The Mythical Virus

How easy it is to make people believe in a lie, and how hard it is to undo it.” (Mark Twain).

The lie, that a virus called HIV causes AIDS, is now about 33 years old. It is beginning to fray at the edges though not enough to reverse the immense harm it has done. The lie was evident from the start but many forces made sure the public didn’t hear about it.

I first became interested in AIDS in 2006 when I joined Grans to Grans. Its purpose was to raise money to support African grandmothers who were rearing their grandchildren, allegedly orphaned because of AIDS. I wanted to know more about AIDS and its spread in Africa so I began to research. When I found out about the fraudulent carryings on I resigned and explained to Grans to Grans that I could not support the organization it raised money for, the Stephen Lewis Foundation, because its stated mission in 2006, was to supply toxic anti-retroviral drugs to Africa.

First, let me make it clear what ‘AIDS’ means and then we will look at how the lie began and how it developed.

AIDS

Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome means that the immune system of the sufferer has collapsed and when this happens, the person is open to a variety of opportunistic diseases that flourish in an unprotected host.  

AIDS is not a disease. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) lists 29 “AIDS-defining diseases.” When someone is classified as having AIDS, the first question should be, “Which disease is he suffering from?”

Immune collapse is not new, neither are AIDS-defining diseases. As starvation is the single largest cause of immune collapse, the world saw thousands of cases when the Nazi concentration camps were relieved at the end of the Second World War. Furthermore, one of the prominent “AIDS-defining diseases,” pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), affected thousands of severely malnourished European children during and after the war.

Health conditions in Africa, labelled as AIDS by the West, are not the same as those in the West. According to the World Health Organization, a diagnosis of AIDS in Africa is given to a person who is thin, coughing and has diarrhoea – conditions seen for decades as the result of malnutrition, tuberculosis and parasites.

The point I am making here is that AIDS is not a single disease and that AIDS-defining diseases vary from country to country. Where did the acronym AIDS come from and why?

Political

Four US federal organizations play a role in the story of AIDS: the FDA; the NIH; the CDC and its offspring, the EIS.

The mission statement of the 100 year-old Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is “The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.”

 The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an organization that concentrates on biomedical research but does perform some public health work, such as seizing control of water and food supplies if suspected as the cause of disease. (In the 1930s the National Cancer Institute became a division of the NIH which accounts for the word ‘Institute’ being plural.) It is the NIH who awards the major health research grants in the US, grants that allow medical researchers to exist.

The Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) serves as the national focus for developing and applying disease prevention and control, environmental health, and health promotion and health education activities designed to improve the health of the people of the United States. It arose out of a public health unit whose main mission was to control anticipated outbreaks of malaria during World War II. On its formation it absorbed the public health functions of the NIH leaving the NIH to concentrate on research alone.

In 1951 Alexander Langmuir formed the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS), first designed as a biological warfare counter-measures unit but later as a monitor for outbreaks of disease. Peter Duesberg describes this formation:

“By the start of the Korean War, Langmuir had talked public health officials and Congress into giving the CDC contingent powers to deal with potential emergencies. He shut down the malaria project, freeing millions of dollars to create a special new division of the CDC. In July of 1951 he assembled the first class of the EIS, composed of twenty-three young medical or public health graduates. After six weeks of intensive epidemiological training, these EIS officers were assigned for two years to hospitals or state and local health departments around the country. Upon completing their field experiences, EIS alumni were free to pursue any career they desired, on the assumption that their loyalties would remain with the CDC and that they would permanently act as its eyes and ears. According to British epidemiologist Gordon Stewart, a former CDC consultant, the EIS was nicknamed the “medical CIA.”

EIS graduates obtained prominent positions:

in the media; e.g. Lawrence Altman of the New York Times,

in the World Health Organization (WHO); e.g. Jonathan Mann and Michael Merson, directors of WHO’s Global Program on AIDS

in medicine; e.g. Bruce Dan, senior editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).”

The mandate of these guardians of Americans’ health was to report on outbreaks of disease, but as the epidemics of infectious disease had waned at the beginning of the twentieth century, they were forced to justify their existence by focusing on even the most insignificant outbreaks of illness. When five soldiers got influenza in January 1976, the EIS had its chance. It sounded the alarm and warned the nation they were in for a frightening epidemic of ‘swine flu.’ With the spectre of the 1918 flu epidemic in mind, President Ford and Congress allocated large funds to develop a vaccine. This development stalled when the insurance company underwriting the vaccine discovered that it had serious side-effects, such as neurological damage.

“Unless Congress could be convinced the danger was real, the lucrative vaccine program would be terminated, severely depleting the coffers of the CDC. A battle plan was needed and fast.” CDC director David Sencer, set up a command centre in CDC headquarters in Atlanta called the ‘war room’. Manned by doctors and every imaginable form of secretarial help, the CDC and EIS “worked round the clock, week after week, following up every rumour of flu outbreaks. And then, on the horizon, a sighting!”

A convention of the American Legion was held in Philadelphia as part of the 1976 bicentennial celebration. Shortly after the 4,000 ex-servicemen returned home, many showed up in hospitals with severe pneumonia. A few days later the “epidemic” ended leaving 182 casualties including 29 deaths. These were elderly ex-service men. The affected people were heavy smokers, had prior heart and lung conditions and several had had kidney transplants. They got gloriously drunk and in their already frail state of health that was a recipe for pneumonia. 

The EIS sprang into action. The CDC announced that this was the start of their predicted swine flu epidemic and the story was covered by none other than Lawrence Altman in the New York Times. Regardless of the side-effects, Congress approved the CDC’s request for a mass swine flu vaccine program.

Over 50 million Americans were vaccinated, producing at least 1000 cases of severe nerve damage, dozens of deaths and $100 million worth of liability claims.  All for naught; except for the five soldiers, no flu epidemic struck the country.Naturally, Congress had little sympathy for the CDC which was left, in 1981, with an urgent need for some dire threat to the nation’s health.

Michael Gottlieb, a researcher in immunology came to its rescue. Interested in immune suppression, he assigned a student to help him search hospitals for patients with immune deficiency. In November, 1980 Gottlieb found his first patient: a young man with a yeast infection in his throat and a rare form of pneumonia, pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP).

“Over the following weeks, Gottlieb’s search yielded three more cases of immune deficiencies. All displayed the same candidiasis (yeast infection) and pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) found in the first subject. Gottlieb then called Wayne Shandera, a newly trained EIS officer, who found him another case of immune suppression, making five. All five patients were active homosexuals engaged in the new Gay Lib social scene. Shandera contacted the CDC. This was the news it was waiting for.”

The CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of June 5, 1981 carried Gottlieb’s report written, as Duesberg says, “to imply that these five unexplained cases spelled a major new disease. Despite the fact that the five victims had no contacts with each other, the report wasted no time suggesting that this might be a ‘disease acquired through sexual contact’”. The common risk factor among the five men, and one that is still ignored, was that each reported he used recreational drugs, particularly nitrite inhalants, referred to as “poppers.”

New cases of immune suppression emerged in the United States, some suffering from Kaposi’s sarcoma (a blood vessel tumour). The CDC then elicited the help of two powerful politicians, Henry Waxman of Los Angeles and Philip Burton of San Francisco to help publicise the dangers of the growing epidemic. “The first in a series of emotionally charged media articles appeared as the result of the political lobbying of these men, whose later efforts succeeded in diverting millions of additional dollars into the coffers of the Centers for Disease Control.”

The CDC was saved.

Social

Because the first signs of immune collapse were found in homosexual men, it was first known as Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID). Protests from the Gay Rights movement caused it to be changed to AIDS. For an understanding of the social scene in which AIDS developed, let us look at the gay community in the 1970s.

Homosexual men have a long history of being scorned and persecuted in Christian societies where they were, and still are by the Christian Right, seen as sinful, sick, child-molesters and doomed to die. In the Nazi era, Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and those labelled as mentally retarded were thought to be a danger to the German people and were, therefore, eligible for extinction.

American psychiatrists considered homosexuality a mental illness until the 1970s and only took it off their diagnostic manual after forceful protests by the fledgling Gay Rights movement. As late as the 1990s, the World Health Organization (WHO) still classified homosexuality as an illness.

For decades same-sex acts were illegal. “In the District of Columbia alone, there were 1000 arrests each year in the early 1950s. In every state, local newspapers published names of those charged together with their place of work, resulting in many workers getting fired. The postal service opened the mail of gay men and lesbians and passed on their names. Colleges maintained lists of suspected gay students.” Simple affectionate acts in public, such as two women kissing each other on greeting, could lead to arrest.

Naturally, many gay men did not openly acknowledge their same-sex desires and the term “in the closet” came into being. Social activities between gay men mainly took place in bars often run by organized crime that stood to benefit from these covert gay meeting places. Ian Young writes, “The Big Apple in the 1970s, any Friday night: the Anvil full of gay men, sweatily packed together, dancing, buying drinks, snorting poppers, having fun, a large percentage of them ‘ripped to the tits’, for there were a great many drugs at the Anvil. In the cellar the flickering light of the projector (for this was B.V. – Before Video) illuminated dark puddles on the stone floor, and there were black rooms and cubby-holes for sex with improper strangers. The windows were sealed, the party timeless, human voices barely audible over the disco throb.”

Gay bars were frequently raided by the police. Then on June 27, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, the customers responded to a police raid by a show of mass anger that was to last several days. Lionel Wright says, “People in the crowd started shouting “Gay Power!” And as word spread through Greenwich Village and across the city, hundreds of gay men and lesbians, black, white, Hispanic, and predominantly working class, converged on the Christopher Street area around the Stonewall Inn to join the fray.” The police brought in their crack riot-control squad who “found themselves face-to-face with their worst nightmare: a chorus line of mocking queens, their arms clasped around each other, kicking their heels in the air Rockettes-style and singing at the tops of their sardonic voices.”

The Stonewall riots are considered to be the birth of the Gay Liberation Movement. Men came out of the closet in large numbers and the difficult task of becoming a distinct social group began. “No people can cohese without social guidelines, and gays, aware of it or not, sought them desperately. When they came, they took the form of commercial messages, controlled for the most part by extensive criminal networks, promoting porn stars as role models, bathhouses as the chief recreation, and drugs to put the gay consumers in the right frame of mind … the Mafia became a kind of anonymous corporate sponsor of the gay lifestyle.”

Unlike the Woman’s Movement that encouraged women to honour their bodies, to respect themselves and to seek love rather than sex, Gay Lib’s slogan became “promiscuity knits together the social fabric of the gay male community”, a slogan provided by Canada’s magazine The Body Politic. A CDC study of the first 100 men in the US to go down with AIDS revealed that the median number of partners over each lifetime was 1,160. 

Across the US and Canada, Gay Liberation spawned a $100 million industry of bathhouses and sex clubs. These bathhouses were breeding grounds for disease. “A Denver study found that an average bathhouse patron having his typical 2.2 sexual contacts a night risked a 33% chance of walking out of the tubs with syphilis or gonorrhea, because about one in eight of those wandering the hallways had asymptomatic cases of these diseases.” As a consequence, gay men used antibiotics for prolonged periods. Because antibiotics kill off good bugs as well as bad bugs they decimate the intestinal flora. The gut plays a huge role in the maintenance of a healthy immune system and overuse of antibiotics alone can be responsible for immune suppression.

A new sexual act among gay men in the 1970s was ‘fisting’ – the manual manipulation of the inside of a partner’s rectum and lower intestine. Not all, or even a majority of gay men engaged in fisting but those who did were over-represented among AIDS cases. Fisters used a lubricant known to inhibit the production of prostaglandin E1, a substance which helps regulate T-cell production. A low T-cell count was considered to be diagnostic of AIDS.

A survey of 102 fisters, published in 1981, indicated that 99% of those polled ‘always’ or ‘almost always’ used drugs as part of fisting scenes. Types of drugs used included poppers, speed, marijuana, alcohol, cocaine and LSD.

In addition to recreational drugs, antibiotics and lack of sleep, perhaps the prime suspect as the cause of immune collapse in these young men was the inhalation of amyl nitrite, known as ‘poppers’. I remember giving amyl nitrite to patients with angina when I was a nurse in the 1950s. The solution came in little glass ampoules that looked like tiny wine bottles. We had to cover the neck of the ampoule with a piece of gauze before snapping it off. The resultant ‘pop’ gave amyl nitrite its colloquial name. Our medical use of it ended with the introduction of nitro-glycerine so that Burroughs Welcome, its pharmaceutical manufacturer, found another market in the gay ghettos where it became a staple of the new gay lifestyle.

Amyl nitrite dilates the blood vessels and thus enhances sexual arousal and prolongs orgasm. However, the chemical events that occur after inhalation enable PCP to develop. Poppers became a mass phenomenon among gay men. They were legal as long as they were advertised as room odorizers and marketed to gay men only. At $3 a vial they were affordable and they were assumed to be harmless.

To give you some idea of the pervasiveness of the inhalant, the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) reported that sales in just one US state added up to $50 million in 1976. At $3 per vial that equals more than 16 million bottles.

By 1981, an unusual assortment of disorders had arisen in the gay community: syphilis, hepatitis, cytomegalovirus, amoebiasis (increased by 7,000% since 1974), herpes and intestinal infections usually seen in the tropics. However, as Ian Young says, “In the midst of a political fight for basic rights and recognition against strong odds, concerns about health, ethics and spirituality seemed like secondary issues that could wait.”

 

The scene is now set. Four major federal agencies involved in disease control were at the ready: the CDC, which had made a fool of itself over Swine flu; its baby, the EIS that provided people in key positions; the NHS that controlled research dollars; and the FDA that approved drugs. Then we have an outbreak of diseases, all labelled AIDS, hitting newly liberated gay men. Amyl nitrite as the cause of AIDS was the most common hypothesis but it was politically incorrect to blame the gay lifestyle so another cause was needed.

 

Scientific

We live in an era when we explain disease as being the result of an invasion by pathogens. At the beginning of the twentieth century the pathogens were bacteria but the microbe-hunters were out of luck when infectious bacterial diseases waned as the result of better nutrition, clean water and sewage treatment. Now it is viruses that preoccupy scientists.

A virus hypothesis for AIDS was welcomed by everyone: the gay community because it exonerated its lifestyle; the Mafia because it could continue to control the gay scene; Big Pharma who could continue to make a lot of money from the sale of poppers; the CDC which could justify its existence by finding and monitoring an “epidemic”; and doctors who were able to maintain their busy practices treating gay diseases.

On December 23, 1971, President Nixon declared the “War on Cancer”. This much publicised and well-financed program inspired a number of scientists to search for – you’ve guessed it – a cancer-causing virus. Many hundreds of millions of dollars, mostly from taxes, have been poured into this war and the results are astonishing: cancer death rates have increased exponentially alongside the costs of the research.

The war on cancer funded many microbe-hunting labs including that of Dr. Robert Gallo, the man who introduced HIV to the world. In 1975, Gallo claimed he had discovered a retrovirus in human leukaemia cells. (Essentially a retrovirus is composed of RNA, not DNA, like a virus.) Gallo called his retrovirus HL-23 and published a paper on it in Science of January 1975. His peers were unable to replicate his finding and asked, “Where is the leukaemia virus, Dr. Gallo? And how do you preserve the cells?” Before Gallo could produce the evidence to support his discovery, the refrigerator housing the leukaemia virus became “accidentally” unplugged.

“Alas, Gallo’s exciting HL-23 results could not be repeated, either by his lab or by others, and the phrase human tumor virus was replaced with human rumor virus. A cure for cancer was not imminent after all.”

As viruses cannot live outside cells they are harder to cultivate than bacteria, which flourish happily in Petri dishes given the right medium. Viruses, on the other hand, will only grow inside host cells. Furthermore, if it’s a harmful virus, it will destroy the host. So finding a way to grow a line of living cells that will provide a suitable home for the virus you want is central to viral research.

In 1976, Gallo announced he had discovered a new virus but an animal germ had contaminated his cell line. A couple of years later, two of Gallo’s lab workers  found a retrovirus in a patient with lymphoma, a kind of T-cell cancer. HTLV-1 was the first retrovirus isolated from a human. However, it is well to remember that, although retroviruses are found in cancer patients, they are also found in healthy controls.

By this time it was clear that the cancer war – based largely on the retroviral-cancer hypothesis – was failing “and it had become irresistibly plain to everyone that cancer had nothing to do with germs, and the whole thing had been a monumental waste of money.”

Two rare diseases, Karposi’s Sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia were appearing in urban, fast-track gay men. Gallo claimed HTLV-1 was the possible cause. This was an absurd suggestion because the cancer allegedly caused by HTLV-1 had too many T-cells, the opposite of AIDS, which had too few. Gallo’s claim was not well-received; in fact, Kary Mullis, a Nobel laureate, described it as “a joke”.

Joke or not, the idea was born that AIDS was caused by a virus.

 

Let’s pause for a moment here to talk about the criteria for isolating a virus.

To isolate a virus, a sample of fluid from an infected patient or a culture of infected tissue is added to a graduated density gel. This gel is then spun in a centrifuge. “The contents of the sample settle into separate piles, or bands, at different depths according to their characteristic densities. These bands are called density-purified samples.”

Because all micro-organisms have characteristic densities, the density-purified sample should contain only the hunted virus and nothing else. Looking like a virus is not enough to confirm that it is one; it must also behave like a virus. A legitimate virus will a) infect cells grown in a suitable culture and b) multiply to numbers greater than where it came from. There are other tests too and in the end, when a scientist declares that these objects are indeed viruses, she is able to describe the size, shape, appearance and the number of its proteins and genetic molecules. Furthermore, these descriptions are accompanied by a clear picture taken with an electron microscope.

There are particles that might look like viruses but aren’t. A particle is a bit of matter that may or may not be identifiable. Cells in the body are continually breaking down and the resultant bits are disposed of in the bloodstream or the lymphatic system and are finally evacuated in urine or other bodily excretions. Stefan Lanka, a German virologist, writes that “particles have served to muddy the waters considerably as far as AIDS research is concerned, because particles have been called HIV. To date, none of these HIV imitators has been characterised and shown to exist as an entity which one may justifiably call a virus.” 

Gallo persisted in his search for a virus that could be blamed for AIDS. On November 22, 1983, he announced that his lab had isolated certain particles, which might also be the AIDS virus. Unfortunately, no one could reproduce his virus. Almost immediately he announced the discovery of yet another virus, which he named HTLVIII, later renamed HIV. A subsequent inquiry to establish the existence of this HTLVIII determined that, yet again, Gallo had failed to isolate any virus. Roche Laboratories found no trace of HTLVIII in the ten samples submitted to them. Like many others, Lanka claims that HIV has never been isolated.

How the world found out about the HIV hypothesis

 

It was the way in which the virus “discovery” was announced that made me smell a scam. Scientists first read about the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS in a Time article by reporter, Claudia Wallis, which began: “It was high noon in Bethesda, Md., home of the National Institutes of Health. The scene: a small French restaurant with hanging baskets and beamed ceiling. On one side of a table sat Dr. Robert Gallo, 47, a brash NIH scientist who started life as the son of a small town welder …”

This is not how you would expect a scientific finding to be announced to the scientific community. The normal procedure is that a scientist writes up her study and: a) specifies the research question, b) describes the research method chosen to address the question, c) explains the exact steps taken, d) specifies how the data were analysed, e) analyses the results, and e) explains the conclusions drawn on the basis of the results. Finally a discussion section at the end of the report talks about potential flaws in the study and alternative explanations for the results. The study is published in peer-reviewed journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine, so that other scientists in the field can critique it and repeat the study to confirm that they get the same results. To allow for this replication the report must include a step-by-step guide to exactly what was done. Such repeated studies, giving the same results, is how science proceeds and how scientific conclusions are reached.

These normally accepted steps were not taken by Gallo and his claim that he had discovered the cause of AIDS. The hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS was announced at a press conference held on April 23, 1984. That same day, Gallo filed for a patent on a test for the virus, the HIV test.

US Health Secretary, Margaret Heckler, practically hidden behind a cluster of microphones, declared, “First the probable cause of AIDS has been found; a variant of a known human cancer virus called HTLV III.”

The media promptly dropped the word “probable.” Indeed, a sociologist, Steven Epstein, analysed AIDS reports printed in magazines between 1984 and 1986 and found that the percentage that described the hypothesis (‘a virus causes AIDS’) as fact, jumped from 3% to 62%.

The Time article describes how Dr. James Curran from the CDC had  provided Gallo with 205 blood samples drawn from some AIDS patients, some hepatitis patients and some healthy individuals. Gallo’s task was to identify which samples came from the AIDS patients.

At the press conference, Curran called out the sample number and Gallo responded with “positive” or “negative.” He correctly identified nearly all of them.

As Gary Null says, “It seemed, at least to the journalists present that Dr. Gallo had proven his point. He had proven something else, too. Serious science, affecting millions of people’s health was no longer a thing of the laboratory but of the grandstand. When Dr. Curran presents his samples so that Dr. Gallo can pass judgement, we have the kind of testing we expect from a mind reader, like the Great Wazoo, who tells a naïve, dumbfounded matron what color hankie she has in her purse.”

The announcement to the press preceded the publication of Gallo’s work in a scientific journal, Science, by at least two weeks. This is a key point. Legitimate scientists simply do not announce their findings to the press, especially before they have published their study for the scrutiny of their peers.

 

Five major investigations of fraud into Gallo’s HIV research were launched between 1990 and 1995, some overlapping. The main purpose of these inquiries was to ascertain whether Gallo had stolen the virus from the French. (Another interesting story but too long for this article.) They did not consider whether a virus caused AIDS or even if a virus called HIV even existed.

  Suzanne Hadley, the person in charge of the investigations, wrote a damning report of a lead paper out of Gallo’s lab. She described it as “fraught with false and erroneous statements.” But before the report went to the review panel, the new Bush-appointed head of the NIH, Bernadine Healy, removed Hadley and the indictment of Gallo was erased. Could it be because the NIH had invested millions of dollars in HIV “infection” and its prevention? Or perhaps because Gallo was their star that they had displayed to the world on April 23, 1984 when they declared a virus to be the probable cause of AIDS?

Talk of the NIH cover-up reached the ears of Representative John Dingell. He  pushed for criminal investigation into Gallo’s AIDS research but he was met by the “waffling Bush Administration”. In the end the Democrats lost control over the House of Representatives and the Republicans stopped the investigation into Gallo. The secret service found evidence of fraud in Gallo’s scientific records but this too was allowed to pass.

Conclusion

 

Millions of people have been affected by this scientific fraud. People assume that a positive HIV test equals AIDS and therefore an early death. Some commit suicide. Others take deadly drugs. Some people languish in jail for “infecting” their sexual partners. And the African continent has been terrorized by the West into believing that the endemic conditions they have suffered from for decades are caused by a virus called HIV. As a result they are encouraged to treat malnutrition with toxic anti-retroviral drugs instead of food, rampant tuberculosis with the wrong drug and treat parasites with condoms instead of clean water.

AIDS has generated a multi-billion dollar industry. With $40,000 million spent on AIDS in the US over 14 years, (1984 – 1998), AIDS is the biggest industry next to the defence department.

To date, (2017) HIV has never been isolated nor has there been a single study that shows that this mythical virus causes AIDS.

As Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry 1993, says in his preface to Duesberg’s Inventing the AIDS Virus, “We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.”

“How easy it is to make people believe in a lie, and how hard it is to undo it.” In this case Mark Twain was right. It was easy. Now the difficult question is how to repair the damage?

 

 

 

 

 

Rebuttal to article in New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)

(NaturalNews) In the January 13, 2011 the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), slipped away from its historically solid scientific moorings with the printing of "The Age-Old Struggle against the anti-vaccinationists," by Poland and Jacobson. This reply is limited to just a few points; with so much misinformation in their article, it is not possible to address it all in one rebuttal.

The idea that one disease, (cowpox) could prevent infection by another disease, (smallpox) was a rumor amongst dairymaids. Veterinarians and country physicians of the time knew the rumor was not true and it could easily have been disproved by simply asking patients with smallpox if they had had cowpox. But Jenner, although informed otherwise, was unwilling to believe the idea was false. He went ahead to test the theory on a single subject by spreading pus from cowpox sores into cuts he made in the arms of an eight-year old boy. The boy not only became ill, he developed ulcers on his arms that took months to heal. A few weeks later, he spread smallpox pus into more cuts. The boy did not get smallpox and thus the idea of smallpox vaccination was born.

Read more

 

Letter to Nobel Prize Committee, October 16, 2008

Date: Thursday, 16 Oct 2008
To: Nobel Prize Committee
From: Jennifer Craig
Subject: 2008 prize in medicine

I wish to refute the second sentence in your promotion of the Nobel prize in physiology and medicine to Montagnier, namely “The report identified clusters of previously healthy young men who suffered from different life threatening medical conditions previously not seen in this population.” This population means, I assume, gay men. I present evidence that these young men were not healthy as they led a lifestyle that defied wellness. Their lifestyle included, the intake of nitrite inhalers, recreational drugs, repeated antibiotics, and multiple sexual partners leading to sexually transmitted disease. Furthermore, as an outcast group, they suffered psychologically.

 Homosexual men have a long history of being scorned and persecuted in Christian societies where they were, and still are by the Christian Right, seen as sinful, sick, child-molesters and doomed to die. In the Nazi era, Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and those labelled as mentally retarded were thought to be a danger to the German people and were, therefore, eligible for extinction.

American psychiatrists considered homosexuality a mental illness until the 1970s and only took it off their diagnostic manual after forceful protests by the fledgling Gay Rights movement. As late as the 1990s, the World Health Organization (WHO) still classified homosexuality as an illness. 

For decades same-sex acts were illegal. “In the District of Columbia alone, there were 1000 arrests each year in the early 1950s. In every state, local newspapers published names of those charged together with their place of work, resulting in many workers getting fired. The postal service opened the mail of gay men and lesbians and passed on their names. Colleges maintained lists of suspected gay students.” Simple affectionate acts in public, such as two women kissing each other on greeting, could lead to arrest.

Naturally, many gay men did not openly acknowledge their same-sex desires and the term “in the closet” came into being. Social activities between gay men mainly took place in bars often run by organized crime that stood to benefit from these covert gay meeting places. Ian Young writes in his 1995 book, The Stonewall Experiment, “The Big Apple in the 1970s, any Friday night: the Anvil full of gay men, sweatily packed together, dancing, buying drinks, snorting poppers, having fun, a large percentage of them ‘ripped to the tits’, for there were a great many drugs at the Anvil. In the cellar the flickering light of the projector (for this was B.V. – Before Video) illuminated dark puddles on the stone floor, and there were black rooms and cubby-holes for sex with improper strangers. The windows were sealed, the party timeless, human voices barely audible over the disco throb.”

Gay bars were frequently raided by the police. Then on June 27, 1969, at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, the customers responded to a police raid by a show of mass anger that was to last several days. Lionel Wright says in his article, The Stonewall Riots – 1969, “People in the crowd started shouting “Gay Power!” And as word spread through Greenwich Village and across the city, hundreds of gay men and lesbians, black, white, Hispanic, and predominantly working class, converged on the Christopher Street area around the Stonewall Inn to join the fray.” The police brought in their crack riot-control squad who “found themselves face-to-face with their worst nightmare: a chorus line of mocking queens, their arms clasped around each other, kicking their heels in the air Rockettes-style and singing at the tops of their sardonic voices.” 

The Stonewall riots are considered to be the birth of Gay Liberation Movement and gay activism. Men came out of the closet in large numbers and the difficult task of becoming a distinct social group began. “No people can cohese without social guidelines, and gays, aware of it or not, sought them desperately. When they came, they took the form of commercial messages, controlled for the most part by extensive criminal networks, promoting porn stars as role models, bathhouses as the chief recreation, and drugs to put the gay consumers in the right frame of mind … the Mafia became a kind of anonymous corporate sponsor of the gay lifestyle.”

Unlike the Woman’s Movement that encouraged women to honour their bodies, to respect themselves and to seek love rather than sex, Gay Lib’s slogan became “promiscuity knits together the social fabric of the gay male community”, a slogan provided by Canada’s magazine The Body Politic. Promiscuity is confirmed by many respondents interviewed for The Stonewall Experiment and for The Band Played OnA CDC study of the first 100 men in the US to come down with AIDS revealed that the median number of partners over each lifetime was 1,160. 

Across the US and Canada Gay Liberation spawned a $100 million industry of bathhouses and sex clubs. These bathhouses were breeding grounds for disease. “A Denver study found that an average bathhouse patron having his typical 2.2 sexual contacts a night risked a 33 percent chance of walking out of the tubs with syphilis or gonorrhoea, because about one in eight of those wandering the hallways had asymptomatic cases of these diseases.” As a consequence, gay men used antibiotics for prolonged periods. Antibiotics kill off good bugs as well as bad bugs and thus decimate the intestinal flora. As the gut plays a huge role in the maintenance of a healthy immune system, overuse of antibiotics alone can be responsible for immune suppression.

A “new” sexual act among gay men in the 1970s was ‘fisting’ – the manual manipulation of the inside of a partner’s rectum and lower intestine. Not all, or even a majority of gay men engaged in fisting but those who did were over-represented among AIDS cases. Fisters used a lubricant known to inhibit the production of prostaglandin E1, a substance which helps regulate T-cell production. A low T-cell count is considered to be diagnostic of AIDS.

Ian Young writes, “If fisters were over-represented among men who developed AIDS, it might well have had something to do with the massive drug intake which they shared with many other ghetto gay men, at a time when taking half a dozen drugs during a night at the disco was a common practice.”

A survey of 102 fisters, when such surveys were conducted on gay men, published in 1981, indicated that 99% of those polled ‘always’ or ‘almost always’ used drugs as part of fisting scenes.  Types of drugs used included poppers, speed, marijuana, alcohol, cocaine and LSD.

Perhaps the prime suspect as the cause of immune collapse in these young men is the inhalation of amyl nitrite, known as ‘poppers’. I remember giving amyl nitrite to patients with angina when I was a nurse in the 1950s. The solution came in little glass ampoules that looked like tiny wine bottles. We had to cover the neck of the ampoule with a piece of gauze before snapping it off. The resultant ‘pop’ gave amyl nitrite its colloquial name. Our medical use of it ended with the introduction of nitro-glycerine so that Burroughs Welcome, its pharmaceutical manufacturer, found another market in the gay ghettos where it became a staple of the new gay lifestyle. Poppers were legal and needed no prescription.

Amyl nitrite dilates the blood vessels and thus enhances sexual arousal and prolongs orgasm. However, the chemical events that occur after inhalation are: a) it is converted into nitric oxide; b) in the presence of nitric oxide the blood’s capacity to transport oxygen is compromised; c) without oxygen the first areas to be damaged are the linings of the smallest blood vessels, particularly in the lungs; c) dead organic material is produced which cannot be completely removed because of the system’s weakened state; e) fungi enter the game because their role is to eat away all kinds of waste; g) pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP), a fungal disease, develops. 

Clinically, the toxic effects of amyl nitrite include: rapid flushing of the face or cyanosis, confusion, dizziness, fainting, weakness, yellow vision, low blood pressure, anaemia, strokes, thymus atrophy and chronic depletion of T-cells. The liquid is highly flammable and when spilt on the skin causes burns. Poppers have been used to commit suicide by drinking it and even to commit murder when the victim was gagged with a nitrite-soaked sock. 

Lauritsen explains why poppers became a mass phenomenon among gay men: they were legal as long as they were advertised as room odorizers and marketed to only gay men; at $3 a vial they were affordable; they were assumed to be harmless.

Some of the more reputable gay magazines refused to carry poppers ads and some printed warnings. For example, a researcher, Sue Watson, wrote a letter to a 1982 issue of Advocate, saying, “Our studies show that amyl nitrite strongly suppresses the segment of the immune system (cellular immunity) which normally protects individuals against Kaposi’s sarcoma, pneumocystis pneumonia, herpes virus, Candida, amebiasis, and a variety of other opportunistic infections. The upshot of this research is that persons using nitrite inhalants may be at risk for the development of AIDS”.

To give you some idea of the pervasiveness of the inhalant, the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) reported that sales in just one US state added up to $50 million in 1976. At $3 per vial that equals more than 16 million bottles.

The use of other drugs by gay men mirrored the increase in use of recreational drugs by everyone in that era. For example, between 1981 and 1993, the number of cocaine overdose victims delivered to hospitals in the US jumped from 3,000 to 120,000, a 4,000% increase.

By 1981, an unusual assortment of disorders had arisen in the gay community: syphilis, hepatitis, cytomegalovirus, amoebiasis (increased by 7,000% since 1974), herpes and intestinal infections usually seen in the tropics. 

Amyl nitrite as the cause of AIDS was the most common hypothesis before April 23, 1984. But this was in an era when it was legitimate to debate the cause of AIDS. Following the 1984 viral-cause announcement, no other hypotheses were, or are, allowed. Even to a non-researcher it is obvious that other avenues to explore in the search for the cause of AIDS are drugs – recreational, poppers, antibiotics, lubricants – lack of sleep, sexually transmitted diseases, particularly syphilis, intestinal infections, stress, and any combination of these.

 Wright, Lionel. The Stonewall Riots – 1969. Socialism Today, #40, July 1999 Young, Ian. The Stonewall Experiment. Cassell, 1995, p.6 Wright, Lionel. The Stonewall Riots – 1969. Socialism Today, #40, July 1999 Ibid. p.91 Null, G. AIDS: a Second Opinion. Seven Stories Press, 2002, p. 129 Shilts, Randy. And the Band Played On. St. Martin’s Press, 1987, p.19 Young, Ian. The Stonewall Experiment. Cassell, 1995, p.174

Ibid. p.173

 Ibid. p. 173

 Young, Ian. The Stonewall Experiment. Cassell, 1995, p.105

 Engelbrecht, T & Köhnlein, C. Virus Mania. Trafford Publishing, 2007, p.100

 Lauritsen, John. Queer Advertising. Address to the Queer Studies Symposium, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, Januray 15, 2000

 Ibid. p. 108

 Ibid. p. 102

 Duesberg, P. Inventing the AIDS Virus. Regnery Publishing, 1996, p. 260-261

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF: LESSONS VACCINATORS REFUSE TO LEARN

 

April 17, 2012

History Repeats Itself: Lessons Vaccinators Refuse to Learn

The old English proverb, “history repeats itself” is never better illustrated than in the practice of vaccination, a practice that became widespread in the nineteenth century and is still carried on today. A number of nineteenth century books on vaccination raise issues that are remarkably similar to those of today. However, because we have failed to learn the lessons presented by earlier writers, mostly physicians, we are now repeating the same mistakes, with dire consequences for the health of the population.
The purpose of this article is to consider what some of the notable physicians of the time had to say about vaccination; it is not to provide data for their opinions, although that data is available but beyond the scope of an article.
Four issues raised in the nineteenth century will be described and compared with today. First, the article will look at the refusal to accept data about vaccination; second, it will discuss the scientific debate about vaccination; third, it will consider mass vaccination and its consequences and fourth, it will criticize compulsory vaccination.

1. Refusal to Accept Data

Edward Jenner, an English apothecary, believing a rumour amongst dairymaids that succumbing to cowpox, a mild disease, prevented smallpox, decided to test out this rumour by inserting cowpox pus under a human’s skin to induce a case of cowpox.  If the subject got cowpox, he would then try and induce smallpox. 


Despite Jenner’s reputation as being the first to try out cowpox inoculation he “cannot be accredited with original discovery in the matter of cowpox inoculation, since all the chroniclers name Benjamin Jesty—a Dorsetshire farmer—Plett, a teacher, and Jensen, a Holstein farmer, as "successful experimenters" in the field of cowpox vaccination several years before Jenner's first inoculation.”[ Hale, A.R. The Medical Voodoo, Gotham House, Inc. 1935, p.30] Perhaps their names are not recorded in history because the procedure did not prevent smallpox?


The truth of the rumour that having had cowpox protected you from smallpox could have been tested by a simple survey; that is, recording how many people with smallpox had had cowpox.  Anyhow, many people knew it was false. Walter Hadwen, JP, MD, LRCP, MRCS, LSA, said in an address to the public on January 25, 1896 “When he (Jenner) first heard the story of the cowpox legend he began to mention it at the meetings of the medico-convivial society, where the old doctors of the day met to smoke their pipes, drink their glasses of grog, and talk over their cases. But he no sooner mentioned it than they laughed at it. The cow doctors could have told him of hundreds of cases where smallpox had followed cowpox.”[ http://whale.to/hadwen9.html] (A cow doctor was a vet.)


Even Jenner’s supporters acknowledged the falseness of the rumour. The second report of the Royal Jennerian Society, 1806, states, “The Committee admit to having seen a few cases of smallpox by persons who had passed through the cow-pox in the usual way.”[ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General  Books, 2009. p.33] Nevertheless, despite the underlying false premise, experimentation went ahead.


Jenner’s first experiment on 8-year old James Phipps took place on May 14, 1796. He then repeated the procedure on several other children. Convinced of the success of his experiments he promised the credulous George III that his vaccine would have “the singularly beneficial effect of rendering through life the person so inoculated perfectly secure from the infection of the smallpox.”[ Jenner, E. Further Observations on the Variolae Vaccina, of Cowpox]


The king conveyed to parliament his desire that Jenner be awarded a benefaction out of the public purse and the equivalent of half a million dollars was awarded. From then on vaccination spawned an army of paid vaccinators who enforced the practice with zeal. 


Cases of smallpox following vaccination began to occur with alarming frequency. Winterburn cites numerous instances. For example, “The Smallpox Hospital, London, is believed to be a fair representative of English experience: the number of cases of smallpox after vaccination has steadily risen from about 5% at the beginning of this century to 44% in 1845, 64% in 1855, 78% in 1865, 90% in 1875, and is now (1885) about 96%.” [ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General  Books, 2009. p.32] 


Not only were there more cases of smallpox, there were more deaths from it. The report of Dr. William Farr, Compiler of Statistics of the Registrar General of London stated: “Smallpox attained its maximum mortality after vaccination was introduced. The mean annual mortality for 10,000 population from 1850 to 1869 was at the rate of 2.04, whereas after compulsory vaccination in 1871 the death rate was 10.24. In 1872 the death rate was 8.33 and this after the most laudable efforts to extend vaccination by legislative enactments.”[][ McBean, The Poisoned Needle, Health Research, Pomeroy, WA, 1993]


Despite these figures and numerous others reported, pro-vaccinists continued to pronounce that vaccination prevented smallpox. They still do.


After a disastrous smallpox epidemic in 1872, a Royal Commission on Vaccination was appointed in 1889 to look into the whole matter. Seven years and 136 meetings later the Commission issued “five principal reports, consisting of closely printed matter, together with the eight bulky appendices, weigh altogether more than 14 lb. avoirdupois!” Despite this weighty contrary evidence, it failed “to make a dent in their triple-plate conviction that in spite of everything vaccination does prevent smallpox!”[ Hale, A.R. The Medical Voodoo, Gotham House, Inc. 1935, p.81]


Dr. Maclean, a well-known medical authority of the time, offered an explanation for the “triple-plate conviction” when he said, in 1810, “It will be thought incumbent on the vaccinators to come forward and disprove the numerous facts decisive against vaccination stated on unimpeachable authority, or make the amende honorable by a manly recantation. But experience forbids us to expect any such fair and magnanimous proceeding, and we may be assured that, under no circumstances, will they abandon so lucrative a practice, until the practice abandons them.”[ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.33]


Maclean’s words are still true. The same conviction that vaccines prevent disease persists today, a conviction accompanied by the same downplaying of any evidence to the contrary.


 In 2012 research reported by Reuters reveals that whooping cough outbreaks are higher among vaccinated children compared with unvaccinated children. This conclusion is based on a study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California.


Witt reported that in early 2010, a spike in cases appeared at Kaiser Permanente in San Rafael, and it was soon determined to be an outbreak of whooping cough -- the largest seen in California in more than 50 years. Witt had expected to see the illness target unvaccinated kids, thinking they are more vulnerable to the disease. "We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That's what started catching our attention."[ http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-whoopingcough-idUSBRE832...] Witt should be congratulated for admitting this fact.


We have figures from the 1800s showing that large percentages of smallpox cases had been vaccinated and we have figures from 2010 showing that the majority of pertussis cases had been vaccinated, yet people continue to believe that vaccination prevents disease. How many more lessons do we need?

Not only did cowpox pus not prevent smallpox, it fostered its spread and produced numerous adverse effects. In 1807, Mr. Birch, of St. Thomas Hospital and Surgeon Extraordinary to the then Prince of Wales, said, “It is no infrequent thing, however, to hear a public vaccinator say that he has vaccinated a certain number of thousands and has never seen the slightest evil resulting. Well, one need not see the sun, if he will only resolutely shut his eyes. Again, I am sorry to say, that many medical men who recognize evil results, imagine that they may be covered up by prevarication. As if any good was ever done by a lie.”[ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.56]


Today, only a fraction of adverse events following vaccination are reported. In the US, Congress passed its National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986. The Act required all doctors who administer vaccines to report reactions to federal health officials. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that only 10% of doctors report such incidents.[ Miller, N. Immunization: Theory vs. Reality. New Atlantean Press, 1995]


Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler estimated in a 1993 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that although the FDA receives many
reports of adverse events, these probably represent only a fraction of those encountered by providers.[ Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2, 1993,vol.269, No.21, p.2785]
Only adverse events that present within a few days of vaccination are considered to be the result of the vaccine; more chronic effects, such as asthma, are not associated with vaccination by the Authorities. A comparative study of vaccinated and non-vaccinated children would answer many questions but for some reason Health Authorities refuse to do it. 


Two small comparative studies have been done by parent groups: one in New Zealand[ Butler H & P, Just a Little Prick. Robert Reisinger Memorial Trust, New Zealand, 2006] and one in California.[ IAS. Unvaccinated children are healthier. Waves, Spring/Summer, 2002] Both studies showed that chronic conditions, such as autism, asthma and eczema, were more prevalent in vaccinated children. Whatever the results, why should parent groups have to conduct research that should be done by Health Authorities?

Back in the 1800s the injection of cowpox pus under the skin caused many diseases: syphilis, tuberculosis, and leprosy in particular. Records of this secondary infection include, for example: in 1867, M. Depaul, the chief of the Vaccination Service of the French Academy of Medicine, published an essay on the danger of syphilitic infection through vaccination. He enumerated half a dozen outbreaks of vaccinal-syphilis, in the course of which 160 children had been infected.[ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.58]


Dr. A. Wilder, Professor of Pathology and former editor of The New York Medical Times, went so far as to say in 1901, “Vaccination is the infusion of a contaminating element into the system, and after such contamination you can never be sure of regaining the former purity of the body. Consumption (TB) follows in the wake of vaccination as certainly as effect follows cause.”[ Wilder, A. History of Medicine, New England Eclectic Publishing Company, 1901]
Today’s children will certainly never regain their former “purity of the body” after being assaulted with vaccines from Day One. Not only do they suffer from chronic diseases such as asthma, diabetes and eczema but in 2012 the autism rate was 1:88 children and, as boys are more affected than girls, their rate is 1:54. 


Instead of a massive research effort to explore the reason for this epidemic governments and the corporate press go to extraordinary lengths to deny any link between autism and vaccination despite the proven fact that metals such as aluminum and mercury,  used in vaccines, cause neurological damage.
But a $17 billion a year industry is threatened.

2. Scientific Debate About Vaccination

That people can discuss issues, basing their arguments on verifiable data, is crucial in all fields of endeavor but more so in issues affecting health and well-being. One has only to look at the discussion forums around vaccination, whether for or against, to quickly realize that ignorance, prejudice and ad hominem attacks prevail.


For example, from Rational (sic) Wiki, “Suzanne Humphries is a nephrologist (kidney doctor) who has recently become a vocal proponent of pseudoscience and quack medicine. Humphries has been involved with the International Medical Council on Vaccination, a front group for vaccine hysteria …”[ Rationalwiki.org/wiki/Suzanne_Humphries] The author is anonymous and has repeatedly reversed sections of the webpage after Dr Humphries attempted to correct her credentials and other overtly false information about her publications. 


That Dr. Humphries is an internist and board-certified nephrologist, who enjoyed a successful career until she spoke her truth about vaccination, and that the IMCV is composed of highly credentialed people may, of course, be discounted when it comes to vaccination. Furthermore, any zealot with computer access feels free to hurl abuse at our most educated citizens because they, presumably, are in possession of irrefutable knowledge relayed by Fox news and can follow the democratic principle that my ignorance is equal to your expertise.


This low level of discourse is not new. Winterburn writes in 1885, “It seems ludicrous that a question of so much import, and of so purely a scientific nature, should be a matter of partisan clamor, but it ceases to be comic, and becomes painfully embarrassing, when men cannot discuss a question of vital importance to themselves and the race without being accused of sinister motives or of mental unsoundness. And yet this is just what has happened ever since the earliest years of Vaccination.”[ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General  Books, 2009. p.3]


Being accused of mental unsoundness if you question vaccination goes on today. For example, a January issue of Canada’s Maclean’s magazine[ Maclean’s, January 16, 2012] proclaims on its cover, “How Vaccine Cranks Put Your Kids at Risk P.50.” The article inside is a wonderful example of Public Health propaganda parroted by an ignorant journalist and without a shred of evidence to be seen.


Winterburn, an American MD, Ph.D, is quite clear about the cause of this decline in the standards of scientific discourse. “Jenner began it in his efforts to suppress every fact which told against his theory, and his mantle has passed with the passing years to men of like aptitude for the suppression of disagreeable truths.”[ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General  Books, 2009. p.3]

3. Mass Vaccination


Vaccinating people was the first time that physicians treated, and billed, healthy people. Dr. Hadwen said in his address in 1896, “I declare that when a person is ill, the doctor, is justified in doing all he possibly can for his patient; but when a person is well he has no right whatever to interfere with the normal functions of the human body as he does when he introduces disease, especially the disease of an inferior animal.”[ http://whale.to/hadwen9.html] 
Hadwen’s warning is just as applicable today but is it incorporated in the current medical ethos?


In 1850, Sir James Paget warned, “I think it may be laid down as an invariable rule of practice, that no one should be vaccinated except after the most rigid scrutiny. The carelessness of the Health Authorities in this particular is amazing. Vaccination is performed, with the easy nonchalance of the impossibility of doing harm, upon multitudes without the slightest inquiry as to their physical condition or antecedents; and this among the very class, where the greatest danger always lurks – the tenement house population. Vaccination to be effective, pervades and alters the entire constitution.”[ Paget, Sir James. Lectures on Inflammation, Wilson & Ogilvy, 1850]


Today’s equivalent of the “tenement house population” is the poor of Africa who not only suffer from chronic malnutrition, diarrhea, tuberculosis and parasites but gifts of vaccines from the West, which have added to their burden by increased chronic disease. The WHO admits its mass vaccination programs are causing epidemics of diseases that are no less serious than the ones third world populations are being vaccinated against. I admits that worldwide, the 16 billion injections administered either for vaccines or drugs in the developing world each year cause an estimated 21,000,000 cases of Hepatitis B, 2,000,000 cases of Hepatitis C, and 260,000 cases of HIV.[ http://alexandria.healthlibrary.ca/documents/notes/btb/medicine_and_society/Drucker%20%28Lancet%29.pdf
 

Health Authorities are just as cavalier today. Once a vaccine schedule has been written it is observed like an edict from on high, particularly by nurses who are trained to follow orders. In many cases the notion that vaccines are harmful is simply absent. Not only that, the accepted ethical principle of informed consent does not apply to vaccination. Instead, coercion and guilt trips are laid on people, parents in particular, who refuse vaccination. 


A recent example of administration of vaccines with “easy nonchalance” happened in Belgium in January, 2012. Nine-week old twins, born one month premature, were each given nine vaccines in one day. One of the twins had a cold on that day but apart from that, premature babies, with their immature organs, are extremely vulnerable. One week later, that twin died. Medical personnel denied a link to the vaccines.[ http://vactruth.com/2012/01/19/baby-dies-after-first-shots/]

4. Compulsory Vaccination

As the British government failed to recognize that smallpox vaccination did not prevent the disease, it passed a compulsory vaccination act in 1856. Between 1870 and 1872 one of the worst smallpox epidemics took place.


Dr. Hadwen, that wise physician, quoted earlier, said, “The very moment you take a medical prescription and you incorporate it in an Act of Parliament, and you enforce it against the wills and conscience of intelligent people by fines, distraints and imprisonments, it passes beyond the confines of a purely medical question – and becomes essentially a social and political one.”[ http://whale.to/hadwen9.html]


Ironically, today, the most mandates for vaccination are passed in the Land of the Free. For example, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, tried to mandate that Gardasil be given to all girls and boys in the state. Gardasil is a questionable vaccine that is given to adolescents purportedly to prevent cervical cancer in 30 years. Naturally, no one knows if that’s the case.


In September, 2011, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published figures of the side-effects of Gardasil, introduced in 2006. In those five years, there had been reports of 71 deaths. Other serious events, like paralysis, were not attributed to the vaccine by the CDC although they have been reported elsewhere.[ http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/gardasil.html]
Cancer is not a communicable disease. Yet a politician signed an order compelling the vaccine to be given to Texas youngsters. Why? Could it be that days after Perry signed the order, the drug maker gave him a hefty campaign donation?[ Gillman, T. http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/08/perry-says-he-regrets-gardasil.html]
Why does the medical profession allow politicians to order medical prescriptions? Are these politicians not practicing medicine without a licence?

Summary


George Santayana, in his Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1, wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  We are, indeed, repeating past errors in the practice of vaccination.


There are many lessons from the past to be learned but the ones addressed in this article are:
The belief that vaccination prevented smallpox is now in the realm of myth. Until Medicine, (a term that includes all health professions), opens its eyes, examines the data of the past and, recognizes the facts, it will continue to believe the legend that cowpox prevented smallpox. The data clearly show that vaccinated people contracted smallpox and that increasing numbers died from it. 


In 1807, Mr. Birch warned medical men to open their eyes and recognize the “evil results” of vaccination. In 1810, Dr. Maclean told us that it is incumbent on vaccinators to come forward to disprove the evidence against vaccination. Today adverse events are rarely reported. 


In 1901, Dr. Wilder said that after vaccine contamination, the former purity of the body can never be regained. Today we have a generation of children whose health has been ruined by vaccines.


In 1885, Winterburn said that it ceases to be comic when a scientific matter cannot be rationally discussed without an educated questioner being accused of mental unsoundness. He attributed the decline in rational discourse to Jenner who ignored or suppressed the fact that cowpox did not prevent smallpox. The “partisan clamor” of today is noisy and nasty and adds nothing to the debate.


We have accepted that Medicine has the right to interfere with the normal functioning of the human body despite the warning of Dr. Hadwen in 1896. Sir James Paget expressed dismay in 1850 that individuals were vaccinated without undergoing a thorough medical examination. Today we see children being lined up for jabs with no questions asked. 


In 1896, Dr. Hadwen noted that mandated vaccination is a political issue, not a medical one. Today, we have politicians not only denying parents the right to decide for themselves but they make vaccination compulsory. No questions are asked by Medicine when politicians mandate a medical prescription. In other circumstances they would be accused of practicing medicine without a licence.


Conclusion


The idea that putting noxious substances under the skin will prevent disease is based on a false premise, the premise that cowpox prevented smallpox. Despite the huge volume of contrary evidence, this myth is still believed. 


Dr. Maclean told us in 1810, “experience forbids us to expect fair and magnanimous proceedings and we may be assured that, under no circumstances, will vaccinators abandon so lucrative a practice, until the practice abandons them.”[ Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.33


The growing numbers of parents with vaccine-damaged children are the only ones likely to alter the current state of affairs. As consumers they can exert their power and refuse the product and thus allow the practice to abandon the vaccine makers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/04/17/hist...

SMALLPOX VACCINE -- THE ORIGINS OF VACCINE MADNESS

February 26, 2010

Somewhere in medical education the idea that smallpox was eradicated by a vaccine took hold in students’ heads and has remained there ever since. Would that more accurate information endure with such persistence? Even physicians who have explored vaccination continue to believe that the injection of pus from a cowpox sore prevented smallpox. For example, Cave and Mitchell, in What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Children’s Vaccinations, on page 10, say, ‘A more scientific approach was used in the late eighteenth century when Edward Jenner, who discovered that inoculating people with the animal disease cowpox made people immune to the deadly human disease smallpox. This was an interesting concept, and fortunately for Jenner it helped save lives …”1  Did they ever ask themselves how the inoculation of pus from a diseased animal could possibly prevent, rather than create, a disease in humans? This article explores the history of smallpox vaccination and presents evidence that vaccinating people with cowpox pus did not prevent smallpox, did not save lives and did not eradicate smallpox. Instead it caused deaths and began a pernicious multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

To read the rest of this article, go to: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2010/02/26/smallpox-vaccine-origins-of-vaccine-madness/

Read the full article here

Source: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2010/02/...