“a means of producing immunity to a disease by using a vaccine, or a special preparation of antigenic material, to stimulate the formation of appropriate antibodies.”
The presence of the appropriate antibodies is therefore deemed to be synonymous with immunity, which is defined as:
“the body’s ability to resist infection, afforded by the presence of circulating antibodies and white blood cells.”
As indicated by the definition, vaccination relies on the concept of ‘immunity’ and the idea that exposure to an infectious disease stimulates the body to produce the appropriate antibodies, the presence of which is said to indicate that the body has acquired ‘natural immunity’ to that disease. There is however, a problem with this idea, because people can and do experience repeated episodes of the same infectious disease; this means that they have failed to acquire ‘immunity’ from their first exposure to the disease. The idea is clearly flawed as it is not supported by empirical evidence.
The practice of vaccination is based on the same assumption about immunity with the additional claim that vaccines are more effective in stimulating the body to produce the appropriate antibodies. However, vaccinated people also experience repeated episodes of the infectious diseases against which they have been vaccinated; they too have failed to acquire ‘immunity’. Vaccinated people who fail to produce the appropriate antibodies are called ‘non-responders’.
In an attempt to offer an explanation for vaccine ‘non-responders’, the WHO web page entitled Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI), in a series of pages on the topic of Global Vaccine Safety, makes the following revealing statement:
“There is no such thing as a ‘perfect’ vaccine which protects everyone who receives it AND is entirely safe for everyone.”
This statement clearly contrasts with the generally accepted view that vaccines are fundamentally safe and effective; if this were the case, they would be safe and effective for everyone.
The assertion that vaccines are not only ineffective but positively dangerous is also substantiated by Herbert Shelton who, with reference to the smallpox vaccine, states in Natural Hygiene: Man’s Pristine Way of Life that:
“In addition to being a failure as a preventive, the vaccine produces a whole train of evil side effects and iatrogenic diseases.”
The adverse effects of vaccines are seriously underreported for a number of reasons, one of which is that revelations of their truly harmful nature would undermine the WHO claim that vaccines are a great health achievement that saves lives; a procedure that causes harm to health cannot be one that simultaneously save lives. Another reason is that, in order to eradicate ‘deadly infectious diseases’, it is claimed that a high percentage of the population needs to be vaccinated; this is referred to as ‘herd immunity’, the erroneous nature of which will be discussed in a further article. This high level of ‘vaccine coverage’ will however, be jeopardised by widespread public awareness of the harmful nature of vaccines, because it is highly likely that large numbers of people will refuse to submit themselves and their families to vaccination.
It is asserted that a failure to achieve herd immunity within a specified population will have a detrimental impact on efforts to eradicate deadly diseases, but this is not the case; the only detrimental impact from the failure to reach the requisite percentage of ‘vaccine coverage’ will be on the profits of vaccine-producing pharmaceutical companies.
UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund), in a 1996 article entitled Vaccines bring 7 diseases under control, makes the bold statement that:
“Two hundred years after the discovery of vaccine by the English physician Edward Jenner, immunization can be credited with saving approximately 9 million lives a year worldwide.”
This assertion cannot, however, be substantiated.
England was the country in which the practice of vaccination was first introduced, courtesy of Edward Jenner; it was also the first country to introduce mandatory vaccination. It is for these reasons, plus the substantial documentation and statistical information available on the topic, that the situation in England provides much of the material for this discussion.
One of the many medical practitioners who raised objections to vaccination was Dr Walter Hadwen MD MRCS LRCP, who had qualified in England under both the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians. In 1896 Dr Hadwen addressed a meeting, at which he stated:
“As a medical man I look upon vaccination as an insult to common sense, as superstitious in its origin, unscientific in theory and practice, and useless and dangerous in its character.”
The 1853 and subsequent Vaccination Acts made infant vaccination compulsory in England, although at the time only the smallpox vaccine was mandatory. Dr Hadwen’s objection to vaccination was so strong that he refused to allow his own children to be vaccinated, despite this refusal earning him a total of nine prosecutions.
Dr Charles Creighton MD, another qualified English physician, was so highly regarded by the medical establishment that in 1884 he was asked to write the vaccination entry for the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. At the time he was fully supportive of vaccination; but, before writing the required text, he decided to investigate the subject thoroughly. The result of his investigation is explained by Eleanor McBean PhD ND in her book, The Poisoned Needle:
“He agreed to do so, but instead of contenting himself with the usual stock statements he went right back to Jenner’s own writings and to contemporary documents. He searched the pro- and anti-vaccination literature of many countries and came to the conclusion that vaccination is a ‘grotesque superstition’.”
Another English physician who opposed the practice of vaccination was Dr M Beddow Bayly MD MRCS LRCP, who had also qualified under both the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians. In 1936 Dr Beddow Bayly wrote a booklet entitled The Case Against Vaccination, in which he states that:
“Of scientific basis or justification for the practice there is none, and the history of vaccination is the record of a superstitious rite pursued by a series of methods each in turn abandoned when experience proved its danger, and presenting a trail of extravagant claims not one of which has stood the test of time.”
Clearly by 1936 the scientific basis of and justification for the practice of vaccination were still conspicuous by their absence; a situation that remains unchanged at the beginning of the 21st century.
It may also be suggested that 21st century vaccinations are different, that the practice now operates from the basis of ‘evidence-based science’.
However, as shown by the work of Drs Hadwen, Creighton and Beddow Bayly, objective investigations into the history of the practice have revealed that there is no science or evidence on which this practice was originally based; nor has any new ‘scientific theory’ been developed since that of Edward Jenner. There is still no scientific basis or justification for the practice of vaccination.