Tag: medical-science

  • Herd Immunity is Grossly Misunderstood

    Microbiologist John Dorman, PhD

    “I do believe that a vaccine can, under some circumstances, provide temporary ‘immunity’ or protection from an infectious pathogen, however, that is where my faith in inoculation ends. Vaccines were never intended to be the first line of defense against infectious disease nor were they intended to be provided under such an aggressive immunization schedule. As most of you are aware, the development of modern sanitation has contributed far more to limit the spread of disease than the vaccine.

    My greatest issue with the current vaccine schedule is that it fuels the fire of viral mutation.

    Consider the 2015 measles outbreak at Disneyland. It had nothing to do with the un-vaccinated, but rather a very simple process of an accelerated morbillivirus mutation. Why do you think we alter the flu vaccine every year? Viruses mutate naturally but do so at a greatly accelerated rate when threatened by the antigens provided through the vaccination process. At some point, the rate of mutation will surpass our ability to develop a vaccine. If this occurs there will be nothing left to stem the advance of the disease.

    And herd immunity is grossly misunderstood. True herd immunity can only result from a healthy, fully functioning immune system. Vaccines cannot confer “herd immunity” because vaccines only stimulate one of the two essential elements of the immune system. In the vaccinated, the body’s natural immune response is impaired, and the antibodies are not as strong as they would have been had the virus passed through the immune system in a ‘natural’ manner, therefore leading to an ever-increasing reliance on developing more vaccinations.

    Unfortunately, the immune response mounted by the vaccine is enough to trigger mutation in the attacking virus. I too want herd immunity, but it will never be achieved through vaccination. Why are so many booster shots necessary to bring antibody titers up to serologically acceptable levels? Does this not indicate that our current science does not yet allow us to formulate an injection that mimics naturally acquired and lifelong immunity? The current truth is it is impossible to create permanent immunity through the artificial induction of a vaccine.

    Many of the infectious diseases we immunize against are simply a result of poor hygiene and or septic recycling systems, unnatural diets, metabolic congestion (especially liver) and persistent immune suppression via pharmaceuticals.

    The large-scale public health innovations – including clean water technologies, sanitation, refuse management, milk pasteurization, and meat inspection – as the source of health improvement and reduction of disease. – Harvard Paper

    These infections are natural in these environments and in many cases, designed and created by and within the body itself to carry out a janitorial duty by infecting and removing all cells of poor integrity so the body can be revitalized by their new replacements. There is enough evidence to prove that vaccines diminish the integrity of every cell in the body and exacerbate the need for a deeper, more widespread infection at a future time.

    Mass vaccination is, in my opinion, bad science at best and will eventually lay waste to any natural immunity of humans at worst.

    The only way to ensure lasting and permanent immunity is through a truly healthy “herd” which is the complete antithesis of a drug-dependent population that find themselves unable to fight any infection naturally. First, we abuse the antibiotic and witness the birth of the super-bug. A mutated strain 100% drug-resistant and now through the abuse and overuse of the vaccine we are forcing the antigenic drift and accelerated mutation of the virus.

    And for proof? I have compiled much research over the years, but it is not possible to point you to a single study or a ‘smoking gun’. It took me several years to unravel the dogma that I was taught and accepted early in my career.
    I don’t know all the answers, but I am certain we are not asking enough of the right questions. I know many doctors, nurses, researchers, chemists and fellow microbiologist who do not “tow the party line” when it comes to the “science” of vaccines.

    The science is not settled and anyone in the medical community who attempts to convince you otherwise is either willfully deceitful or woefully ignorant. We have chosen to roll the dice and gamble with our health.

    What will save us from disease when this Ponzi scheme of mass vaccination and symptom management collapses? I fear we will be left with nothing to defend ourselves against invading pathogens because we all chose to remain ignorant rather than integrate the truth while we still had a chance.

    Because we chose to consume antibiotics like candy and prescribe them for everything under the sun…we chose to believe that vaccination would magically provide us immunity because many of us were too lazy to learn how to build immunity naturally through diet and lifestyle or to learn the symptoms of environmental poisoning. We chose to numb the pain instead of addressing the cause of the pain.

    All of these short-sighted decisions will eventually circle back around and bite us all in the collective arse.

    I truly hope we all wake up soon.”

    Microbiologist John Dorman, PhD

    Resources for Research: 

    http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2011summer/article7.html

    In other news: Measles Information the Media is Suppressing

    Measles MisInformation with Physicians for Vaccine Choice

    nvic.org

  • Medical Science OR Medical Marketing?

    Medical Science OR Medical Marketing?

    Do you still believe that “medical science” is independent of the industry it reports on?!! Leading vaccine-maker MERCK admits paying for the creation of a new medical journal in Australia to promote it’s products while appearing to be an independent journal. 

    Current Editor-in-Chief of the prestigious medical journal The Lancet commented on this last year by saying: “Much of scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue…Science has taken a turn towards darkness.” — Dr Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of leading medical journal The Lancet.”

    But news of a Merck-sponsored publication for doctors in Australia, that has come to light in a personal injury lawsuit there over Vioxx, has raised eyebrows in international medical publishing.

    From 2002 through 2005, the Australian affiliate of Merck paid the Australian office of Elsevier, an academic publisher, to publish eight compilations of scientific articles under the title Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, a spokesman for Elsevier said. The Merck marketing compilation was unusual in that it looked like an independent peer-reviewed medical journal. It even called itself a “journal,” without indicating in any of the issues that Merck had paid for it.

    Elsevier is not the only publishing house which has been accused of sometimes blurring the line between advertising and science. This problem is particularly pronounced in medicine, where there is much money to be made from sales of drugs and medical devices. Drug companies push to publish positive results, saysGiustini, who runs a popular wiki for health librarians, because it is an effective means of getting the attention of doctors, who prescribe drugs and recommend medical devices. So it shouldn’t come as a complete surprise, he says, that a drug company (Merck, in the case of the fake Australian journal) funded a marketing publication in a form that looked like a journal. “It’s troubling and shocking but not completely new.”

    The effects of polluting medical literature with poor or suspect science are significant, says Giustini. Doctors are too busy to carefully assess every article about a new drug or device, he says, yet must now take that time because they are wary of accepting in good faith the authors’ conclusions.

    “I believe that many doctors reviewing the journal would likely believe it to be a peer-reviewed medical journal, and rely upon the contents as they would upon other journals they read,” said Robert J. Donovan, an expert witness for the plaintiff, according to a deposition statement.

    Its not just Australia the British Medical Journal is also guilty.

    The British Medical Journal published several scathing editorials against Dr. Andrew Wakefield whose research figures pointed to a possible connection of gut damage in children and the administration of MMR vaccine in the 90’s. Hardly an independent view as the BMJ admits it receives funding from both Merck and GSK, the makers of the MMR vaccines. 

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2734229/