Dr. Foster: Vaccines are brand new chemical combinations that have never before existed in nature.  Their effects must be studied.  Otherwise, it is a vast experimentation on the public at large.  We simply do not know the long term effects of brand new chemical combinations unless we do long term studies on them.  We can’t do long term studies on something that keeps changing.  There simply isn’t enough time.  This is one of the most frustrating roadblocks in medicine and may eventually prove to be its downfall.  Modern medicine has great difficulty proving the long term safety of their chemicals and genetic experiments, so they settle for short term studies instead.  These are 90 day studies and, in the case of the flu vaccine, a four week study.

How in the world are we going to know the long term effects of this new flu vaccine unless we take about 30 years to study it?  Anyone who accepts a vaccine must also accept the risk that 30 years down the line, they could be subject to unforeseen diseases, most notably, cancer, arthritis, and autoimmune diseases.  Before the Gardasil vaccine was released, the pre-licensure research only tested the vaccine on about 1,200 girls and for only six months before it was released.  Six months of observing girls after receiving a vaccine is not the same as observing girls over their entire lifetime after they have been vaccinated.  There are no long term studies to determine the long term safety of Gardasil.  It simply hasn’t been in existence for that long.  Was that adequate testing?

In reality, all vaccines must be tested for safety and for good reason.  Could you imagine NOT testing something that is known to contain particles that are potentially infectious? Can they absolutely GUARANTEE that they have weakened the organisms sufficiently so as not to cause the very disease against which they are supposed to be effective?

A big issue with vaccination is that you want a virus strong enough to cause an immune response (the body produces antibodies to it, which protect against reinfection), but weak enough so as not to cause the infection you’re actually vaccinating against.  Unfortunately, we have seen so many times since vaccines were first introduced, that despite manufacturers’ best efforts to weaken the virus, it is still strong enough to cause an infection.  Hence, the many people who actually catch the flu from the flu vaccine, catch the chickenpox from the chickenpox vaccine, get measles from the measles vaccine, polio from the polio vaccine, and get genital warts from the HPV vaccine.

Now, there have been many manipulations to produce a vaccine and there is a worry of contamination and a worry of infection if the vaccine is too strong.  However, one of the most common problems is that a vaccine is not strong enough to cause an immune response.  This means that the body didn’t produce antibodies against that protein coat, which means the vaccine was worthless.  I was just reading that three doses of HPV vaccine costs anywhere from $400 to $1,000.  That is a lot of money to pay for something that won’t necessarily work.

To counter this problem, it is now being recommended to give several doses of a vaccine over six month’s time.  So, for example, the Hepatitis B vaccine and the HPV vaccine are given at one month, two months and at six months.  And for the swine flu, recommendations are that children in certain age groups should receive two doses.  Another way to increase immune response to a vaccine is to add an adjuvant. An adjuvant is an irritant— any type of substance that the body sees as “foreign”/ “not self”.  These kinds of substances stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies.  It is thought that adding an adjuvant to a vaccine increases the likelihood that the immune system will respond to the vaccine and produce antibodies. Examples of adjuvants:  aluminum, squalene, Freund’s adjuvant.

As you can see, we’ve now gotten so far away from the way a natural immunity is produced, that the medical profession must inject, chemicalize, culture in various animal tissue types, add preservatives, and add an adjuvant to boost the immune response to the vaccine.  And most vaccines are injectable, which means it is only creating an immunity in the blood and not in the mucous membranes where exposure would normally occur.  There are different types of antibodies.  Antibodies that form in the blood are called IgG antibodies.  Antibodies that form in the mucous membranes are called IgA antibodies. Vaccines are injectable antigens (substances that provoke the immune system to produce antibodies).  They stimulate IgG antibodies in the blood.  However, when a person is exposed to a virus, the virus normally enters through the mucous membranes.  Natural exposure to a virus causes the creation of a different type of antibody, called IgA antibodies.  These IgA antibodies protect the mucous membranes from reinfection with a virus.  So, there is a doubt here that we are able to produce the right “type” of immunity against influenza by injecting vaccines into the tissues as opposed to putting them in the mucous membranes.

In recent years, we have seen the “FluMist” vaccine— a vaccine that is squirted up the nose.  This would produce the right type of antibodies to protect against influenza, and this one also does not contain thimerosal.  However, this vaccine does contain virus particles that have been weakened.  I just checked the VAERS system for adverse reactions to various vaccines and the FluMist had side effects of autoimmune disorders and nervous system damage just as severe as the other types of flu vaccines that are injected.  In addition, there was a higher rate of flu-like symptoms reported after this vaccine was received.  My question is can they guarantee that there are absolutely no live viruses in this vaccine?  Can they show me an electron microscope picture of each dose of vaccine?

Another issue that is especially problematic is with vaccines against viruses that are constantly mutating.  Once a virus mutates, the vaccine intended for the original virus no longer works.   Nature is always changing, yet medicine wants to standardize and keep everything the same dose, the same potency, the same everything.   This is like trying to shoot a moving target.  Your virus keeps moving, and you have to move yourself in order to compensate for the movements of the virus.  But your standardized vaccine does not allow you to move at all, since, in theory, this vaccine is standardized and must not change.

A third problem is the age at which many vaccines are administered and another issue is the sheer number of vaccinations that can overwhelm the body’s attempts to process them.

Government organizations do not consider the value of an individual human life.  What they are making highest priority is something you might call the “collective.”  This is the highest good for the highest number of people.  Therefore, they add up numbers for the risks versus the benefits for the population as a whole.  Then they know, for a fact, that certain people are going to react negatively to their treatments/vaccines.  But, the individual is not as important as the population as a whole.  This is like saying that the life of an individual human being is not so important to the government and to health organizations worldwide.  There are many people who would react badly to the vaccine, and these health organizations are willing to minimize these reactions publicly and/or compensate injured individuals because in the whole scheme of things, they are making more money than they are losing with the liability claims.  This is a numbers game.  Anyone who understands statistics is going to understand this game.

Let’s crunch some numbers for the Gardasil vaccine.  The vaccine was released on Sept. 15, 2006.  According to an FDA Fact Sheet, in 2007, it was estimated that there would be 9,710 cases of cervical cancer and 3,700 deaths in the U.S.  Gardasil is expected to prevent up to 70 percent of cervical cancers because they are due to HPV types against which the vaccine is directed.  There are over 100 different types of HPV, yet health organizations and the media are telling us that the vaccine is only protective against four types: HPV types six, 11, 16, and 18, and it is only the last two that have been associated with cervical cancer.  So, remember, there are 96 other types of HPV that it is possible to get.  And 15 types of HPV are currently associated with cervical cancer.  One can easily see that the vaccine is NOT a full protection against HPV in general, but only against four different types of HPV, only two of which are currently known to cause cervical cancer.  Now, are they going to discover additional types of HPV in the future that also cause cervical cancer?  That is entirely possible.  So, is there a guarantee here that the vaccine is protecting against all types of HPV that could possibly cause cervical cancer in the future?  Clearly not.

How many reactions have we seen to this vaccine since its inception?  Understand that these are reactions that were reported, and it is estimated that only around five percent of vaccine reactions are actually reported to the VAERS.  Reporting adverse reactions are currently voluntary and not required, so this greatly minimizes the reports that are received.

In the U.S., we have seen over 9,000 adverse reactions to the Gardasil vaccine, including massive outbreaks of genital warts, seizures, paralysis, chronic fatigue, pancreatitis, miscarriages, and blood clots.  Under certain circumstances, for women who have already been exposed to the types of HPV in the vaccine before vaccination, the Gardasil vaccine can actually increase the risk of developing high-grade precancerous lesions by 44.6 percent.   Nine thousand seven hundred and forty nine reactions and 36 deaths have been reported since 2006.  Let’s assume these numbers represent about five percent of all reactions that actually occur and this adds up to almost 195,000 reactions to the vaccine in the past three years.  And we haven’t added on yet the number of women who are actually at INCREASED risk of cervical cancer as a result of receiving the vaccine.  Estimates are that 40 million vaccines against HPV have been distributed.  If we say that one percent of those women are more prone to cervical cancer, and that 10 percent of that one percent actually develops cancer as a result of the vaccine, that’s 40,000 more cases.  By my count, we’ve had 9,000 reactions times 20 to compensate for underreporting, which would add up to 180,000 reactions in three years vs. 9,000 cases of cervical cancer per year that naturally occur.  Over three year’s time, that adds up to 27,000 cases.  So, we damaged 180,000 people in order to save 27,000 lives.  And there is absolutely no proof that this vaccine protects again cancer.  There is only a theory that this vaccine protects against a couple of types of viruses that can cause cervical cancer.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6