The Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do To Regain Our Health

The Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do To Regain Our HealthSource: GreenMedInfo.com
Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD
March 23, 2017

Available for Immediate Free Download

This is the introduction to the new vaccine book by Tetyana Obukhanych (Ph.D. in immunology from Rockefeller University, New York, NY) Vaccine Illusion. Dr. Obukhaynch and GreenMedInfo.com are giving the book away for free for a limited time only. Get your copy here.  

Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D.

I know of many alternative health practitioners and even of a few pediatricians who have embraced the non-vaccination approach to health. However, I have yet to encounter one among my own kind: a scientist in the trenches of mainstream biomedical research who does not regard vaccines as the greatest invention of medicine.

I never imagined myself in this position, least so in the very beginning of my Ph.D. research training in immunology. In fact, at that time, I was very enthusiastic about the concept of vaccination, just like any typical immunologist. However, after years of doing research in immunology, observing scientific activities of my superiors, and analyzing vaccine issues, I realized that vaccination is one of the most deceptive inventions the science could ever convince the world to accept.

As we hear more and more about vaccine injuries, many individuals are starting to view vaccination as a necessary evil that has helped us initially to overcome raging epidemics but now causes more damage than benefit to our children.

As an immunologist, I have a different and perhaps a very unique perspective. I have realized that the invention of vaccination in the 18th century has precluded us from seeking to understand what naturally acquired immunity to diseases really is. Had we pursued a different route in the absence of that shortcut, we could have gained a thorough understanding of naturally acquired immunity and developed a truly effective and safe method of disease prevention compared to what vaccines can possibly offer.

The biological term immunity refers to a universally observed phenomenon of becoming unsusceptible to a number of infectious diseases through prior experience. Because of the phonetic similarity between the words immunology and immunity, it is tempting to assume that immunology is a science that studies the state of immunity, but this is not the case. Immunology is a science that studies an artificial process of immunization – i.e., the immune system’s response to injected foreign matter. Immunology does not attempt to study and therefore cannot provide understanding of natural diseases and immunity that follows them. Yet, the “knowledge” about the function of the immune system during the natural process of disease is recklessly inferred from contrived immunologic experiments, which typically consist of injecting laboratory-grown microorganisms (live or dead) or their isolated parts into research animals to represent the state of infection. Because immunologic experiments are unrealistic simulations of the natural process, immunologists’ understanding of nature is limited to understanding their own experimental models. Immunologists have confined the scope of their knowledge to the box of experimental modeling, and they do not wish to see beyond that box. Thinking within the box only reinforces the notion of vaccination and cannot provide any other solution to the problem of diseases.

Despite the fact that the biological basis of naturally acquired immunity is not understood, present day medical practices insist upon artificial manipulation of the immune response (a.k.a. immunization or vaccination) to secure “immunity” without going through the actual disease process. The vaccine-induced process, although not resembling a natural disease, is nevertheless still a disease process with its own risks. And it is not immunity that we gain via vaccination but a puny surrogate of immunity. For this reason, vaccination at its core is neither a safe nor an effective method of disease prevention. Yet, immunologists have nothing better to offer because they can only go as far as their deeply rooted immunologic dogma allows them.

Three important factors have contributed to my gradual disillusionment with immunologic paradigms and their applications – vaccines. First, several significant inconsistencies within immunologic theory made me quite unsatisfied with its attempted explanation of immunity. Second, I observed how some seasoned immunologists would omit mentioning the outcome of crucial experiments to make their publication on new vaccine development strategies look very promising. This made me suspicious about the vaccine development process in general and eager to take a look at the other side of the vaccination debate.

The third factor was the birth of my child. This event compelled me to take a break from laboratory research for a few years. I completely shed my identity of an immunologist and became a parent determined to raise a healthy child. I was amazed at how clueless I was about what really matters for health despite my proficiency in all those fancy immunologic theories amassed in the Ivory Tower. For the sake of my child, I had to reconsider everything I knew in immunology. I searched deeper and deeper for the root of vaccine problems we face today and it all came back to me in clear light.

This book is intended to give parents essential immunologic background for making vaccination decisions for their children. Making vaccination decisions is an important personal responsibility that should not be left to any medical or scientific authority. Parents should educate themselves about vaccines and diseases to the extent that they feel absolutely confident and well prepared for taking full responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.

It is important to estimate risks of vaccine injuries versus risks of exposure to vaccine-targeted microorganisms. But the analysis should not stop there. I urge every parent to consider how vaccines achieve their effects, and if the desired vaccine effects truly benefit our children and our society. The implications of vaccination were not acceptable to me, neither as a parent nor as a scientist, and this book is my effort to tell other parents why.

Another goal of this book is to raise awareness in our society about the urgent necessity to change basic immunologic research in a way that will finally bring us understanding of naturally acquired immunity. It is up to future generations of immunologists to rescue this science and put it on the right track. The benefits for humankind will be enormous, as this would make both vaccine injuries and fear of diseases a matter of the past. But to make this happen, the field of immunology must first be cleared from the weeds of immunologic dogma.

And finally, this book is my attempt to heal the schism in our society between those who oppose vaccines due to vaccine safety concerns and those who oppose the anti-vaccine movement due to the fear of diseases. This schism has brought us enormous suffering by dividing families, friends, and health provider communities. But we all have the same goal: we all want the best for our children. Only by uniting our efforts will we be able to find a solution to the problem of diseases without compromising our health by means of vaccines.

Download the book for FREE now and learn the following: 

  • Why do vaccines fail to give us lasting immunity from viral diseases?
  • Why do vaccines provide no guarantee of protection from bacterial diseases?
  • Why is vaccine-based herd immunity not achievable?

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
_______________________________________________________

 

Study: DTP Vaccine Associated With 212% Increased Infant Mortality Risk

Study: DTP Vaccine Associated With Increased Infant Mortality

Source: GreenMedinfo.com
Jefferey Jaxen
March 15, 2017

A study from West Africa’s Guinea-Bissau discovered that all-cause infant mortality more than doubled after the introduction of the DTP vaccination.

An observational study from the West African country Guinea-Bissau titled, “The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment,” [i] examined the introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) in an urban community in Guinea-Bissau in the early 1980s. The World Health Organization introduced the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI) in low-income countries in the 1970s with the goal of universal immunization for all children. In the introduction, the study’s authors state, “Except for the measles vaccines, surprisingly few studies examined the introduction of vaccines and their impact on child survival.”

The purpose of the study was to examine what happens to child survival when DTP and OPV were introduced in low-income countries. A community study [ii] of the state of nutrition and family structure found that severe malnutrition was not evident in urban Guinea-Bissau although it was initially assumed to be the main cause of the under-five mortality rate.

The study findings emerged from a child population that had been followed with 3-monthly nutritional weighing sessions since 1978. From June 1981 DTP and OPV were offered from 3 months of age at these sessions. Due to the 3-monthly intervals between sessions, the children were allocated by birthday in a ‘natural experiment’ to receive vaccinations early or late between 3 and 5 months of age. The study included children who were greater than 6 months of age when vaccinations started and children born until the end of December 1983. The researchers compared mortality between 3 and 5 months of age of DTP-vaccinated and not-yet-DTP- vaccinated children in Cox proportional hazard models.

When mortality was compared, the mortality hazard ratio (HR) among 3-5-month-old children having received the DTP (±OPV) was 5.00 compared with not-yet-DTP-vaccinated children [i.e. a 400% increase]. According to the authors, differences in background factors did not explain the effect. All-cause infant mortality after 3 months of age increased after the introduction of these vaccines (2.12 (1.07–4.19)) [i.e. a 212% increase]. However, the study findings revealed the negative effect was particularly strong for children who had received DTP-only and no OPV (10.0 (2.61–38.6)).

The researchers concluded:

“DTP was associated with increased mortality; OPV may modify the effect of DTP.”

It appears this early Guinea-Bissau study foreshadowed a line of documented injury and mortality caused by the DPT. A 2000 BMJ article found that a population of vaccinated infants, also from Guinea-Bissau, receiving one dose of DTP or polio vaccines had higher mortality than children who had received none of these vaccines. A 2004 observational study showed a doubling of the mortality rate of infants vaccinated with the single dose of DPT vaccine and increasing mortality rates after the second and third doses.[iii] A 2011 study of Guinea-Bissau females found DTP vaccine administered simultaneously with measles vaccine is also associated with increased morbidity and poor growth in girls.[iv]

In the United States, the DTP vaccine received major public spotlight and pushback after the 1985 book DPT: A Shot in the Dark was published tracing its development and describing its risks. Recently complied reports show settlements of injury and deaths from the TDap, DTP, and DPT vaccines within the United States Vaccine Court jumped 75% from $5.5 million in 2014 to $9.8 million in 2015.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com

References

[i] Søren Wengel Mogensen, Andreas Andersen, Amabelia Rodrigues, Christine S Benn, Peter Aaby. The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment. Journal of EBioMedicine. DOI 10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.01.041.

[ii] Aaby P, Bukh J, Lisse IM, Smits AJ. Measles mortality, state of nutrition, and family structure: a community study from Guinea-Bissau. Journal of Infectious Disease. 1983 Apr;147(4): 693-701. PMID 6842007

[iii] Aaby P1, Jensen H, Gomes J, Fernandes M, Lisse IM. The introduction of diphtheria- tetanus-pertussis vaccine and child mortality in rural Guinea-Bissau: an observational study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2004 Apr;33(2):374-80. PMID 15082643

[iv] J Agergaard, E Nante, G Poulstrup, J Nielsen, K L Flanagan, L Østergaard, C S Benn, P Aaby. Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine administered simultaneously with measles vaccine is associated with increased morbidity and poor growth in girls. A randomised trial from Guinea- Bissau. Vaccine. 2011 Jan 10;29(3):487-500. Epub 2010 Nov 18. PMID 21093496

This Doctor Left Her Job After She Learned This About Vaccines!

Source: iHealthTube.com
March 15, 2017

Dr. Suzanne Humphries had a high paying job in a hospital. But her experience when she questioned some vaccine protocols, and the push back she received, led her to leave that practice. You won’t believe how she was treated by colleagues and others in the health community! Watch and share this.

Breaking: NVIC Tracking 134 Vaccine Bills Introduced in 35 States

A tidal wave of new bills has flooded 35 states in the U.S., threatening to either limit or completely eradicate vaccine exemptions. Clearly health freedom and informed consent is undergoing full frontal assualt right now. Please read, share, and take action accordingly.

Breaking: NVIC Tracking 134 Vaccine Bills Introduced in 35 States

Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Jefferey Jaxen
March 1, 2017

In 2015 California signed into law the highly contested Senate Bill 277 (SB277) accomplishing two outcomes. First, the bill eliminated the personal belief exemption for vaccination. Second, the bill’s actionable directives served as a sobering wake up call that mobilized the public and medical community to enter the fight for an evaporating health freedom and informed consent.

Yet, despite multiple whistleblowers within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) spotlighting research corruption and pharmaceutical industry collusion, over $3 billion dollars paid out in vaccine damages by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, widespread vaccine contamination, and overall ineffectiveness and dangers of the current vaccine schedule there has now been 134 vaccine bills introduced in 35 states in the first seven weeks of the US legislative session.

According to the National Vaccine Information Center’s (NVIC) Advocacy Team who track vaccine-related bills, 31 new bills have been added since the team’s last update two weeks prior. Eight of these new bills are in five states appearing for the first time. The coordinated legislative push represents nothing short of a full frontal onslaught by pharmaceutical companies, working through their lobbied politicians, to force dangerous vaccine products upon the backs of the entire US population.

Looking deeper into the tidal wave of vaccine-related legislation sees eight states, deemed “priority opposition alert states” by NVIC, proposing bills to restrict or eliminate vaccine exemptions altogether. Similar to California’s new normal thanks to SB277, legislators in Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah are now hoping to remove and impede pillars of health freedom and parental choice.

The Slippery Slope of Legalized Persecution

Perhaps the most disturbing trend and telling takeaway from this new surge of vaccine-related bills within the US is the clear move to legally persecute those choosing to not vaccinate. The new structure to implement vaccine persecution is appearing in two different forms. First, Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, Texas, and Utah have filed bills to expand vaccine tracking or eliminate opt-in consent for vaccine tracking. Second, Arizona, Connecticut, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah have filed bills that would allow ‘school shaming’ by requiring and normalizing the public disclosure of vaccination and exemption rates. Nevada has gone one step further than the rest by introducing AB 200 allowing parents to find out from the school if any children who are not vaccinated are attending.

In the current atmosphere of increasing persecution of those who exercise their medical choice, public disclosure by law opens the gates to community-driven discrimination at all levels, endless local and national media harassment, and mounting pressure on local health professionals to increase community vaccination rates at all costs. If passed and signed into law, Arkansas Senate Bill 301 will allow health departments to share personal information in the immunization registry. In the past, families and their children who wished to exercise their right to health freedom and not vaccinate have endured an increasing trend of vilification by the corporate media, mainstream medical profession, school systems, and the public at large. The recent trend has also seen doctors refuse to treat patients, or kick them out of their practice, for not being vaccinated and/or not signing their in-house “immunization contracts.” Corporate media has myopically focused on the dangers unvaccinated people pose to the ‘herd’ while willfully censoring epidemic rates of autism spectrum disorders, documented vaccine dangers, and multiple CDC whistleblowers warning of research fraud and pharmaceutical industry collusion.

A look back at the government, medical, and media talking points over the recent years has seen a three-part progression bringing the public to the current, openly admitted, stage of green lighting the establishment persecution of the unvaccinated. At first, the message was to simply vaccinate to prevent disease. Due to multifactorial events, the original messaging fell out of favor and was changed to ‘vaccinate to protect others.’ The ‘protect others’ collective approach symbolized a giant leap away from the individual and their health freedom while attempting to put ‘herd immunity’ and the greater good front and center to neutralize personal choice. We have now officially entered a third turning which has historically alarming consequences. Persecution, written into law, of groups of people for their beliefs goes well beyond the once slippery slope the health freedom community found themselves on in the past. The two-pronged approach of increased tracking and monitoring of unvaccinated individuals along with social and legal momentum to denounce the unvaccinated as threats to society and life itself are simply reprehensible and historically chilling.

Connecticut, Texas, and Utah have introduced new bills that require families that utilize vaccine exemptions to participate in a state-sponsored vaccine (re)eduction program. The discriminatory and presumptuous bills assume that those who exert their medical and parental choice are uneducated and ignorant. For the increasing populations of people that believe in health freedom and understand that vaccines are not necessarily safe or effective, attempted bills to force “education” are a sign that pharmaceutical companies and their paid/lobbied mouthpieces have lost control of the narrative and messaging.

Increased Targeting of Doctors

Doctors will not be immune from the targeted persecution. In California, where SB277 is law, the 2015-2016 Annual Report of the Medical Board of California officially states:

The Board will investigate any complaints in which a physician may not be following the standard of care…

Individual physicians will face a new angle of pressure to meet the “standard of care”
as new bills are introduced to track, share, and publish vaccination data as well as restrict or eliminate vaccine exemptions. The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) collects data and issues “report cards” on health plans which meet “important standards of care.” Put simply, The NCQA ratings for health plans are partly dependent upon their ability to deliver pharmaceutical products. If the new bills chronicled by NVIC are signed into law, doctors wishing to allow vaccine choice or using their medical judgement in cases involving vaccine waivers may face a medical board investigation from their respective state. In addition, health plans being rated by the NCQA will likely put pressure on participating doctors who are not fully vaccinating all their patients. The good news is that doctors are now uniting to oppose mandatory vaccination laws, and educate the public on infectious disease, the immune system, and informed consent as seen with the recently formed group Physicians for Informed Consent.

Good News for Health Freedom

The NVIC Advocacy Team also gave good news by listing and encouraging support for new bills filed in Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia that will add or expand vaccine exemptions. As the tide continues to turn, the public is witnessing bills that are not pharmaceutically driven showing that some legislators and authors behind such bills do indeed stand for their constituents. Due to activist who are doing the leg work legislators are listening to their constituents, accepting their documents and materials, and using their arguments on the floor to debate.

NVIC launched the vaccine safety and informed consent movement in America in the early 1980s and is the oldest and largest consumer led organization advocating for the institution of vaccine safety and informed consent protections in the public health system. Their Advocacy Team is doing the vital work of continuously monitoring newly introduced bills and their movements. It is recommended that those interested in alerts of new vaccine-related legislation and contact information to engage with their state’s decision makers and legislators sign up for free at the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
_____________________________________________________
Jefferey Jaxen is a researcher, independent investigative journalist, writer and voice for health freedom on the front lines of society’s shift towards higher consciousness.  Visit his website here to learn more.

British high court awards massive payout to child who was permanently damaged by the swine flu vaccine… government tried to suppress the truth for years

Image: British high court awards massive payout to child who was permanently damaged by the swine flu vaccine… government tried to suppress the truth for years
Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan Huff
February 24, 2017

A young man from the U.K. who was seriously injured after being vaccinated for swine flu during the fake pandemic of 2009 has finally received the payout he was due from the British government. For years the government tried to cover up the truth about the deadly vaccine, known as Pandemrix, which caused thousands of young people — including young children — to develop narcolepsy.

As you may recall, more than 30 million people across Europe — and roughly six million in the U.K. — were vaccinated with Pandemrix, a product of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) that was rushed through safety trials and brought to market because of the “emergency” at hand. Not long after people started getting the jab was it discovered that many of them were developing serious adverse reactions to the vaccine.

Rather than pull Pandemrix from the market, the British government made a deal with GSK to basically just compensate those who developed the most serious health conditions from the jab, setting up a $92 million fund from which victims could receive payouts.

$92 million is nothing compared to the billions of dollars in profits GSK was able to rake in from the manufactured crisis. This allotment basically served as hush money for those who would make the most ruckus about developing injuries from Pandemrix, of which there are now reportedly more than 1,500 cases.

Despite its paltry sum, this $92 million still represents something for the families of those who were injured, helping them to receive the medical care they need while regaining some level of quality of life — that is, if they actually receive any of the money. According to reports, many victims are being denied their respective payouts as the government hems and haws about how to distribute it.

“So far, only two sufferers in the U.K. have been compensated after developing narcolepsy as a result of receiving Pandemrix: Josh Hadfield, 10 years old, and Katie Clark, 23 years old, who was awarded her compensation posthumously after she committed suicide as a result of the condition,” writes Francois Lubbe for The Daily Health.

“A third claimant — only known as John — was denied compensation by the UK’s Department for Work and Pensions, because it was of the opinion that John’s disabilities are not severe enough to pass the 60 per cent threshold to trigger a pay-out … That’s despite the fact that a 2015 Upper Tribunal ruling had already awarded him £120,000.”

Courts rule that government owes Pandemrix victims speedy compensation

For John, though, the situation recently took a turn for the better after a Court of Appeal heard the case and decided that John’s injuries were severe enough to warrant a cash payout. And because of his win, it sets a new precedent for other victims like him who have also been waiting to receive their cash payouts for Pandemrix injuries.

John’s lawyers told the media that his served as a test case for how the courts will handle Pandemrix injuries moving forward. Based on the decision of the Court of Appeals, in other words, compensation payouts to others should move much more smoothly, and hopefully this type of situation will never happen again. (RELATED: Learn more about vaccine company immunity in the legal system by visiting VaccineCourtNews.com)

“What’s even better is the fact that this case has now opened the door to civil claims against GlaxoSmithKline — the manufacturer of Pandemrix — who was previously indemnified by the UK government against any claims at the time the vaccine was released,” Lubbe adds.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

TheDailyHealth.co.uk

TheGuardian.com

ALERT: New Vaccines Will Permanently Alter Your DNA

DNA
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 22, 2017

I reported on this stunner in my previous article, “Genetically modified people: what could go wrong?” But it deserves its own article. The information needs to be spread far and wide. Now.

The reference is the New York Times, 3/15/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.” [That was nearly two years ago.]

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.”

Alteration of the human genetic makeup.

Not just a “visit.” Permanent residence. And once a person’s DNA is changed, doesn’t it follow that he/she will pass on that change to the next generation of children, and so on, down the line?

The Times article taps Dr. David Baltimore for an opinion:

“Still, Dr. Baltimore says that he envisions that some people might be leery of a vaccination strategy that means altering their own DNA, even if it prevents a potentially fatal disease.”

Yes, some people might be leery. If they have two or three working brain cells.

This is genetic roulette with a loaded gun.

And the further implications are clear. Vaccines can be used a cover story for the injections of any and all genes, whose actual purpose is re-engineering humans.

The emergence of this Frankenstein technology is paralleled by a shrill push to mandate vaccines, across the board, for both children and adults. The pressure and propaganda are planet-wide.

If you’re going to alter humans, for example, to make many of them more docile and weak, and some of them stronger, in order to restructure society, you want everyone under the umbrella. No exceptions. No exemptions.

The freedom and the right to refuse vaccines has always been vital. It is more vital than ever now.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.