Contraindications To Vaccination
Drug companies publish a long list of reasons for not vaccinating patients. Doctors rarely even look at the list, let alone take any notice of it.
Here's the list of contraindications and warnings for one vaccine selected at random: `Acute severe febrile illness. Encephalopathy of unknown aetiology within 7 days after previous vaccination. Progressive neurological disorder, uncontrolled epilepsy or progressive encephalopathy. Severe local or general reaction to a preceding dose of vaccine. History of febrile convulsions, fever, shock or persistent crying within 48 hours of previous vaccination. Guillain-Barre syndrome or brachial neuritis following vaccination.' Those are reasons for not giving one particular vaccine.
Now, imagine the contraindications and possible adverse effects when three or four vaccines are mixed together into a single vaccine cocktail.
Copyright Vernon Coleman 2011
Taken from Vernon Coleman's book Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe And Effective Is Lying. Here's The Proof. For details of how to purchase a copy of the book see the shop on this website.
---------------------------------------
Vaccines have to be developed using living systems and are usually cultivated in material taken from animals - in cell cultures or in the blood of infected animals. Tissues which are used include brain tissue from rabbits, kidney tissue from dogs, rabbits and monkeys, protein from fertilised hens' or ducks' eggs and blood from horses or pigs. There are a number of potential problems with creating vaccines in this way and this system can, of course, be dangerous since cell cultures may be contaminated (as was the case with the polio vaccine made with monkey tissue). More recently, some vaccines were prepared using bovine serum and it now appears that during the early 1990s an unknown number of British children received vaccinations which may have been prepared using material from British cattle which could have been infected with BSE. Naturally, no one knows the size of the risk that was taken at the time (though it seems that the British Government was warned of the hazard but chose to ignore the risk). No one is likely to know the size of any problem resulting from this for many years to come. The official position is that we must all hope for the best. In reality, I doubt if anyone will ever do the necessary research to find out how many individuals were adversely affected by contaminated vaccine. If no research is done there won't be any embarrassing results, any adverse publicity affecting vaccination programmes and no successful lawsuits.
Vaccines may contain all sorts of substances in addition to the remnants of the infection against which they are supposed to be providing protection. Other substances found in vaccines include: albumin, formaldehyde, various amino acids, DNA residues, egg protein, gelatine (BSE anyone?), surfactants, monosodium glutamate and various antibiotics.
In addition, vaccine manufacturers now sometimes use adjuvants - chemicals included to enhance the immune response so that less viral material can be used in each vaccine dose. The alleged benefit is that this enables the manufacture to make the available vaccine go further. When they were introduced, adjuvants were not approved in the USA because their use was untested. However, the NHS did not ban the use of the products. Why would anyone want to test a product to see if it was safe? That would be as daft as testing it to see if it worked.
And there are other additives. Antibiotics may be added to dampen down the immune system response. And stabilisers of various kinds may also be included.
Every time something is added to a vaccine the chances of problems developing are increased.
Many vaccines contain thimerosal which contains mercury. Mercury is one of the most toxic substances known to man. This means that when children are vaccinated they are injected with mercury. Mercury is one of the most toxic substances on the planet. Vaccines have been made which give more than 50 times the safe amount. Vaccines used in America have not contained mercury since 2001 because it is known that mercury can cause neurological damage. The World Health Organisation has stated that there is no safe level of mercury in the human body. Vaccines may also contain aluminium - which can cause brain damage. Curiously, the European Union bans thermometers and barometers which contain mercury (on the grounds that they are dangerous) but allows drug companies to sell vaccines which contain mercury. In what way, I wonder, is it safer to inject mercury into babies than it is to have it in a barometer hanging on the wall?
Inevitably, it is not uncommon for vaccines to contain material which shouldn't have been there and which wasn't put there deliberately. Contaminants which have been found in vaccines include: chicken viruses, acanthamoeba, simian cytomegalovirus, simian foamy virus, bird cancer viruses, enzyme inhibitors, duck viruses, dog viruses, rabbit viruses, avian leucosis virus and pestivirus. What harm can these contaminants do? I don't know. I don't think anyone else does either. When companies use tissue from a bird to make a vaccine they have no idea how many germs may be in that tissue. Some vaccines are made with aborted human foetal tissue. For example, the rubella virus for the original MMR vaccine was taken from cells cultured from an aborted human foetus. Nice to know. Again, no one knows what diseases might be carried in that tissue. Doctors using these vaccinations are practising a form of cannibalism. If you wouldn't eat someone's dead human baby why would you want your child to be injected with tissue from that baby?
In January 2009, contaminated flu virus material was released from a plant in Austria. The error was only discovered because the contaminated product was used in experiments with ferrets. Unexpectedly, the ferrets died. On other occasions medicines have been deliberately contaminated. It would not be impossibly difficult for a determined person to contaminate a vaccine intended for use on millions of people.
Copyright Vernon Coleman 2011
Taken from Vernon Coleman's book Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe And Effective Is Lying. Here's The Proof. For details of how to purchase a copy of the book see the shop on this website.
------------------------------------------
On January 13th 2011 newspapers carried headlines telling readers that the death toll from flu had more than doubled and had risen to 112. There were calls for compulsory vaccination against swine flu. In fact, these figures show that less people than usual were dying from flu for the time of the year. On the following day doctors and journalists described the incidence of flu as `a pandemic' and called for all children to be vaccinated immediately (despite the fact that it was mainly elderly people who were dying). Scaremongering, vaccine-promoting supporters of the planned vaccination programme pointed out that the vaccine cost only £6 per person.
Up until a year or two ago the World Health Organisation used to describe a pandemic as a disease which (among other things) killed large numbers of people.
This definition was changed in 2009 so that a disease which spread across national borders (but didn't necessarily kill many people) could be described as a pandemic.
Shortly after the definition was changed swine flu was officially declared a serious level 6 pandemic. And countries all over the world had little choice but to start buying up huge stocks of H1N1 flu vaccine. The financial cost was enormous. And the profits for the drug companies flogging the vaccines were enormous too.
When the swine flu vaccine was first introduced it was said that it would prevent the disease. Then it was announced that it would shorten the duration of the disease. It was said that 159 deaths had occurred in Mexico as a result of the flu but this was later corrected to just seven deaths. Independent doctors warned that for children the side effects of the drug far outweighed the benefits and that one in twenty children was suffering from nausea or vomiting (severe enough to bring on dehydration) and also nightmares. The disease was being diagnosed on the NHS telephone line (provided as an alternative to a disappearing GP service) by telephone operators who were, presumably, happy their diagnostic skills enabled them to differentiate between flu and early signs of other, more deadly disorders such as meningitis. (Making diagnoses on the telephone is a dangerous business even for a doctor.)
Senior politicians in Europe subsequently called H1N1 a faked pandemic and accused pharmaceutical companies (and their lackeys) of encouraging a false scare. Limited health resources had been wasted buying millions of doses of vaccine. And millions of healthy people had been needlessly exposed to the unknown side effects of vaccines that in my view had been insufficiently tested.
As always, vaccinations were given with greatest enthusiasm to children and the elderly - the most immunologically vulnerable and the easiest to damage with vaccines.
We don't develop immunity to influenza and the common cold because the viruses that cause these diseases are constantly mutating and changing. And for the same reason the anti-flu vaccine will be useless within months, weeks or days. For the drug companies this is great news because it means they can insist that everyone who is vaccinated needs re-vaccinating regularly.
The strains of influenza virus used are the available strains which the drug company and the authorities guess might be the ones which will hit in the current year. The chances are, of course, that the strains of flu which will spread will be quite different.
Because the flu virus is constantly changing, scientists have to try to predict which strains are likely to produce an epidemic a year ahead. This is a bit like forecasting the weather a year ahead. Actually, it's not a bit like that. It's exactly like that.
Moreover, for the sake of economic convenience, drug companies, politicians and doctors often talk about `this year's flu vaccine' as though the flu virus mutates just once a year. This, of course, is nonsense. Viruses don't take any notice of the calendar. They change as much as they like and as often as they can. The idea of giving anti-flu jabs on an annual basis is arbitrary and entirely unscientific. Once the drug companies have got hooked on an annual financial bonanza they will suggest that vaccines be given biannually. And doctors, who also make huge sums out of giving flu vaccinations, will be equally enthusiastic.
The vaccination programme is all about money.
I wonder how many people who have the flu jab know just what they are allowing their doctor (or, more likely, a nurse) to dump in their arm? How many know that a pretty standard influenza vaccine contains: different strains of influenza viruses propagated in chicken embryos; formaldehyde (used as a preservative); polyethylene glycol (used to stimulate the immune system); gelatin (made from cows bones) and thimerosal (which contains mercury).
In 2011, studies suggested that innate immunity is vital to flu resistance and that alveolar macrophages help to clear the flu virus out from the lungs. University of Texas researchers announced that enhancing this natural action would increase the body's resistance to flu infection. The obvious thing to do, therefore, is to encourage people to improve their natural immunity by avoiding things which are bad for the immune system and by eating foods which help the immune system. In contrast, the whole principle of vaccination is to encourage fake immunity. But does multiple vaccination increase or lower the body's general immunity? Personally, I believe vaccination could well lower real immunity. I don't think I'm the only doctor who worries about this. When I was in practice as a GP I don't think I ever met a doctor who had an anti-flu vaccination himself (or gave one to members of his family). To be honest, I would be most unwilling to trust the judgement of such a doctor if I ever found one.
The big question which no one answers (and hardly anyone asks) is: could the widespread use of flu vaccine be spreading flu, encouraging the developing of more potent viruses and, therefore, be responsible for the fact that a surprising number of relatively young, and healthy, individuals are now dying from the disease? I don't know. And I don't believe anyone else does, either. What I do know is that flu jabs don't have any useful effect on preventing hospitalisation, death or time off work.
Copyright Vernon Coleman 2011
Taken from Vernon Coleman's book Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe And Effective Is Lying. Here's The Proof. For details of how to purchase a copy of the book see the shop on this website.
------------------------------------------
The number of children diagnosed as suffering from autism has rocketed just as the number of children being vaccinated has risen. This isn't just true of the UK, it’s true of all countries where children are vaccinated. I have for many years believed (and argued) that epidemiologically and logically all varieties of autism (including such brands as Asperger's) are nothing more than vaccine damage. Where's the evidence? Well, there's a startling absence of research but in the USA a huge medical practice of paediatricians with 30,000 child patients do not vaccinate their patients at all. They have no patients with autism. In the old days such an observation (known as epidemiological research) was regarded as valuable. Today, bizarrely, it is dismissed as irrelevant.
Some patients with autism are severely damaged and some are lightly damaged. Only a complete fool (or someone more enthusiastic about money than truth) would deny that there might be a link. When a research project was set up to investigate any link between vaccination and autism, drug companies applied to a court for an injunction to stop the research. Now, why would they do that?
Here are seven incontrovertible facts.
Fact one: Autism is (in its more serious forms) a disorder which involves brain damage.
Fact two: Vaccines cause brain damage. (If vaccines are known to cause brain damage isn't it logical to assume that they may also cause the disease which is known as autism but which would, I believe, be more properly and honestly known as vaccine brain damage? I suspect that the children currently being diagnosed as `autistic' are actually suffering from various levels of brain damage caused by vaccines - and should have been awarded damages by drug companies, doctors and the Government.
Fact three: The incidence of autism has rocketed as the number of vaccinations being given has also rocketed. There's a surprising correlation between the two. If someone noticed a statistical correlation between the number of people sucking humbugs and the number of people losing their teeth I bet you a devalued pound to a devalued penny that teams of highly paid medical scientists would start investigating. (The humbug manufacturers would complain but I doubt if they have as much clout as the international pharmaceutical industry.) Once rare (in the 1990s it was generally accepted that autism affected no more than 4 or 5 people in every 10,000), it is now officially claimed that it affects more than 100 in every 10,000 children in Britain. (Some experts believe that the real figure is much higher than this.) Figures in other countries show that the incidence of autism is rising in all developed countries - just as the number of vaccinations given is rising. None of this proves that vaccines cause autism but how anyone can simply deny the possibility of a link between vaccination and autism is quite beyond me. The epidemiological evidence is overwhelming.
Fact four: Children who suffer from brain damage after vaccination are numbed and need a good deal of stimulation. They respond well to flashing lights, colours and movement. Exactly the same thing happens with children suffering from severe autism.
Fact five: Some so-called experts claim that autism is caused by environmental pollution. Curiously, these `experts' do not believe that injecting foreign matter into small children is pollution.
Fact six: A number of parents have reported that their autistic children responded particularly badly when they were given their childhood vaccinations. From the evidence reported to me I believe that if children scream a good deal after vaccination, or are unusually quiet, or show other unusual signs, then there is, I believe, a real chance that they will develop autism.
Fact seven: The American Government has reportedly accepted that vaccines may cause autism.
I believe, and have believed for many years, that autism is caused by vaccination. I believe that the evidence (including the epidemiological evidence) supports this hypothesis. And if vaccines are known to cause brain damage isn't it logical to assume that they can also cause autism? Isn't it logical to at least want to do some pretty high powered research to find out whether or not there is a link?
Part of the problem is that there isn't really any clear way to define autism. It is a ragbag diagnosis used to describe a whole range of symptoms - ranging from severe brain damage to relatively mild behavioural problems. Many doctors now agree with me that severe autism is simply vaccine produced brain damage while mild autism is merely an excuse to be used when a child doesn't do as well as its parents expected. In those circumstances the diagnosis provides a social excuse for academic failure.
The word autism is used, like the word cancer, as an umbrella term for a range of different problems. Patients with autism are said to have development disorders which affect their ability to interact socially and to communicate with other people though this is a fairly recent interpretation and the word now seems to be used as a catch-all for a whole range of problems. (In one medical dictionary on my shelf, autism is defined as `morbid self-absorption'.) These days, I suspect that the word is used more as a dustbin word rather than an umbrella word. It helps the profession appear to know what is the matter when they don't and, at the same time, it enables them to avoid taking any responsibility for what has happened. The word is used to describe almost any symptoms which doctors cannot explain.
Social workers and other professional morons play the game because it enables them to build well-funded empires around the `care' of autistic patients. For the Government it is, of course, a lot cheaper to provide a modest amount of `care' for autistic patients than to acknowledge that these children have been made ill by the official vaccination policy and should have been provided with vast amounts of compensation. Every day that vaccination programmes continue makes it ever more unlikely that the Government will ever accept that there is any association between the two.
Doctors and drug companies and politicians much prefer to talk about autism rather than brain damage because the former suggests a natural disease while the latter suggests that there may be an external cause. Innocent and desperate parents collude with this nonsense because they prefer to describe their children as autistic than as brain damaged.
Those who oppose the conclusion that vaccination causes brain damage which is in turn often mislabelled as autism sometimes claim that the recorded incidence of autism is going up because doctors are better at making the diagnosis. This is patent nonsense for which there is no scientific evidence. (It is, I must point out, also possible that the incidence of autism is going up for the same reason that the incidence of other fashionable pseudo diseases such as AIDS and ADHD is going up. They may all be going up because they are fashionable and popular diseases which suit the personal and political motives of various groups of people - particularly parents who are looking for an appropriate label to stick on their child. Certainly, the list of symptoms said to be associated with autism is now increasing so rapidly that it will soon be easier to diagnose someone as not suffering from one of these disorders.)
I believe that autism was devised so that drug companies could avoid the embarrassment of seeing children described as being vaccine damaged. Once the new disease had been invented, drug companies started to sell treatments for this newly created and non-existent disease. You have to admire their marketing brilliance.
The drug companies (and the doctors, hospitals and politicians who support them) all claim that there is no link between autism and vaccination. (But then they would, wouldn't they?). They claim that there is no convincing scientific evidence proving a link between the two. On the other hand there is no convincing scientific evidence disproving a link between vaccination and autism. The one scientific paper I've been able to find which claims to disprove the link between autism and vaccination was written by a group who worked for the Government in Denmark. One of the researchers involved has reportedly been charged with stealing more than $1 million in autism research money from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, USA.
In answer to those who still claim that there is no link between vaccination and autism I would again remind readers that the US Health Departments National Vaccine Injury Compensation Programme has reportedly accepted that hundreds of children have officially developed autism after vaccination. That goes quite a long way towards proving that I'm right and the vaccine supporters are wrong.
Copyright Vernon Coleman 2011
Taken from Vernon Coleman's book Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe And Effective Is Lying. Here's The Proof. For details of how to purchase a copy of the book see the shop on this website.
--------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment