly, it was not certain that the dog was

rabid. Secondly, if it had been, the risk for the boy was small

because a truly rabid animal – a rare event – transmits the disease in

only 5 - 15 per cent of cases. Where Joseph Meister was concerned, the

degree of risk was no more than 5 per cent if the dog was definitely

infected. And to proclaim the efficacy of a treatment on the basis of

one subject has no scientific value.

 

What was most serious in this affair were Pasteur's lies. Contrary to

all that we are taught, the rabies vaccine was not created by Pasteur

but by a professor at Toulouse Veterinary School, Henri Toussaint,

whose name has not gone down in history. Toussaint succeeded in high

attenuation of the virulence by heating the preparation and by adding

an antiseptic, phenolic acid, at one per cent (and/or potassium

bichromate). Pasteur's vaccine, based on dried marrow, was highly

dangerous and was quickly abandoned – his collaborator, Emile Roux,

had concluded that the vaccine was hazardous and refused to associate

himself with the initial " intensive treatment " . Young Meister was

fortunate to escape the vaccine.

 

Pasteur's collaborator, Emile Roux, had decided that it was hazardous

to use his colleague's vaccine and he had refused to be associated

with the first so-called " intensive treatment " .

 

The drama of a 12-year-old child who died as a consequence of the

vaccination revealed the dishonesty of Pasteur and his colleagues. The

boy Rouyer was bitten on 8 October 1886 by an unknown dog. Pasteur

inoculated him by the intensive method (seven injections over 12

days). On 16 October the child died. An inquiry under Professor

Brouardel sought the cause but the lofty, titled, professor was a

friend of Pasteur. In Emile Roux's laboratory they inoculated part of

the cervical bulb from the boy into the brains of rabbits. Some days

later the rabbits died of rabies, which proved that the child clearly

had the disease but Brouardel, in agreement with Roux, decided to

falsify the evidence before the inquiry. In Les Vérités Indésirables –

Le Cas Pasteur, Philippe Decourt records that it was a matter of

avoiding official acknowledgement of a failure that would entail,

according to Brouardel, " an immediate step backwards in the progress

of science " as well as dishonour to Pasteur.

 

The report to the coroner confirmed that : " These two rabbits are in

good health today, 9 January 1887, i. e. 48 hours after the

inoculation. The negative results of the inoculations on the bulb of

this child enables us to discount the hypothesis that the young Rouyer

had succumbed to rabies " . In collusion with Roux and Brouardel,

Pasteur declared that death was due to uraemia.

 

Not content with falsification, Pasteur and his accomplices sought to

silence those who knew the truth. One lie leads to another, for

Brouardel went on to affirm that none of 50 people given the intensive

treatment had died. " He knew that it wasn't true but no matter since

they would believe it " , Decourt noted.

 

In 1886 the number of deaths where liability attached to the Pasteur

method had risen to 74, 34 in France and 40 abroad. Certain of these

were attributable to rabies but others were associated with

" laboratory rabies " , as it came to be known. These laboratory cases

presented symptoms of rabiform paraplegia as observed in the rabbits

used to cultivate the Pasteur virus (see Raspail et Pasteur : 30 ans

de Critiques Médicales et Scientifique -1884 – 1914, Vigot Frères,

Paris 1916). Pasteur himself indicated that from 9 November 1885 to 30

December 1986 nine of 18 vaccinees died in the three weeks after being

bitten.

 

In March 1886 he told Dr Navarre : " From now on I won't accept

discussion of my theories and my method. I won't have anyone coming to

monitor my experiments " .

 

We see here a practice that was to become institutionalised – the

scientific lie. What confidence can we have in hallowed men of science

who make off-hand statements like this ?

 

Pouilly-le-Fort Experiment

 

The anti-rabies vaccine was Pasteur's first great triumph, although it

was preceded by the vaccine against anthrax, which was rampant in

cattle. Pasteur vigorously opposed Henry Toussaint's theories and

practices, which he said were ineffective and dangerous. To prove that

his vaccine was better he agreed a protocol of experiments that would

come to fruition on 28 August81 at Pouilly-le-Fort, near Melun. They

would select 50 sheep, only 25 of which would be vaccinated and all

the animals would be inoculated with virulent anthrax 15 days later.

Pasteur said that the unvaccinated sheep would die. On the appointed

day Pasteur confided to his associates that he would not use his own

vaccine but Toussaint's, which contained an antiseptic capable of

attenuating the virulence of the anthrax bacteria. (For some

considerable time Pasteur had tried to achieve comparable attenuation

with oxygen). The sheep received the Toussaint vaccine, containing

potassium bichromate, a powerful poison that kills microbes (and

provokes cancer). These facts are recorded by Adrien Loir in A l'ombre

de Pasteur (Le Mouvement sanitaire, 1938). So these 25 sheep survived

and Pasteur triumphed.

 

Who today is aware that the Pouilly le Fort experiment was no more

than a hoax ?

 

Silk-Worm Disease

 

One could multiply examples of Pasteur's tricks. His method was

simple,While deploring the methods of others he proceeded to

appropriate them and thus garnered further laurels. Another example

that well illustrates his technique is the silk-worm episode, where he

was directly opposed to Antoine Béchamp. Hostile to the theory of

parasitism, carefully developed by Béchamp, Pasteur turned the

situation to his advantage by letting it appear that the theory was

his, thus relegating Béchamp's work to the shade.

 

The affair of the soluble ferments in 1878 was similar. This gave rise

to a controversy which lasted 18 months between Pasteur and the

chemist, Berthelot. Pasteur refused to acknowledge the evidence and

maintained his belief in spontaneous generation, which he later

repudiated, whilst shamelessly plundering Béchamp's work when he saw

that the other man was right.

 

But these scientists' quarrels were relatively unimportant against the

backdrop of a development, stimulated at the time by the economic boom

born out of the industrial revolution : the vaccine industry.

 

How has it come about that the world has suffered the imposition of a

doctrine whose basis is so contestable ? In his " La Felure du Monde "

(Flammarion 1995) André Glucksmann tried to explain these Pasteurian

mirages : " The vanity of Pasteurism discloses more than a sure

science and less than an effective art – a religion. Pasteur has

expressed, in terms of biopower, the constituent equation of modern

nations, cujus regio ejus religio... Without Pasteurian blinkers AIDS

seems less unthinkable than one would have believed " .

 

Pasteur pushed scientists down a false road by his three postulates,

and these are still the foundation of vaccination. They were developed

by Pasteur and recorded in his submissions to a commission of the

Académie de Médicine between 1869 and 1872 :

 

1) Asepsis reigns in the cells. The cell is clean; all the microbes

are exogenous.

 

2) For each germ (specific agent) there is a corresponding disease,

against which we can protect with a vaccine. The disease has only a

single cause, therefore a single remedy.

 

3) Immunity is obtained by production of antibodies in reaction to the

introduction of antigens (substances in the vaccine). The

antigen-antibody combination is sufficient to confer protection.

 

We have long known that disease is never the result of a single cause,

a single culprit. It is always multifactorial

 

Numerous mechanisms, sometimes very sophisticated, come into play and

lead to dysfunction expressed in clinical symptoms. If the germs were

the only cause every contact would fall ill. But that does not happen,

so " one germ, one disease, one vaccine " is simplistic and reductionist.

 

As regards microbes, viruses or bacteria as invading aggressors bent

on doing us harm – are they really our enemies ? Recent research in

molecular biology suggests otherwise. And the work of Antoine Béchamp

and, later, Professsor Jean Tissot, has already shown the endogenous

origin (internal) of micro-organisms (Les Mycrozymas, Antione Béchamp,

out of print).

 

" Microbe " is imprecise in respect of bacteria. A bacterium is the more

promiscuous form of the living cell, whereas a virus reproduces

itselffrom its own genetic material and is an absolute parasite on the

cell.

 

Biologist Gaston Naessens has recently invented a microscope by which

Béchamp's work has been corroborated and completed. As mentioned

earlier, viruses are cell constituents and if they become pathogenic

it is because there is disequilibrium. Hence when an infant has

measles we find the virus specific to measles. But if the virus is

expressed it is because the organism is enfeebled.

 

And, as with all viruses, rather than being the cause they are a

consequence of the disease.

 

As regards bacteria, we see a similar phenomenon. In nature bacteria

appear where there is decomposition. In the body, bacteria are found

where there is disequilibrium, accumulation of residues and dead

cells, where they find nourishment – and they are capable of degrading

and ingesting everything. In fact, humans have ten times more bacteria

than cells.

 

They maintain biological equilibrium; without them we die, and they

become pathogenic only with change in physiological equilibrium or

breakdown of the immune system. For example, the intestines are full

of colibacilli and many saprophytic bacteria (that live on the

organism by feeding on decomposing matter). These bacteria contribute

to fermentation of digestive residues and to the synthesis of

vitamins. But, in the event of disequilibrium, they precipitate

diarrhoea, appendicitis and other problems. That is why it is much

more sensible to rebalance and clean the body than to kill the microbe.

 

" If, on return from holiday, you find your house full of dirt, you

need to clean it thoroughly. If you squirt insecticide everywhere the

house will still be dirty and even worse than before, since you have

added toxic substances to the dirt, " is the good advice from Dr

Lourdes Tornos in El Mundo de los Microbes. (Article in the Spanish

review, Natura Medicatrix No 46-47, Spring 1997).

 

In the 1890s when the Nobel prizewinner, Robert Koch, returned

triumphant from the Indies as a hero, a spoilsport awaited him at

Munich in the person of the old professor of hygiene, Max Pettenkofer,

who had made Munich the cleanest city in Europe by means of effective

sanitary services. " Your bacillus can do nothing, my dear Koch. What

matters is the organism. If your theory were correct I should be a

dead man in 24 hours, " he said, snatching from Koch's hands a test

tube containing a pure culture of cholera germs. In front of his

horrified colleagues he swallowed the lot ! Koch was the only one to

fall ill.

 

When we speak of health we need to broach the notion of " terrain " , a

fundamental notion for those who want to practise true medicine. Let

us remember Claude Bernard's summary : " The microbe is nothing; the

terrain is everything ! " . The terrain defines our immunity. It

establishes itself gradually, during nine month's gestation and it is

unique to the individual. Regular routine vaccinations conflict with

Bernard's axiom and lead to disequilibrium. The supposition that mass

vaccination has eliminated disease does a great disservice to mankind

and the ecosystem since we are all so intimately linked one to the other.

 

Antoine Béchamp

 

Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908) was one of the great savants of the 19th

century. Doctor, chemist, biologist, naturalist, he was Professor of

Medical Chemistry and Pharmacology at the Montpellier Faculty,

Professor of Biological Chemistry and Physiology at Paris University,

then Dean of Liberal Studies at Lille. He verified Claude Bernard's

concept of individual terrain and was the first to understand the

microbial basis of infectious pathology. Nevertheless, his work is

almost unknown nowadays because it has been systematically discredited

and falsified in favour of Pasteur.

 

Béchamp thought that microbes were a " process " , " deriving from a single

strain (prebacterialparticles – microzymes – present in all organic

structures) which could change size and form according to the health

of the host " . His theses have since been confirmed by many other

researchers and, in 1980, certain bacteriologists (Sorin, Sonea,

Panisset, Naessens) confirmed that bacterial polymorphism was an

irrefutable scientific fact. " If we upset the bacterial world by our

interference, the point may reached at which life on earth is

compromised " , they said.

 

It has also been shown that a bacterium can transform into a virus

according to the substrate (nutrient culture medium) provided

(Introduction a la Nouvelle Bactériologie,S Sonea and M Panisset,

Montreal University Press, 1980).

 

Béchamp, founder of enzymology, identified minuscule corpuscles,

microzymes, smaller than cells. These are at the origin of life and

are found in both man and animal and in plants and micro-organisms. In

humans their form varies with the general state of their home terrain

and their nutrition. Disease occurs when disequilibrium disturbs their

normal functioning. When there is change in the normal state of

health, from malnutrition, poisoning, or physical or psychological

stress, the microzymes can transform into pathogenic germs or

microbes. To Antoine Béchamp the same microbes could take several

forms relative to their milieu – the theory of polymorphism, which,

had it been widely recognised, would have revolutionised general

perceptions of health and disease. The key, say it supporters, is

reinforcing health, which enables the germs to recover their original

microzyme form and their protective function. Recreate the right

milieu and the mcrobes disappear and hence the disease also.

 

In Pasteur's view the microbe causes the disease whereas in Béchamp's

opinion the disease generates the microbe, and this argument has

continued for more than a 100 years. According to the 250 pages that

pharmacist Dr Marie Nonclerq devoted to Béchamp : " In this fight

Béchamp was beaten – not because his arguments were mistaken but

because Pasteur benefited from circumstances at the time, from his

experiments and results, falsified to favour his primary notions.

Today this doctoring seems unbelievable. Serious examination in the

realm of bacteria showed that the facts simply did not support his

ideas. Pasteur had deliberately ignored the work of Béchamp, one of

the great 19th-century French scientists, whose considerable oeuvre in

chemical synthesis, in biochemistry and pathology of infections goes

unrecognised today, having been degraded in favour of the illustrious

Pasteur who, unlike Béchamp, had a genius for publicity and for what

we now call public relations. Ten years previously in Médecine et

Hygiène, Geneva, 23 March 1983, Dr Rentschnick, whose medical

orthodoxy goes without saying, wrote : " I don't believe it was an

empty historical quarrel. We are not barred from reflecting on the

past when a great man abuses power. We have known other examples, even

all the way to the Nobel prize... "

 

On his death bed Pasteur declared that Claude Bernard was right, that

the microbe was nothing, the terrain everything. If the microbe alone

were responsible, how was it that nurses caring for the tuberculous

were not infected whereas others, much less exposed to the bacillus,

rapidly fell ill with the disease ? On this question Claude Bernard

came to develop the theory of susceptibility – an innate or acquired

tendency to develop certain pathologies.

 

On 17 June 1906 the Medecin published a letter from Professor Béchamp

to his confrere, Dr Vindevogel : " You know better than I that all

traditional medicine from smallpox and tuberculosis to common

enteritis is the prey of preconceived notions that, to be sustained,

require facts imagined as need dictates. Whatever you do they

vaccinate, they inject – against all good sense – to kill the microbe

and the thoughtless masses will thoroughly approve. Whatever you write

to prove that they are mistaken and misled is a waste of time. Poor

souls ! "

 

Childhood Diseases

 

" Man will discover a vaccine that could, from early life, via the

body, destroy the tendency to spirituality.

In the future we will use a poorly balanced product, which they could

very well manufacture, that will prevent spiritual `folly' – in the

material sense, of course. " Rudolph Steiner, 27 October 1917

 

" Childhood diseases are clear evidence of the struggles between the I

and hereditary forces, " suggests Dr Victor Bott in Medecine

Anthroposophic (Triades, 1976). Micro-organisms that today can be

responsible for certain pathologies are the result of species

evolution. We are composed of millions of micro-organisms which, at

first, are capable of aggression but which, with time, become

beneficent to the point where we cannot live without them. Thus by

constant mutation there is constant natural adaptation.

 

Thus man has gradually acquired and consolidated his immunity. The

prime consideration is a symbiosis, an equilibrium, the proof of good

health. We exist thanks to our adaptive processes, and childhood

diseases are probably a necessary stage in the life of the individual.

They enable us to build the personality. Fever expresses a salutary

reaction of the body to eliminate toxins, after which episode – a test

of the immune system – the child has changed, is strengthened.

Surmounting one infection from ones own resources provides for

increase in resistance to other diseases.

 

There is no doubt that disease plays an important role in reinforcing

our defences, in the consolidation of the terrain. Traditional

medicine is directed only at suppressing symptoms by strong

medicaments that assault the system as, for example, in the regular

suppression of fever. Worse, by vaccination it professes protection of

the individual by preventing emergence of natural disease. In other

words it kills, for a sterile microbeless world is synonymous with death.

 

There has always been a balance between childhood disease, viruses and

the environment and it is important to foresee, in the long term, what

would upset this equilibrium by vaccinations. At all events, these

artificial provocations do not provide the same degree of protection

as do the natural processes, antibody levels after an injection

generally being lower than those after the disease.

 

Moreover, immunity acquired naturally is long term; that from

vaccination, if any, is time-limited. (For confirmation refer to La

Presse Médicale, Vol 17, Supplement No 1, May 1998).

 

The importance of childhood infections should be acknowledged and

their development monitored. Poor nutrition or hygiene, or overtaxing

of resources can lead to problems where the child is weak or

predisposed to certain maladies. For these children there are various

effective therapies in the pharmacopœia of alternative medicine.

 

A child is born with maximum potential. Gradually he develops, forges

ahead, but not without the occasional rough passage. However, he has

all he needs to defend himself against the diseases of childhood. In

this regard we do not need to paint a bleak picture. Fear is not a

wise councillor. Anxious parents think that vaccinations are the

answer, that they save their offspring from many ills. Unfortunately,

they only cloud the issue and weaken the terrain. The disease is

hindered in expressing itself, but can, nevertheless, develop

insidiously into a chronic condition, often incurable. We don't need

to dread these diseases. Remaining calm and attentive is the best way

to help the child over the hurdle.

 

In Mon Enfant et les Vaccins (Vivez Soleil, 1994), Dr Françoise

Berthoud cites John D Goetelen : " A disease is an important moment

in a child's life. It is the first test of conscious distress, the

first experience, a crisis to resolve. This crisis has several

objectives : the first is to stimulate the natural defences, for let

us not forget that we possess the forces to cure ourselves – humans

cured themselves before needing medicines, even the natural kind. The

second objective is to provoke elimination of accumulated toxic

deposits. The third is to correct physical functions, and the fourth

is to put the system under test, forcing it to find an answer. Often

parents feel powerless, lacking confidence, panicking even. The

doctors contribute to the situation with such comments as `Your child

is in danger', or `There may be complications. 'Too often parents,

acting from fear rather than confidence, agree to suppressive

treatment " . Like death, disease is part of life.

 

A child's immune system doesn't behave like a computer. It cannot

confront several pathogens at the same time and assimilate them

without consequences. The situation promotes mother-child bonding, the

disease providing the opportunity for close dependency and intimacy

and this emotional dimension plays a part in the building of

personality and should not be avoided, according to sociologist C

Marenco (Majeur et vacciné : prevention et idéologie, in Science

Sociales et Santé, Vol II, No 3 and 4, pp. 136-165, 1984).

 

If we believe Dr Mendelsohn, the American pædiatrist, we should not

vaccinate young children : " Much of what we are told about

vaccinations is simply not true. If I am to abide by deep conviction I

would recommend rejection of all vaccination of your child. I have

become a fierce opponent of mass immunisation because of its numerous

dangers. We blindly inject foreign proteins into children without

knowing what harmful effects they may cause " (Des Enfants Sains Même

Sans Médecin, Vivez Soleil, 1987).

 

Do Vaccines Really Protect ?

 

" I rebel against mass medication that puts the sick at the mercy of

the commercial interests of the big pharmaceuticals and the murderous

interests of vaccine manufacturers. " Pie X11

 

There are many who believe that most epidemics have disappeared

because of vaccination and who refuse to question the efficacy of this

practice. Yet certain epidemic diseases that ravaged our country have

disappeared without any vaccination and the pro-vaccine seem to ignore

this fact. Moreover, the plague ran rampant for centuries across the

world, yet has vanished without vaccination. Leprosy, which is still

endemic in some countries, no longer ravages as in the past and great

epidemics of it are no more despite the absence of any leprosy

vaccine. Generally speaking, the decline in a disease has always

preceded the vaccine for it. And if the disappearance of epidemics is

primarily due to vaccines, the diseasesin question should have

continued to prosper in areas that did not vaccinate or that abandoned

vaccination, whereas epidemiological history demonstrates the

opposite. In any event, the international scientific press attests to

the fact that epidemics still occur in countries where immunisation is

almost total.

 

In 1348 the black plague killed vast numbers in France and the cholera

spread terror during several centuries in our country, yet both

disappeared entirely without vaccination. It is perfectly possible

that if vaccines had existed for them at the time, and been

compulsory, they would have received the credit for eliminating these

diseases. But clearly we must assign it to other factors. Since 1949,

when compulsory vaccination was abandoned in Britain, the UK has

demonstrably shown that dropping compulsion has not entailed a return

of epidemics, which runs counter to the argument invoked by those who

support continued vaccination.

 

During almost 50 years the countries of the West have systematically

vaccinated, covering virtually their entire populations but,

curiously, it is in these countries that diphtheria and polio have

reappeared. Hence we must wonder if the vaccines have been as

effective as claimed and if the strains used for them have changed,

for we are seeing the re-emergence of more aggressive pathologies than

those we thought to have been mastered. This phenomenon can be

compared to the widespread use of insecticides with the appearance of

more dangerous insects, along with the use of herbicides and

associated increase in resistant plants.

 

The inefficacy of some vaccines is sometimes admitted by the

pharmaceutical companies themselves. Thus the manufacturer of a

hepatitis-B vaccine, SmithKline Beecham : " This vaccine, obligatory

for at-risk groups, merits being used more widely, particularly for

the young since it seems that, in the USA, vaccination of those at

risk had no effect on incidence of the disease there " . (In Le Concours

Médical, Vol 15, No 4, 1993). Statements like these are particularly

instructive in revealing the strategy of the pharmaceutical lobby and

of certain public authorities. In this instance we have a

pharmaceutical company admitting the failure of its vaccine, yet

recommending a vaccine that has had no impact on the disease.

 

A similar view is taken in Le Concours Médical, No 8, 1993 (Vol 115)

by Dr C Sicot, with other doctors, under the title, Medico-Surgical

Consultations : " If we look at the experience of the USA, the overall

incidence of acute hepatitis B since vaccination for it began has not

diminished but has increased from 55 to 63 per 100000 between 1981 and

1987. This disappointing result is not, however, unexpected :

coverage of high-risks groups remains unsatisfactory " . Zero times zero

always gives zero.

 

It seems that the medical corps goes so far out of its way to avoid

understanding why there is recrudescence of the disease after

vaccination that it cannot admit that it may even be propagating the

disease. On the contrary, it prescribes hepatitis-B jabs for everyone.

So we can be sure that this infection will spread, if we are to

believe these recent observations. And how can we not attach

importance to them when they come down to us from such high places ?

 

It is often noted that a recently vaccinated individual falls victim

to the disease in question. Some observers decline to see these

accidents as anything more than unfortunate coincidences; others,

perhaps wiser and distinctly more curious, think of cause and effect

and the dangers associated with injecting microbes and toxins into a

healthy organism and thereby making it less resistant because of

vaccine stress.

 

Partisans of vaccination rely on specific arguments to support the

efficacy of their method. One such argument amounts to little more

than " It works ! " Then they bring out the statistics. But efficacy is

very relative and can't be verified simply by figures, which are often

incomplete, approximate or just manipulated.

 

Moreover, disappearance of a disease after vaccination is invariably

treated as scientific proof of efficacy whereas it is nothing of the sort.

 

Again, antibody level after injection is often the argument and the

protection level declared is quite arbitrary. Clearly, any antigen

will produce a reaction and, more often than not, the immune system

indicates its response in the form of antibodies. But their presence

does not prove that they will protect, i. e. immunise. They are merely

evidence of aggression, like discoloration after a blow, or they

simply indicate infection, as lighted windows show that the house is

occupied. We know now that, in some instances, antibodies play an

inverse role : instead of protecting, as assumed, they assist the

disease – they act as facilitators. Moreover, the antibodies'

regulatory mechanisms may sometimes go into overdrive, the result

being antibody-antigens or " complex immunes " , which are not destroyed

but remain in the body. They can give rise to serious problems such as

glomerulonephritis. Duration of activity of induced antibodies is

always shorter than that of natural antibodies, which suggests that

vaccination activates very different mechanisms from those of the

natural process. How does one determine, other than arbitrarily, what

the neutralising antibody level is ? Of course, vaccines are lauded

to the skies if the infection under assault does not develop in the

vaccinated, or at least not in the usual form.

 

Vaccines can provoke a sub-acute phase of the disease, which can

appear gradually in more disconcerting forms. What then is the

vaccine's efficacy ?

 

A vaccine is intended to hinder the disease but it can pave the way

for other ailments when there is weakening of the terrain, which can

then be attacked by germs that proliferate and become virulent. Mirko

D Grmek, Professor, History of Medicine at the Ecole des Hautes

Etudes, has called this phenomenon " pathocenosis " , in relation to the

appearance and disappearance of epidemics. (Mirko D Grmek, Histoire du

SIDA, Payot, 1989, p. 261). Thus smallpox vaccine reinforced Koch

bacilli, which helps to explain the widespread TB of the 19th century.

Diphtheria vaccination, coupled with whooping-cough vaccination, made

the polio virus virulent, hence the epidemics after several years of

diphtheria immunisation. Polio vaccination, coupled with other,

routine vaccinations, contributed to overload of the immune system and

evolution of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. (Refer also to Dr

Jean Pilette's La Poliomyélite: quel vaccin? quel risque? L'Aronde, 1997)

 

Hepatitis-B jabs complement the damage done by the others by attacking

the nervous system and provoking auto-immune problems that pave the

way to premature ageing.

 

Withdrawing smallpox vaccination led to a reduction – spectacular in

the 80s – in incidence of TB. And, where scarlet fever – rampant in

the 19th century – is concerned, this gave way to measles and diphtheria.

 

Vaccines, and even antibiotics, reduce natural resistance, with the

associated effects tending to cancerisation. When it is argued that an

individual does not develop a disease because he has been vaccinated

and therefore immunised, the reality is that he has lost the vitality

to react. Chronic illness can intervene where energy level is low,

where the organism cannot respond vigorously because its vitality has

been sapped from within.

 

According to Harris Coulter in Vaccination : Social Violence and

Criminality (North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, 1980), any vaccination

can trigger encephalitis, slight or severe, accompanied by

demyelination, which hinders normal development of the brain with

consequent pathological effects leading to handicaps and behavioural

problems. In the USA one in five infants have suffered these effects.

 

Any demyelination can be directly attributed to vaccination, for

research has revealed similarities between the make-up of vaccines and

the protein structure of myelin. (In Science, Vol 29, 19 July 1985).

 

This discovery explains the appearance of auto-immune symptoms after

immunisation procedures. The immune system confuses antigen with

myelin and attacks the latter, hence some of the diseases that become

so debilitating over time.

 

Immunologists are embarrassed by outbreaks of measles, polio, etc in

vaccinated populations. In Medical Practice (No 467) Professor Lépine

states : " In several developing countries it is thought that a single

vaccination campaign will resolve the problem. But we now see in some

of these countries that the frequency of the disease has almost

quintupled since vaccination. "

 

Peter Deusberg, Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology at

Berkeley University, puts another view : " The credit is due to

plumbers and farmers ! Thanks to them we have better hygiene and

nutrition. With good nutrition comes sound immune defences and we are

no longer prey to these infections " . ( " AIDS From Drug Addiction and

Other Factors of Non-Infectious Risk " , in Pharmaceutical Therapy, Vo

55, Berkeley, 1992).

 

Hygiene and Disinfection

 

Hygiene is the important thing. We owe a great deal more to Préfect

Poubelle and to bleach than to Pasteur and vaccines. When it was

discovered that cholera and typhus were transmitted by water

contaminated with fœcal matter a radical approach to water supply,

coupled with purification, brought an end to epidemics of these

diseases without recourse to vaccination.

 

Curiously, the medical corps was not entirely receptive to hygiene and

disinfection. We need only mention the difficulties encountered by Dr

Semelweiss in Vienna : he wanted doctors to wash their hands in a

chlorinated solution before delivering babies : a measure that would

have reduced deaths from puerperal fever almost to zero. But he was

laughed at and died insane. He would have been forgotten had not Dr

Louis-Ferdinand Celine come to his rescue by way of a book on his life.

 

The Dayton Times, 28 May 1993, published details from a study by the

Department of Health which showed that half the victims of whooping

cough in 1987 and 1991 in Ohio state had been vaccinated against it

according to their medical records. It also disclosed for the same

state that 72 per cent (2720 cases) of victims of measles two years

earlier had received the measles vaccine.

 

Doctors rarely concern themselves with thorough follow-up, being

conditioned to see vaccines as effective and inoffensive. Inevitably,

therefore, they tend to assign the disease to other factors.

 

Professor Tara Shirakawa, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, has published

the results of a study in Japan on 867 infants who received BCG

vaccine and had tuberculin tests. Thirty-six per cent developed

allergies, including asthma. The number of TB cases in the province

under review appeared not to increase but, by contrast, the incidence

of severe allergy clearly did. (Science, Vol 275, 3 Jan 1997. )

 

What was feared by an editor in the Petit Journal, 19 September 1888,

and indicated by Dr Xavier Raspail, son of François Raspail, chemist

and politician, in Raspail et Pasteur, seems about be realised : " If

these hazardous inoculations contemplated by M Pasteur are introduced

generally, many people will eventually be transformed, tattooed from

head to foot by the so-called protective jabs like a sewage collector

of multicoloured vaccines " . Dr Raspail enquires : " Are we not

poisoning humanity in small doses ? It is diabolical that we are

inflicting all these infections that have assaulted human beings at

one time or another. It is stupefying this arrogant introduction into

the blood of a cocktail of germs when for the slightest surgical

operation we wage unremitting war against them.

 

Vaccinations and the Third World

 

Mass vaccinations in the third world have not reduced infant

mortality. In effect, they have deprived these countries of basic

nutritional requirements and clean water supplies. In his La Recherche

Contre le Tiers-Monde (Editions PUF, 1993), Dr Mohamed Bouguerra of

the Tunis Faculty of Science and Associate Director of Research at

CNRS, criticises the corruption and machinations of multinational

pharmaceutical companies and proclaims the benefits of clean water

supply, hygiene and adequate nourishment. But he notes that these

remedies do not generate profits for those enterprises : " You would

think a multinational pharmaceutical's first response would be for the

benefit of mankind, to ease suffering. Wrong. The sole aim is profit.

When flu stuck India one of the multis increased the price of vitamin

C instead of reducing it. It is about time we punctured the spurious

proclamations of the multinational pharmaceutical firms. We are all

involved. Research should not be at the mercy of profit. I believe

that intelligent men should fight against such taking this route " .

 

Risks of Vaccination

 

" In the past, tyranny resided in the egotism of princes at the expense

of the multitude.

Today it is seen in the degradation and enslavement of the individual

in the name of collectivity. " Dr Joseph Roy

 

We make much of the dangers of infectious diseases nowadays. We

dramatise their consequences but make little or no reference to the

potentially unfortunate effects of vaccines. A vaccine is an

infectious agent that must be virulent to some degree to be active and

everything depends on this virulence and the subject's powers of

resistance, a factor that receives only cursory attention at the time.

In any event, each vaccine represents an assault on the immune system,

and there are long-term consequences to think about since a virus can

recover its pathogenicity.

 

The deleterious effects of vaccines are almost a taboo subject for

many doctors, no doubt because of the range of side effects observed.

 

When they say that no adverse reactions have been seen, that does not

mean that there have been none but that no study has been carried out

or published. Such reactions are often out of the ordinary.

Deterioration in the vaccinated can be difficult to evaluate and, in

any event, adverse reactions are not necessarily reported loud and

long. In fact, that is the last thing wanted since it might make the

public inimical to vaccination.

 

In the British Medical Journal, 17 July 1971, Professor G Dick,

Middlesex Hospital Immunologist, reflected that : " Few doctors are

willing to attribute a death or complication to a method that they

have recommended and believe in " .

 

In Les Vaccinations, Prévention ou Aggression, (Vivez Soleil, 1995,

1995), Dr Marie-Thérèse Quentin tells us : " At the Congress of the

American Pædiatric Academy in 1982 it was proposed by certain doctors

that parents should be alerted to the dangers of vaccinations but it

would seem that parents were considered incompetent in this respect –

the resolution was not carried " .

 

In his Dictionnaire de la Médecine Ecologique (Le Rocher, 1995), Dr

Joseph Levy enumerates various factors predisposing to onset of

multiple sclerosis. He cites, among others, vaccine and serums that

" ... probably play a part. According to the noted immunologist,

Professor A Good, the use of animal vaccines and serums provokes the

transformation of human and animal lymphocytes. Such lymphocytes

attack human cells as though they were foreign cells to be eliminated. "

 

Isabelle Robard, a barrister specialising in medical cases, notes that

" In 1991 the Ministry of Health put the risk of post-vaccination

encephalitis from smallpox at one in 400 000 whilst in the CEE member

states the estimated risk is one in 10 000. The Ministry did not take

account of consequences that led to court cases " . (La Santé

assassinée, Isabelle Robard, Ancre 1992). The disparity here

illustrates all too well how figures can be manipulated.

 

Besides, every time that the Minister is attacked in connection with

post-vaccination accidents, he cites the absence of a direct link

between the vaccination and the reaction, finds in favour of the

plaintiff and the state neglects to compensate the victims, who are

often in dire straits. Hence more stages in the process of litigation

– and so complainants often withdraw from the seemingly interminable,

and onerous, procedure, with the effect that the official number of

victims is reduced, and particularly where a victim withdraws by

dying. How many parents would relive a nightmare through a long legal

process at the end of which they receive a sum that, in relation to

the life of their child, is an insult?

 

It is, of course, very difficult to demonstrate cause and effect, and

it is for the victims to provide the proof. Thus the authorities

refuse to record as vaccine reactions what are then treated as

unfortunate accidents. For want of the kind of evidence that would

support going to law a large number of vaccine complications are not

reported officially.

 

In Vous et Votre Sante, (Special Issue No 4, 1995) Dr Marie-Benedicte

Hibon explains : " An infant's immune system matures slowly, from the

appearance in the embryo of the first marrow cells up to the age of

10-12 years before attaining adult ability. Only then is it really

functional. In the first two years the child's system has to deal with

ten vaccine interventions (more if there are boosters). Who will link

these with problems of dyslexia, hyperactivity, mental disturbance,and

diabetes and whether apparent immediately or years later ? Why not

let the disease express itself naturally by the epidemic route ? "

 

Dr Alain Scohy has noted that the vaccine dose is the same for a baby

as for an adult. The baby's immune system is incapable of establishing

any protection. Abnormally stimulated or irritated tissue is likely to

react by malfunctioning, then scarring and sclerosing, becoming inert

and incapable of natural defence, especially in fragile infancy.

 

One doctor who has attempted to throw light on the problems of

vaccination is Jacqueline Bousquet but her peers in the scientific

community are disinclined to listen because she attacks dogma : " The

immune system should not be imposed on recklessly and experimentally

when it is in the process of establishing itself in the young, or

where it is still immature. The consequences are now all too evident –

AIDS " .

 

Immunity– Natural and Artificial

 

Apart from their toxic effects, vaccinations can have undreamed-of

consequences,Even the pro-vaccine accept that artificial immunity does

not last as long as natural immunity. In the USA adults are

contracting whooping cough and complications are frequent. France is

witnessing the same phenomenon.

 

" Voici le temps des supermicrobes " is the title of an article in Le

Nouvel Observateur, September 1994. It included a table of calamities

of the near future.

 

Traditional medical literature still treats microbes as responsible

for disease and contagion, but the works of Béchamp, Tissot and others

make out a case for microbes being evidence of disease, not the cause.

So, when it is argued that viruses cause disease it is reductionist

doctors who are presenting this view rather than homeopaths and

doctors, who see man as more than a simple physical entity.

 

Louis-Claude Vincent a past professor at the Ecole d'Anthropologie,

Paris, has conceived a bio-electronic method of defining state of

health from physico-chemical data obtained from blood, saliva and

urine. The method has interested famous names in medicine and biology

but whereas it has not received much attention in France it has been

taken seriously in Germany and the USA, where NASA uses it to monitor

the health of astronauts in space. Professor Vincent has demonstrated

to the Congress of Comparative Pathology that any vaccination against

microbes, by upsetting the terrain, quite clearly predisposes to viral

disease and cancer, as polio vaccination predisposes to TB. (See the

Revue de Pathologie Générale et de physiologie clinique, January 1958,

Vol 694, p. 10).

 

Professor Jean Dausset, Nobel prizewinner in 1980 for his HLA system

(cell group determination), has said : " Vaccination of infants

against a series of diseases could soon be a thing of the past.

Vaccinations would then be given only for high-risk diseases. We are

on the verge of a new epoch when everyone will receive personalised

treatment " .

 

In Vous et Votre Santé Louis Bon de Brouwer sounds a warning :

" Vaccine damage is not accounted. With vaccination people become

reservoirs of virus and their immune defences are so affected that new

and incurable ailments appear... True medicine has been replaced by a

pharmaceutical system whose only interest is profit, not patients.

This holds good for medicaments in general but when medicine, in the

name of prevention, institutes a vaccination regime which seriously

pollutes the bodies of people who are perfectly healthy... "

 

Our immune system, which depends on our genetic patrimony, ensures the

endogenous functions that control hormones and antibodies as well as

the cleaning of abnormal or infected cells. This equilibrium can be

upset by injection of foreign proteins, whether attenuated bacterial

(BCG), toxins (tetanus and diphtheria), killed or inactivated viruses

(polio, whooping-cough, flu) or living attenuated virus (oral polio,

measles, rubella, mumps). We should note that live viruses have been

found in centuries-dead bodies, as also a live pathogenic virus in a

Coptic mummy.

 

Viruses Can Recover Virulence

 

On 19 February 1985 Le Generaliste warned : " A virus, even

attenuated, can recover virulence – in particular the polio vaccine

virus, which becomes pathogenic and generally infectious after passage

through the intestines. Cases of polio in contacts of those vaccinated

with oral polio vaccine are well documented " . In his book, Tutoyer Le

Virus, Professor Lise Thiry, microbiologist, opines that viruses have

been " attenuated a little, thanks to luck " . Could they be attenuated,

" thanks to luck " , rather less than they would like us to believe ?

Previously, in 1964, in Maroc Médical, No 43, De Garcia Silva stated

: " There is no vaccine strain derived from monkeys that can be free

from neurological virulence " .

 

For some time Professor R Delong has considered the problem of living

viruses. In Live Viral Vaccine, Biological Pollution, (Carlton Press,

New York, 1996)., he asks : " Have reason and logic abandoned

epidemiologists ? " Alarmed that live-virus vaccines could generate new

diseases, malformations, chromosomal aberrations, mutations, or

cancers, he writes : " The intentional, unnecessary introduction of

infectious viruses into a human body is an error deriving from

profound ignorance of virology and the process of infection. [...] The

ill that it does is incalculable " . That vaccines can recover virulence

and disturb equilibrium worries him. All these risks, known for years,

are important reasons for an immediate cessation of all vaccination

with living viruses and their manufacture. Immunologically, Professor

Delong finds it inconceivable that most advocates of vaccines ignore

what virologists have discovered in this field, and that they continue

without scruple to infect humans in this way in the name of immunology

: " Living-virus vaccines are experimental at this time. May we hope

that reason will prevail – that this kind of vaccine will no longer be

used? "

 

His French counterparts are nowhere near so forthright. In March 1987,

Que Choisir asked Dr Louis Léry, who oversees vaccination services at

the Lyons branch of Institut Pasteur, if, in seeking to reinforce

immunity, we are " allergising " the population. He replied : " I take

your point but I'm not rising to it " . Nevertheless, he added : " But

if we vaccinate against diphtheria, tetanus, polio, whooping cough and

hepatitis B, that represents a total of 8 mg of aluminium hydroxide.

Then at least one does not vaccinate allergic infants with this sort

of vaccine " .

 

In other circumstances (before the European Assembly), the same doctor

affirmed : " Vaccination must not be obligatory. It must be considered

case by case and indicated or contra-indicated, and its efficacy must

be determined under surveillance " .

 

Thirty years ago in Tendance de la Médecine Contemporaine Professor

Deloge had warned his peers : " If we continue to make general use of

vaccines and to introduce more of them we may see in the decades ahead

a new pathology, the vaccinated society " . This new pathology could be

AIDS, unknown in Deloge's time.

 

The National Cancer Institute has published studies showing that

combined vaccines can entail more general mutations or recombinations

than single vaccines. It would seem logical that our regulatory system

could be upset by a confusion of vaccines Taking advantage of this

situation, viral particles or the debris of genetic material could

lodge in the organism in such an unforeseeable and insidious way as to

induce teratogenic or carcinogenic consequences in the short or long term.

 

In Concours Médical, 20 January 1974, Professsor Pariente suggests

that : " To stimulate immunity, whether via tissue or serologically,

is not perhaps without danger " . And, in 1979, in Dangers of

Immunization (published by Biological Research Institute, Warburton,

Victoria, Australia, 1979)., Drs Kalokerinos and Dettmann of

Australia's Biological Research Institute, tell us that : " According

to sophisticated research [...] the effect of vaccination programmes

on T lymphocytes shows that the immune system is substantially damaged

after routine vaccinations. A significant part of these lymphocytes is

mobilised by the vaccine antigens and once activated they become

immunologically inert, incapable of reacting to or defending against

other antigens, infections or ailments. These discoveries tend to show

that infant immunological capital is depleted by current immunisation

programmes. "

 

More recently, the Journal du CNRS, April 1995, No 64, in an item on

Pasteur, raised the question : " What can we say about vaccination's

prospects ? The time is past when we thought this practice the

solution to all the infectious diseases. Faced with AIDS, hepatitis C

and malaria, the method's limits and problems are apparent. The main

difficulty is variability, which allows the pathogenic agent to escape

the host's immune response and establish persistent infection " .

 

In Immunologie Fondamentale and Appliqué (Editions Medsi, Second

Edition 1989), Professor Roitt states : " Results with acute viral

infections should be interpreted with caution. It may be possible to

destroy viruses or infected cells in vitro but is difficult to

evaluate the importance of these mechanisms in vivo.[...] The problem

is crucial to vaccination. Since we do not know the functions of

normal protection in human and viral infections, the production of

vaccines remains empiricalThere is a real danger of activating

inappropriate functions, thus provoking more serious diseases and an

immune pathological state. "

 

Vaccines and AIDS

 

Quotidien du Médecin, 9 May 1996, looks at an American study that

" shows that antigenic provocation at the time of a tetanus booster

temporarily increases HIV 1 in infected individuals and renders the

uninfected more susceptible to the virus. This apart, the study

suggests that bacterial or parasitical infection seems to worsen HIV

and even to predispose to HIV infection. [...] It has also been shown

that replication of HIV 1 is increased after flu or hepatitis-B

vaccination of HIV patients " .

 

The same journal tells us that a team under Dr Stanley and with Dr

Anthony Fausi has shown that vaccination seems to increase

susceptibility to infection in vivo of peripheral lymphocytes in the

non-infected : " After vaccination, viræmia was multiplied by a factor

of 2 to 36 (for 13 patients), then fell to initial values over six

weeks, and the proviral charge (number of infected cells) was

moderately elevated in the blood (11/13 patients) or ganglions (2/2).

Moreover, the virus was more readily isolated from the lymphocytes

after vaccination than before " .

 

These publications stress the aggravating role of vaccinations in the

development of AIDS and their role in the onset of HIV in the healthy.

They confirm studies already done in Vienna showing that tetanus

vaccination triggers a pre-AIDS situation, as indicated in the New

England Journal of Medicine, No 3, 1981 (Vol 310). The Austrian

research team established that between the third and fourteenth day

after vaccination there was a significant reduction in OKT 4 and OKT 8

lymphocytes or, in other words, the vaccinee's resistance was at its

lowest point.

 

A similar warning is given in L'Eurobiology, No 216, 1995 (Tome XXIX)

: " The consequences of HBs vaccination are now appearing in the

immune-compromised (by drug addiction or iatrogenically), who are

incapable of responding to attempts to stimulate antibody production

or achieve protective level. [...] Specific cell immunity, which plays

an important part, partcularly through the ability of cytotoxic

lymphocytes' to eliminate viral particles in acute infection, can be

hindered by the appearance of mutants that escape early defences,

notably by becoming defective in HBe antigens – the absence of various

cytokines. These anomalies are of concern as regards fulminant or

chronic hepatitis B because of reactivation of secreted viral

particles when a another episode of low immunity occurs. [...] " .

Evidently, any vaccination entails a reduction in immunity – and they

insist on vaccinating at-risk subjects against hepatitis B !

 

Diagnosis of a disease is frequently based on symptoms without any

attempt to identify the micro-organisms alleged to cause them. Thus

when a vaccinee contracts the disease in question, it may be diagnosed

as a different disease. After the introduction of Salk polio vaccine,

cases of polio were reported as viral meningitis and between 1955 and

1966 polio cases fell whereas viral and aseptic meningitis cases rose.

 

In 1995, Vous et Votre Santé put out a special issue (No 4) on

vaccinations that everyone should read : " Mass vaccination is blind,

rigid, routine and heresy. It is retrograde and inappropriate and

fails to recognise that immunity is different for each of us. When

someone is injected who is already equipped with protective

antibodies, as can happen, this is a case of someone incubating the

disease in question.

 

" Any therapy, whether curative or preventive, should be

individualised, hence the terrain is taken into account, which runs

counter to compulsory mass vaccination. Any vaccination should be

preceded by a check on antibody level to eliminate those already

immunised " .

 

We stress here that any vaccination will produce a reaction, slight or

severe, or even fatal. Any vaccination constitutes an assault that the

subject may or may not be able to cope with. How many children find

themselves in a special home because of a handicap after immunisation

? How many suffer from chronic fatigue, autism, hyperactivity,

cancer, leukæmia. degenerative disease, allergies ? How many are on

dialysis or heavy medication, or were found dead in their cots?