'Vaccination Overdose' by Sylvie Simon (fr. France)

[Guest guest]

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/sylviesimon.doc.

From the ONLY woman (that I know of) in France trying to save babies,

children & adults from vaccines.

A novelist and journalist working hard to make a difference and get the

word out (which is extremely difficult in France).

Attitude in France is that nothing is wrong with any vaccines. They are

somewhat isolated from the world in that so many only speak French.

Doctors aren't even aware of vaccine problems and don't know what is

happening in UK and US related to vaccines.

Sylvie (who should be retired and relaxing) works night and day on this

issue, writing and getting her articles printed wherever she can.

She is a wonderful giving woman who is making a difference in France and

she needs help (many vaccinations are compulsory in France)

If you know someone in France who needs information, email me. Also Sylvie

has a book in French on vaccines.

Sheri

“Civil responsibility is a form of protest and calls for more

responsibility. This principle will become more and more relevant with the

development of science and associated techniques. People will not blindly

believe in those who act on their behalf. The contaminated-blood affair,

among others, might perhaps never have come about if someone had blown the

whistle in time”. Andre Glucksmann

* * *

" Sylvie Simon’s approach to the detail and data of the problem will empower

those who favour freedom of choice and, therefore, rejection of obligatory

practices sustained and perpetuated by dubious “experts” who are out of

date by being out of touch with the progress of science in this field. Nor

can we avoid the view that the objective is less the health of the public

than the profits of the pharmaceutical companies.

All this throws light on the scandals that disturb our daily life and

threaten our economy. Those responsible never pay, and the incompetent or

dishonest “experts” are always with us. That they are exposed by the facts

and even by some politicians, yet rest untroubled, is an indication of the

financial clout at their disposal.

Our thanks are due to Sylvie Simon for bringing us up to date on what will

be one of the great scandals of the future. Her work will enable victims to

understand how their condition came about, caused by those – the

“implicated but not guilty” – whose mission is to protect them. "

Bousquet - Doctor of Science (biology-Biophysiology) CNRS

Honorary Researcher

* * *

Principles of Vaccination

by sylvie simon

Translated by Harry e

" We are still living with a deceitful government, a compliant press,

corruption and an overriding cynicism. " Jim Garrison (1988) – American

Prosecutor who led the enquiry into the assassination of F Kennedy.

The history of vaccination is full of implausibilities and errors.

Everything has been said on the subject except what would have discredited

it in the eyes of the world and questioned its fundamental basis. From the

beginning, when Jenner wanted to vaccinate instead of “variolate”, right up

to the present time, everything depended on the conditioning of minds.

Vaccinations are favoured today, for we have become dependent consumers,

always “wanting more”and manufacturers have well understood this

dependency. Vaccinations reflect the concept of having the disease, the

role of the doctor and the control of individual and collective health, a

concept that leads to reliance on others as opposed to taking

responsibility for oneself,

Vaccination was practised at a time when nothing was known about microbes,

viruses or the immune system. Nevertheless, it was soon promoted to the

first rank of general medical practice, routinely applied and unquestioned.

It took on the aspects of a faith rather than of a science.

Convinced that in this practice they had a panacea, supporters imposed it

worldwide in mass campaigns, expanded programmes and laws making it

compulsory. It became an ideology to which a few had to be sacrificed in

order to protect the many.

An apparently easy solution, notionally simple, vaccination offers a

convenience unlike that of any other medical practice and, if its

development required a measure of investment, the compensation was profit

and commercial success.

It began at the end of the 18th century, to protect against smallpox. The

English doctor, Jenner, experimented with inoculation of the bovine

disease, cowpox, which was considered similar to variola (or small pox, as

opposed to the great pox, syphilis), a disease of man.

Vaccination’s fascination, with upper-class notables lauding it, masked the

reality since there was lively opposition from the very beginning.

What did Jenner do? He simply replaced the pus of smallpox, which was

transferred from arm to arm (variolation), by the pus from the lesions on

the cow (vaccination). In time this pus was put through several stages

before administration but Jenner’s first vaccine, crude and empirical

though it was, was given to millions across the globe. Variolation was

spreading smallpox. Vaccination stopped the spread by replacing one pus

with another, and by halting the multiplication of sources. But it was no

great advance for all that because it opened the way for a more complex

infection. For the first time an element of another species was introduced,

directly into the body, this being DNA from the genes of another animal

and, moreover, a sick animal. Thus the consequences may be measurable only

after several decades or longer. At the end of the 18th century man had

enabled the passage of micro-organisms from one species to another. The

species barrier had been crossed, beginning the animalisation of man, or

the “minotaurisation of the human species”, according to Pierre Darmon in

La Longue Traque de la Variole (Pierre Darmon, Perrin, 1986). This aspect,

though unremarked by the public, should not have escaped the attention of

scientists, because it determined an ensemble of unnatural phenomena which

called for caution. Jenner introduced the era of the apprentice sorcerers.

Observation had often shown that when an infectious disease is contracted

it is not contracted again – hence the idea of inoculation of microbes or

viruses whose toxicity had been weakened so as to provoke a benign form of

the disease capable of producing a reaction and thus protect the organism

against a future serious attack.

The concept was not without substance, for the procedure favoured

prevention, although the basis and harmlessness of the practice remained

unclear. That an organism could accustom itself to a poison and thus

acquire resistance to it is a principle recognised since antiquity. It was

immortalised by King Mithridate, who, according to legend, had acquired

immunity to poisons from stronger and stronger doses. Each syringe contains

a concentrated dose of vaccine, including added material. VIDAL, the

professional’s dictionary of medicine notes the components for each vaccine.

What’s in a Vaccine ?

Standard manufacture uses a bacterial or viral antigen, e.g. a germ,

bacterium or virus, which may be killed, generally with formol or great

heat, or may be living but attenuated. The attenuation can be obtained by

heat (e.g. the whooping-cough vaccine) or by rapid passage in a culture

(BCG by 230 passages in potatoes mixed with beef bile; or measles by 85

passages in chicken fibroblasts – cells derived from eyelid mucus).

Bacterial vaccines can contain all of the bacterium (whooping-cough

vaccine) or can be acellular (only antigenic fragments). Diphtheria and

tetanus vaccines are “anatoxins” – they contain only the toxin (attenuated)

produced by the bacteria and supposed to be responsible for the disease.

Cell cultures are required for viral vaccines since viruses lack autonomy –

they can exist only in a cell. The prerequisites are often obtained from

animals: from monkey kidneys for polio vaccine; from hamster ovaries for

hepatitis-B vaccine; from rabbit brain for rabies vaccine; from chicken

embryos for mumps vaccine; and from foetuses for rubella vaccine.

Industrial production of vaccines requires cell lines from a vaccine strain

(e.g. Vero strain for polio vaccine) that is cancerised for reproduction to

infinity. The use of these continuous lines raises problems of purity.

World Healh Orgainisation report 747 (1986) raised objections to cellular

substrates for vaccine manufacture since they could be contaminated with

unknown viruses such as SV40, which has been associated with cancer, by DNA

contamination or by mutagenic proteins.

Culture cells can grow only if nourished, generally by calf serum

containing growth factors (cf. National Cancer Institute Monograph,29

December 1968, pp 63-70). We may wonder if there is not a risk of prion

propagation. In the context of an evaluation of microbial safety of

medicines the French Medicines Agency has just withdrawn five homeopathic

remedies derived from human microbial strains. In addition, by decree, 28

October 1998, the Health Minister has banned “any homeopathic preparation

from human strains, particularly when ready-made or prepared specially”

(Journal Officiel, 5 November 1998). But vaccines escape this precautionary

measure...

To avoid bacterial contamination of culture cells, which occurs frequently,

the laboratories use antibiotics, e.g. Neomycin, which is to be feared by

those who are allergic to Pentacoq vaccine, for example. Hence Dr Jean

Pilette, the Belgian doctor who has studied the polio vaccine in particular

: “Any product from living matter presents unknown factors”. (See his La

Poliomyélite... Which Vaccine? Which Risk? L’Aronde).

To make these vaccines more active an adjuvant is introduced, with the aim

of augmenting the immune response, which might otherwise fail to occur.

Hence we deduce that the efficacy of these vaccines is such that that their

advocates are forced to adopt such tricks as adding chemical toxins to

their soups.

At present the adjuvant mainly used is aluminium hydroxide, and this is a

product that often causes serious allergies. And for a number of years

aluminium has been linked to Alzheimer’s Disease. In VIDAL we find that

each dose of the hepatitis-B vaccine (Engerix or Genhevac) – as also the

DTP-polio – contains “not more than” 1250 µg of aluminium hydroxide,

whereas the official non-toxic dose is 15 µg/litre of blood, and more than

150 µg is definitely toxic for the nerve cells. Most vaccinations contain a

preservative based on mercury, and VIDAL refers to stabilisers and

excipients in its less-than-expansive remarks on vaccine ingredients. We

learn also that a unidose of the Pasteur DTP contains 0.5 ml of vaccine, of

which 0. 005 ml is phenoxyethanol (excipient) and 0.1 mg formic aldehyde

for 1.25 mg of aluminium hydroxide (preservative).

In other words, vaccines contain several potentially dangerous toxic

products that oblige the body to recognise and neutralise them, if

possible. These mechanisms are different from those called into play in the

natural response to disease. Thus vaccination puts different demands on the

immune system from those that apply when the real thing comes along.

Vaccines are currently produced by gene techniques, i.e. instead of using a

virus or bacterium, certain segments of its chromosomes are isolated and

grafted on to others to obtain hybrid elements that do not exist in nature.

The result is not a synthetic but a recombinant vaccine – a manipulation of

live material. The antigen fragments are then cultivated in substrates

(e.g. yeast for the hepatitis-B vaccine). Adjuvants, preservatives,

antibiotics, etc are then added as for traditional vaccines. We are told –

untruthfully – that these new vaccines are purer, therefore less dangerous.

But they can activate oncogenes, repress anti-oncogenes or modify genes in

one way or another. Hence they can be factors in the process of

cancerisation.

Vaccines Adsorbed on Aluminium Hydroxide

Where tetanus is concerned, for example, the procedure to alter its toxin

requires precipitation on sulphate of ammonium, or an adsorption (fixation

of a substrate, molecule, atom or ion at the surface of another substance).

This operation provides a toxin that is attenuated but possessing enhanced

antigenic power by virtue of the new chemical component.

Pasteur BCG contains 800 000 to 3200 000 units of Koch bacilli – hardly

negligible doses. Then, even attenuated or killed vaccines are not dead or

neutral, since they must retain immunising power if they are to produce a

reaction from the immune system. Their active principle is therefore to

cause disease and insofar as the sought-after effect is to provoke the

malady, vaccines represent a traumatising jolt to the organism. Thus they

entail permanent modifications to the cells, for the product that is

injected is not a simple poison, which the body’s elimination processes can

clear, filter and purify via the liver, kidneys, etc. It is not a matter of

Mithridisation for vaccination brings into play infinitely more complex

mechanisms. Our knowledge of these is very imperfect, immunity as a science

being only 50 years old.

The Immune System

Vaccinations are supposed to confer immunity, but what is immunity ? It is

our capacity to resist disease, the outcome of the activity of our immune

system, which regulates our defences to protect our biological identity,

just as the function of the blood system is to irrigate the body, bringing

nourishment and oxygen to the cells. But the body is a whole and its

different control systems operate in close collaboration in that damage to

one entails some effect on others. Thus when pathogenic agents or physical

or psychological shocks threaten our equilibrium, the immune system

organises and sets in motion a chain of reactions each with an important

role to play at its own level. The mobilisation of all these reactions will

be proportional to the nature of the attack. Sometimes our defences are

overwhelmed and serious danger threatens, but our immune system is a

powerful mechanism of great precision and surprising efficiency: it can

withstand any assault so long as it is enabled to function optimally.

At birth, the system is not fully developed and it will be some years

before it is self-sufficient. During the first months the baby is protected

by the immunity passed on by the mother – it does not yet have its own

identity. Gradually, this “passive” immunity will be replaced by its own,

created by virtue of the germs encountered from day to day. In time this

acquired immunity will provide a stout armour that will enable the infant

to withstand the tests that life will impose, such as childhood disease,

the problems of growth and the psychological crises that will help form the

personality, different for each individual. Vaccinations intrude on this

process as uncontrollable disturbances. In his 3-volume Constitution of

Animal and Vegetable Organisms; Causes of Diseases that Affect Them

(Published by Laboratoire de physiologie générale (3 volumes), Paris

1926,1936,1946), J. Tissot, Professor of Physiology at the Natural History

Museum, who had done experimental studies of microbes in vivo and in vitro,

puts us on guard : “Immunity by vaccination is acquired only when it

confers the chronic phase of the disease – which is really to be avoided –

a phase that entails fearsome complications in the short or long term.”

We live in symbiosis with microbes. They surround us and are part of us. We

should not forget that they are living and, perforce, need to feed and

reproduce. Taking advantage of the opportunity provided by humans, they try

for a niche in which to exist. They do not seek to attack us; they only

want to live and are no more deadly pathogens than any other cohabitants.

To treat them as enemies is to adopt the logic of war and runs counter to

natural processes and imperils the ecosystem.

The work of Antoine Béchamp, Tissot, R R Rife, Léon Grigoraki, and

Gaston Naessens, to mention a very few, direct us to the same theory: the

smallest elements that govern life are endowed with powers of

transformation that allow them to take on various forms and have diverse

effects on our bodies.

It is not the germs that provoke disease; it is breakdown of metabolic

equilibrium. The germs begin to proliferate when the organism changes and

disorganisation sets in. Certain pathogenic agents can persist without

causing damage; others can trigger disease without the presence of

antibodies. Man is obsessed with the idea that polio can kill or handicap

endlessly, whereas millions of infants are infected with the virus with no

sign of the disease, the microbe being a “table companion” in the intestines.

In nature nothing is lost, nothing is created, nothing dies, all is

transformed. The infinitely small changes unceasingly. A virus can become a

bacillus, then a mould (fungus), and inversely. Most of life’s elements

undergo cycles and are protean. Man himself evolved from fish to mammal.

The Russian biologist, Bochian, has shown that elements in the filtrate in

tuberculin can revert to bacilli and become pathogenic (Soviet Studies,

July 1950). Micro-organisms are principally endogenous and are compounds of

more complex vital elements. Their function is to participate in the

maintenance of life.

In his article, A Possible Cause of Aids and Other Diseases, published in

1984, Professor Delong, Virologist at Toledo (USA) University,

wrote : “Everything supports the belief that that there is a definite

equilibrium between the human immune system and natural viruses. Breaking

this state could have unforeseeable consequences”. (Medical Hypotheses,Vol

395, No 13, 1984).

In 1983 Shaw Billings, the public-health specialist, had said : “It

is important to note that simply introducing microbes into a living

organism does not automatically provoke their multiplication and the

disease. The condition of the organism itself has a great bearing on the

result.”

True and False Heroes

" It seems to me a service to reveal the means employed by the immoral to

corrupt the moral. " Pierre Choderlos de Laclos

Many a famous man hides a very different face behind the image he likes to

present. Louis Pasteur (1822 - 1895) is an example. Adopted as a hero, a

model scientific researcher and a benefactor of humanity, he has inspired a

cult, a myth, a legend. Are the many honours merited? Has his promotion to

the halls of fame been to the detriment of some of his contemporaries,

whose work and discoveries were of greater use to mankind? And if so, why?

Historians like Dr Philippe Decourt, Ethyl Hume, G Gerald Geison,

Xavier Raspail, Raichvarg and others have provided answers. By close

re-reading of the past they have breached the myth and highlighted the real

Pasteur. Like Pierre Thuillier, for example, in La science existait-il ? ,

we can acknowledge that “contrary to the golden legend, science advances

thanks to extremely daring conjectures, clever but often very doubtful

experiments, and attempts at success as diverse as

irrational.”Nevertheless, Pasteur has not honoured science, imperfect

though it might be. Probity required that he recognise his mistakes and be

open to criticism, as any rigorous researcher would. But Pasteur was too

vain, too attracted by honours and too partial to glory, and he sacrificed

honour and truth to it all. He claimed for himself discoveries made by

others. Like a real con man and with the help of accomplices he doctored

unfavourable experimental results and tyrannically refused to discuss them.

Over some years, Ethyl Hume consulted the Pasteur archives and, in

a book published in 1947, Béchamp ou Pasteur – A Lost Chapter in the

History of Biology, he came down against the celebrated founder of

microbiology and vaccination : “Pasteur, ambitious man, opportunistic a

genius at self-promotion, plagiarised then vulgarised Béchamp’s work.

“He stole his concept of small organisms but revealed only part of

Béchamp’s discoveries, Pasteur declared that these organisms came only from

outside. He omitted to say that, in the open air, microbes and other morbid

microzymes (anormal) soon lose their virulence,And the lie is perpetuated

today..”.

All these facts are reported in well-authenticated writings and should be

enough to diminish Pasteur and knock him off his pedestal. But not at all;

so well-anchored is the Pasteur myth in the public mind that nothing has

yet succeeded in shaking it loose. With chauvinism at work from one year to

the next France adds to Pasteur’s laurels, but the sad reality is that the

French are adulating an impostor. For imposture it certainly is. He usurped

honours and amassed a considerable fortune in doing so, as numerous

episodes in his life will illustrate. Let us look at three of these.

Rabies Vaccine

History has recorded it only as a success but forgotten that it increased

rabies deaths. Rather than a success it was a failure. No-one has been able

to prove its efficacy, at first because it was practically impossible to

prove that the dogs involved were rabid and then because so many vaccinees

died that nobody wanted to take account of them. The deaths of six Russian

peasants bitten by a wolf and vaccinated by Pasteur makes one shudder, such

was their suffering. In Souvenirs des milieux littéraires, politiques,

artistiques et médicaux de 1880 à 1905, Léon Daudet relates the story and

conveys something of their agony.

Not many are familiar with this episode, but everyone has heard of ph

Meister, bitten on the hand by a dog. Pasteur “saved” him by his Méthode

pour Prévenir La Rage après Morsure (title of his communication to the

Académie des Sciences, 26 October 1885) but he had no trumpet to blow.

Firstly, it was not certain that the dog was rabid. Secondly, if it had

been, the risk for the boy was small because a truly rabid animal – a rare

event – transmits the disease in only 5 - 15 per cent of cases. Where

ph Meister was concerned, the degree of risk was no more than 5 per

cent if the dog was definitely infected. And to proclaim the efficacy of a

treatment on the basis of one subject has no scientific value.

What was most serious in this affair were Pasteur’s lies. Contrary to all

that we are taught, the rabies vaccine was not created by Pasteur but by a

professor at Toulouse Veterinary School, Henri Toussaint, whose name has

not gone down in history. Toussaint succeeded in high attenuation of the

virulence by heating the preparation and by adding an antiseptic, phenolic

acid, at one per cent (and/or potassium bichromate). Pasteur’s vaccine,

based on dried marrow, was highly dangerous and was quickly abandoned – his

collaborator, Emile Roux, had concluded that the vaccine was hazardous and

refused to associate himself with the initial “intensive treatment”. Young

Meister was fortunate to escape the vaccine.

Pasteur’s collaborator, Emile Roux, had decided that it was hazardous to

use his colleague’s vaccine and he had refused to be associated with the

first so-called “intensive treatment”.

The drama of a 12-year-old child who died as a consequence of the

vaccination revealed the dishonesty of Pasteur and his colleagues. The boy

Rouyer was bitten on 8 October 1886 by an unknown dog. Pasteur inoculated

him by the intensive method (seven injections over 12 days). On 16 October

the child died. An inquiry under Professor Brouardel sought the cause but

the lofty, titled, professor was a friend of Pasteur. In Emile Roux’s

laboratory they inoculated part of the cervical bulb from the boy into the

brains of rabbits. Some days later the rabbits died of rabies, which proved

that the child clearly had the disease but Brouardel, in agreement with

Roux, decided to falsify the evidence before the inquiry. In Les Vérités

Indésirables – Le Cas Pasteur, Philippe Decourt records that it was a

matter of avoiding official acknowledgement of a failure that would entail,

according to Brouardel, “an immediate step backwards in the progress of

science” as well as dishonour to Pasteur.

The report to the coroner confirmed that : “These two rabbits are in good

health today, 9 January 1887, i. e. 48 hours after the inoculation. The

negative results of the inoculations on the bulb of this child enables us

to discount the hypothesis that the young Rouyer had succumbed to rabies”.

In collusion with Roux and Brouardel, Pasteur declared that death was due

to uraemia.

Not content with falsification, Pasteur and his accomplices sought to

silence those who knew the truth. One lie leads to another, for Brouardel

went on to affirm that none of 50 people given the intensive treatment had

died. “He knew that it wasn’t true but no matter since they would believe

it”, Decourt noted.

In 1886 the number of deaths where liability attached to the Pasteur method

had risen to 74, 34 in France and 40 abroad. Certain of these were

attributable to rabies but others were associated with “laboratory rabies”,

as it came to be known. These laboratory cases presented symptoms of

rabiform paraplegia as observed in the rabbits used to cultivate the

Pasteur virus (see Raspail et Pasteur : 30 ans de Critiques Médicales et

Scientifique -1884 – 1914, Vigot Frères, Paris 1916). Pasteur himself

indicated that from 9 November 1885 to 30 December 1986 nine of 18

vaccinees died in the three weeks after being bitten.

In March 1886 he told Dr Navarre : “From now on I won’t accept discussion

of my theories and my method. I won’t have anyone coming to monitor my

experiments”.

We see here a practice that was to become institutionalised – the

scientific lie. What confidence can we have in hallowed men of science who

make off-hand statements like this ?

Pouilly-le-Fort Experiment

The anti-rabies vaccine was Pasteur’s first great triumph, although it was

preceded by the vaccine against anthrax, which was rampant in cattle.

Pasteur vigorously opposed Henry Toussaint’s theories and practices, which

he said were ineffective and dangerous. To prove that his vaccine was

better he agreed a protocol of experiments that would come to fruition on

28 August81 at Pouilly-le-Fort, near Melun. They would select 50 sheep,

only 25 of which would be vaccinated and all the animals would be

inoculated with virulent anthrax 15 days later. Pasteur said that the

unvaccinated sheep would die. On the appointed day Pasteur confided to his

associates that he would not use his own vaccine but Toussaint’s, which

contained an antiseptic capable of attenuating the virulence of the anthrax

bacteria. (For some considerable time Pasteur had tried to achieve

comparable attenuation with oxygen). The sheep received the Toussaint

vaccine, containing potassium bichromate, a powerful poison that kills

microbes (and provokes cancer). These facts are recorded by Adrien Loir in

A l’ombre de Pasteur (Le Mouvement sanitaire, 1938). So these 25 sheep

survived and Pasteur triumphed.

Who today is aware that the Pouilly le Fort experiment was no more than a

hoax ?

Silk-Worm Disease

One could multiply examples of Pasteur’s tricks. His method was

simple,While deploring the methods of others he proceeded to appropriate

them and thus garnered further laurels. Another example that well

illustrates his technique is the silk-worm episode, where he was directly

opposed to Antoine Béchamp. Hostile to the theory of parasitism, carefully

developed by Béchamp, Pasteur turned the situation to his advantage by

letting it appear that the theory was his, thus relegating Béchamp’s work

to the shade.

The affair of the soluble ferments in 1878 was similar. This gave rise to a

controversy which lasted 18 months between Pasteur and the chemist,

Berthelot. Pasteur refused to acknowledge the evidence and maintained his

belief in spontaneous generation, which he later repudiated, whilst

shamelessly plundering Béchamp’s work when he saw that the other man was

right.

But these scientists’ quarrels were relatively unimportant against the

backdrop of a development, stimulated at the time by the economic boom born

out of the industrial revolution : the vaccine industry.

How has it come about that the world has suffered the imposition of a

doctrine whose basis is so contestable ? In his “La Felure du Monde”

(Flammarion 1995) André Glucksmann tried to explain these Pasteurian

mirages : “The vanity of Pasteurism discloses more than a sure science and

less than an effective art – a religion. Pasteur has expressed, in terms of

biopower, the constituent equation of modern nations, cujus regio ejus

religio... Without Pasteurian blinkers AIDS seems less unthinkable than one

would have believed”.

Pasteur pushed scientists down a false road by his three postulates, and

these are still the foundation of vaccination. They were developed by

Pasteur and recorded in his submissions to a commission of the Académie de

Médicine between 1869 and 1872 :

1) Asepsis reigns in the cells. The cell is clean; all the microbes are

exogenous.

2) For each germ (specific agent) there is a corresponding disease, against

which we can protect with a vaccine. The disease has only a single cause,

therefore a single remedy.

3) Immunity is obtained by production of antibodies in reaction to the

introduction of antigens (substances in the vaccine). The antigen-antibody

combination is sufficient to confer protection.

We have long known that disease is never the result of a single cause, a

single culprit. It is always multifactorial

Numerous mechanisms, sometimes very sophisticated, come into play and lead

to dysfunction expressed in clinical symptoms. If the germs were the only

cause every contact would fall ill. But that does not happen, so “one germ,

one disease, one vaccine” is simplistic and reductionist.

As regards microbes, viruses or bacteria as invading aggressors bent on

doing us harm – are they really our enemies ? Recent research in molecular

biology suggests otherwise. And the work of Antoine Béchamp and, later,

Professsor Tissot, has already shown the endogenous origin (internal)

of micro-organisms (Les Mycrozymas, Antione Béchamp, out of print).

“Microbe” is imprecise in respect of bacteria. A bacterium is the more

promiscuous form of the living cell, whereas a virus reproduces itselffrom

its own genetic material and is an absolute parasite on the cell.

Biologist Gaston Naessens has recently invented a microscope by which

Béchamp’s work has been corroborated and completed. As mentioned earlier,

viruses are cell constituents and if they become pathogenic it is because

there is disequilibrium. Hence when an infant has measles we find the virus

specific to measles. But if the virus is expressed it is because the

organism is enfeebled.

And, as with all viruses, rather than being the cause they are a

consequence of the disease.

As regards bacteria, we see a similar phenomenon. In nature bacteria appear

where there is decomposition. In the body, bacteria are found where there

is disequilibrium, accumulation of residues and dead cells, where they find

nourishment – and they are capable of degrading and ingesting everything.

In fact, humans have ten times more bacteria than cells.

They maintain biological equilibrium; without them we die, and they become

pathogenic only with change in physiological equilibrium or breakdown of

the immune system. For example, the intestines are full of colibacilli and

many saprophytic bacteria (that live on the organism by feeding on

decomposing matter). These bacteria contribute to fermentation of digestive

residues and to the synthesis of vitamins. But, in the event of

disequilibrium, they precipitate diarrhoea, appendicitis and other

problems. That is why it is much more sensible to rebalance and clean the

body than to kill the microbe.

“If, on return from holiday, you find your house full of dirt, you need to

clean it thoroughly. If you squirt insecticide everywhere the house will

still be dirty and even worse than before, since you have added toxic

substances to the dirt,” is the good advice from Dr Lourdes Tornos in El

Mundo de los Microbes. (Article in the Spanish review, Natura Medicatrix No

46-47, Spring 1997).

In the 1890s when the Nobel prizewinner, Koch, returned triumphant

from the Indies as a hero, a spoilsport awaited him at Munich in the person

of the old professor of hygiene, Max Pettenkofer, who had made Munich the

cleanest city in Europe by means of effective sanitary services. “Your

bacillus can do nothing, my dear Koch. What matters is the organism. If

your theory were correct I should be a dead man in 24 hours,” he said,

snatching from Koch’s hands a test tube containing a pure culture of

cholera germs. In front of his horrified colleagues he swallowed the lot !

Koch was the only one to fall ill.

When we speak of health we need to broach the notion of “terrain”, a

fundamental notion for those who want to practise true medicine. Let us

remember Claude Bernard’s summary : “The microbe is nothing; the terrain

is everything !”. The terrain defines our immunity. It establishes itself

gradually, during nine month’s gestation and it is unique to the

individual. Regular routine vaccinations conflict with Bernard’s axiom and

lead to disequilibrium. The supposition that mass vaccination has

eliminated disease does a great disservice to mankind and the ecosystem

since we are all so intimately linked one to the other.

Antoine Béchamp

Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908) was one of the great savants of the 19th

century. Doctor, chemist, biologist, naturalist, he was Professor of

Medical Chemistry and Pharmacology at the Montpellier Faculty, Professor of

Biological Chemistry and Physiology at Paris University, then Dean of

Liberal Studies at Lille. He verified Claude Bernard’s concept of

individual terrain and was the first to understand the microbial basis of

infectious pathology. Nevertheless, his work is almost unknown nowadays

because it has been systematically discredited and falsified in favour of

Pasteur.

Béchamp thought that microbes were a “process”,“deriving from a single

strain (prebacterialparticles – microzymes – present in all organic

structures) which could change size and form according to the health of the

host”. His theses have since been confirmed by many other researchers and,

in 1980, certain bacteriologists (Sorin, Sonea, Panisset, Naessens)

confirmed that bacterial polymorphism was an irrefutable scientific fact.

“If we upset the bacterial world by our interference, the point may reached

at which life on earth is compromised”, they said.

It has also been shown that a bacterium can transform into a virus

according to the substrate (nutrient culture medium) provided (Introduction

a la Nouvelle Bactériologie,S Sonea and M Panisset, Montreal University

Press, 1980).

Béchamp, founder of enzymology, identified minuscule corpuscles,

microzymes, smaller than cells. These are at the origin of life and are

found in both man and animal and in plants and micro-organisms. In humans

their form varies with the general state of their home terrain and their

nutrition. Disease occurs when disequilibrium disturbs their normal

functioning. When there is change in the normal state of health, from

malnutrition, poisoning, or physical or psychological stress, the

microzymes can transform into pathogenic germs or microbes. To Antoine

Béchamp the same microbes could take several forms relative to their milieu

– the theory of polymorphism, which, had it been widely recognised, would

have revolutionised general perceptions of health and disease. The key, say

it supporters, is reinforcing health, which enables the germs to recover

their original microzyme form and their protective function. Recreate the

right milieu and the mcrobes disappear and hence the disease also.

In Pasteur’s view the microbe causes the disease whereas in Béchamp’s

opinion the disease generates the microbe, and this argument has continued

for more than a 100 years. According to the 250 pages that pharmacist Dr

Marie Nonclerq devoted to Béchamp : “In this fight Béchamp was beaten –

not because his arguments were mistaken but because Pasteur benefited from

circumstances at the time, from his experiments and results, falsified to

favour his primary notions. Today this doctoring seems unbelievable.

Serious examination in the realm of bacteria showed that the facts simply

did not support his ideas. Pasteur had deliberately ignored the work of

Béchamp, one of the great 19th-century French scientists, whose

considerable oeuvre in chemical synthesis, in biochemistry and pathology of

infections goes unrecognised today, having been degraded in favour of the

illustrious Pasteur who, unlike Béchamp, had a genius for publicity and for

what we now call public relations. Ten years previously in Médecine et

Hygiène, Geneva, 23 March 1983, Dr Rentschnick, whose medical orthodoxy

goes without saying, wrote : “I don’t believe it was an empty historical

quarrel. We are not barred from reflecting on the past when a great man

abuses power. We have known other examples, even all the way to the Nobel

prize...”

On his death bed Pasteur declared that Claude Bernard was right, that the

microbe was nothing, the terrain everything. If the microbe alone were

responsible, how was it that nurses caring for the tuberculous were not

infected whereas others, much less exposed to the bacillus, rapidly fell

ill with the disease ? On this question Claude Bernard came to develop the

theory of susceptibility – an innate or acquired tendency to develop

certain pathologies.

On 17 June 1906 the Medecin published a letter from Professor Béchamp to

his confrere, Dr Vindevogel : “You know better than I that all traditional

medicine from smallpox and tuberculosis to common enteritis is the prey of

preconceived notions that, to be sustained, require facts imagined as need

dictates. Whatever you do they vaccinate, they inject – against all good

sense – to kill the microbe and the thoughtless masses will thoroughly

approve. Whatever you write to prove that they are mistaken and misled is a

waste of time. Poor souls !”

Childhood Diseases

" Man will discover a vaccine that could, from early life, via the body,

destroy the tendency to spirituality.

In the future we will use a poorly balanced product, which they could very

well manufacture, that will prevent spiritual ‘folly’ – in the material

sense, of course. " Rudolph Steiner, 27 October 1917

“Childhood diseases are clear evidence of the struggles between the I and

hereditary forces,” suggests Dr Victor Bott in Medecine Anthroposophic

(Triades, 1976). Micro-organisms that today can be responsible for certain

pathologies are the result of species evolution. We are composed of

millions of micro-organisms which, at first, are capable of aggression but

which, with time, become beneficent to the point where we cannot live

without them. Thus by constant mutation there is constant natural adaptation.

Thus man has gradually acquired and consolidated his immunity. The prime

consideration is a symbiosis, an equilibrium, the proof of good health. We

exist thanks to our adaptive processes, and childhood diseases are probably

a necessary stage in the life of the individual. They enable us to build

the personality. Fever expresses a salutary reaction of the body to

eliminate toxins, after which episode – a test of the immune system – the

child has changed, is strengthened. Surmounting one infection from ones own

resources provides for increase in resistance to other diseases.

There is no doubt that disease plays an important role in reinforcing our

defences, in the consolidation of the terrain. Traditional medicine is

directed only at suppressing symptoms by strong medicaments that assault

the system as, for example, in the regular suppression of fever. Worse, by

vaccination it professes protection of the individual by preventing

emergence of natural disease. In other words it kills, for a sterile

microbeless world is synonymous with death.

There has always been a balance between childhood disease, viruses and the

environment and it is important to foresee, in the long term, what would

upset this equilibrium by vaccinations. At all events, these artificial

provocations do not provide the same degree of protection as do the natural

processes, antibody levels after an injection generally being lower than

those after the disease.

Moreover, immunity acquired naturally is long term; that from vaccination,

if any, is time-limited. (For confirmation refer to La Presse Médicale, Vol

17, Supplement No 1, May 1998).

The importance of childhood infections should be acknowledged and their

development monitored. Poor nutrition or hygiene, or overtaxing of

resources can lead to problems where the child is weak or predisposed to

certain maladies. For these children there are various effective therapies

in the pharmacopœia of alternative medicine.

A child is born with maximum potential. Gradually he develops, forges

ahead, but not without the occasional rough passage. However, he has all he

needs to defend himself against the diseases of childhood. In this regard

we do not need to paint a bleak picture. Fear is not a wise councillor.

Anxious parents think that vaccinations are the answer, that they save

their offspring from many ills. Unfortunately, they only cloud the issue

and weaken the terrain. The disease is hindered in expressing itself, but

can, nevertheless, develop insidiously into a chronic condition, often

incurable. We don’t need to dread these diseases. Remaining calm and

attentive is the best way to help the child over the hurdle.

In Mon Enfant et les Vaccins (Vivez Soleil, 1994), Dr Françoise Berthoud

cites D Goetelen : “A disease is an important moment in a child’s

life. It is the first test of conscious distress, the first experience, a

crisis to resolve. This crisis has several objectives : the first is to

stimulate the natural defences, for let us not forget that we possess the

forces to cure ourselves – humans cured themselves before needing

medicines, even the natural kind. The second objective is to provoke

elimination of accumulated toxic deposits. The third is to correct physical

functions, and the fourth is to put the system under test, forcing it to

find an answer. Often parents feel powerless, lacking confidence, panicking

even. The doctors contribute to the situation with such comments as ‘Your

child is in danger’, or ‘There may be complications. ’Too often parents,

acting from fear rather than confidence, agree to suppressive treatment”.

Like death, disease is part of life.

A child’s immune system doesn’t behave like a computer. It cannot confront

several pathogens at the same time and assimilate them without

consequences. The situation promotes mother-child bonding, the disease

providing the opportunity for close dependency and intimacy and this

emotional dimension plays a part in the building of personality and should

not be avoided, according to sociologist C Marenco (Majeur et vacciné :

prevention et idéologie, in Science Sociales et Santé, Vol II, No 3 and 4,

pp. 136-165, 1984).

If we believe Dr Mendelsohn, the American pædiatrist, we should not

vaccinate young children : “Much of what we are told about vaccinations is

simply not true. If I am to abide by deep conviction I would recommend

rejection of all vaccination of your child. I have become a fierce opponent

of mass immunisation because of its numerous dangers. We blindly inject

foreign proteins into children without knowing what harmful effects they

may cause” (Des Enfants Sains Même Sans Médecin, Vivez Soleil, 1987).

Do Vaccines Really Protect ?

" I rebel against mass medication that puts the sick at the mercy of the

commercial interests of the big pharmaceuticals and the murderous interests

of vaccine manufacturers. " Pie X11

There are many who believe that most epidemics have disappeared because of

vaccination and who refuse to question the efficacy of this practice. Yet

certain epidemic diseases that ravaged our country have disappeared without

any vaccination and the pro-vaccine seem to ignore this fact. Moreover, the

plague ran rampant for centuries across the world, yet has vanished without

vaccination. Leprosy, which is still endemic in some countries, no longer

ravages as in the past and great epidemics of it are no more despite the

absence of any leprosy vaccine. Generally speaking, the decline in a

disease has always preceded the vaccine for it. And if the disappearance of

epidemics is primarily due to vaccines, the diseasesin question should have

continued to prosper in areas that did not vaccinate or that abandoned

vaccination, whereas epidemiological history demonstrates the opposite. In

any event, the international scientific press attests to the fact that

epidemics still occur in countries where immunisation is almost total.

In 1348 the black plague killed vast numbers in France and the cholera

spread terror during several centuries in our country, yet both disappeared

entirely without vaccination. It is perfectly possible that if vaccines had

existed for them at the time, and been compulsory, they would have received

the credit for eliminating these diseases. But clearly we must assign it to

other factors. Since 1949, when compulsory vaccination was abandoned in

Britain, the UK has demonstrably shown that dropping compulsion has not

entailed a return of epidemics, which runs counter to the argument invoked

by those who support continued vaccination.

During almost 50 years the countries of the West have systematically

vaccinated, covering virtually their entire populations but, curiously, it

is in these countries that diphtheria and polio have reappeared. Hence we

must wonder if the vaccines have been as effective as claimed and if the

strains used for them have changed, for we are seeing the re-emergence of

more aggressive pathologies than those we thought to have been mastered.

This phenomenon can be compared to the widespread use of insecticides with

the appearance of more dangerous insects, along with the use of herbicides

and associated increase in resistant plants.

The inefficacy of some vaccines is sometimes admitted by the pharmaceutical

companies themselves. Thus the manufacturer of a hepatitis-B vaccine,

Kline Beecham : “This vaccine, obligatory for at-risk groups, merits

being used more widely, particularly for the young since it seems that, in

the USA, vaccination of those at risk had no effect on incidence of the

disease there”. (In Le Concours Médical, Vol 15, No 4, 1993). Statements

like these are particularly instructive in revealing the strategy of the

pharmaceutical lobby and of certain public authorities. In this instance we

have a pharmaceutical company admitting the failure of its vaccine, yet

recommending a vaccine that has had no impact on the disease.

A similar view is taken in Le Concours Médical, No 8, 1993 (Vol 115) by Dr

C Sicot, with other doctors, under the title, Medico-Surgical Consultations

: “If we look at the experience of the USA, the overall incidence of acute

hepatitis B since vaccination for it began has not diminished but has

increased from 55 to 63 per 100000 between 1981 and 1987. This

disappointing result is not, however, unexpected : coverage of high-risks

groups remains unsatisfactory”. Zero times zero always gives zero.

It seems that the medical corps goes so far out of its way to avoid

understanding why there is recrudescence of the disease after vaccination

that it cannot admit that it may even be propagating the disease. On the

contrary, it prescribes hepatitis-B jabs for everyone. So we can be sure

that this infection will spread, if we are to believe these recent

observations. And how can we not attach importance to them when they come

down to us from such high places ?

It is often noted that a recently vaccinated individual falls victim to the

disease in question. Some observers decline to see these accidents as

anything more than unfortunate coincidences; others, perhaps wiser and

distinctly more curious, think of cause and effect and the dangers

associated with injecting microbes and toxins into a healthy organism and

thereby making it less resistant because of vaccine stress.

Partisans of vaccination rely on specific arguments to support the efficacy

of their method. One such argument amounts to little more than “It works

!” Then they bring out the statistics. But efficacy is very relative and

can’t be verified simply by figures, which are often incomplete,

approximate or just manipulated.

Moreover, disappearance of a disease after vaccination is invariably

treated as scientific proof of efficacy whereas it is nothing of the sort.

Again, antibody level after injection is often the argument and the

protection level declared is quite arbitrary. Clearly, any antigen will

produce a reaction and, more often than not, the immune system indicates

its response in the form of antibodies. But their presence does not prove

that they will protect, i. e. immunise. They are merely evidence of

aggression, like discoloration after a blow, or they simply indicate

infection, as lighted windows show that the house is occupied. We know now

that, in some instances, antibodies play an inverse role : instead of

protecting, as assumed, they assist the disease – they act as facilitators.

Moreover, the antibodies’ regulatory mechanisms may sometimes go into

overdrive, the result being antibody-antigens or “complex immunes”, which

are not destroyed but remain in the body. They can give rise to serious

problems such as glomerulonephritis. Duration of activity of induced

antibodies is always shorter than that of natural antibodies, which

suggests that vaccination activates very different mechanisms from those of

the natural process. How does one determine, other than arbitrarily, what

the neutralising antibody level is ? Of course, vaccines are lauded to the

skies if the infection under assault does not develop in the vaccinated, or

at least not in the usual form.

Vaccines can provoke a sub-acute phase of the disease, which can appear

gradually in more disconcerting forms. What then is the vaccine’s efficacy ?

A vaccine is intended to hinder the disease but it can pave the way for

other ailments when there is weakening of the terrain, which can then be

attacked by germs that proliferate and become virulent. Mirko D Grmek,

Professor, History of Medicine at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes, has called

this phenomenon “pathocenosis”, in relation to the appearance and

disappearance of epidemics. (Mirko D Grmek, Histoire du SIDA, Payot, 1989,

p. 261). Thus smallpox vaccine reinforced Koch bacilli, which helps to

explain the widespread TB of the 19th century. Diphtheria vaccination,

coupled with whooping-cough vaccination, made the polio virus virulent,

hence the epidemics after several years of diphtheria immunisation. Polio

vaccination, coupled with other, routine vaccinations, contributed to

overload of the immune system and evolution of acquired immunodeficiency

syndrome. (Refer also to Dr Pilette’s La Poliomyélite: quel vaccin?

quel risque? L'Aronde, 1997)

Hepatitis-B jabs complement the damage done by the others by attacking the

nervous system and provoking auto-immune problems that pave the way to

premature ageing.

Withdrawing smallpox vaccination led to a reduction – spectacular in the

80s – in incidence of TB. And, where scarlet fever – rampant in the 19th

century – is concerned, this gave way to measles and diphtheria.

Vaccines, and even antibiotics, reduce natural resistance, with the

associated effects tending to cancerisation. When it is argued that an

individual does not develop a disease because he has been vaccinated and

therefore immunised, the reality is that he has lost the vitality to react.

Chronic illness can intervene where energy level is low, where the organism

cannot respond vigorously because its vitality has been sapped from within.

According to Coulter in Vaccination : Social Violence and

Criminality (North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, 1980), any vaccination can

trigger encephalitis, slight or severe, accompanied by demyelination, which

hinders normal development of the brain with consequent pathological

effects leading to handicaps and behavioural problems. In the USA one in

five infants have suffered these effects.

Any demyelination can be directly attributed to vaccination, for research

has revealed similarities between the make-up of vaccines and the protein

structure of myelin. (In Science, Vol 29, 19 July 1985).

This discovery explains the appearance of auto-immune symptoms after

immunisation procedures. The immune system confuses antigen with myelin and

attacks the latter, hence some of the diseases that become so debilitating

over time.

Immunologists are embarrassed by outbreaks of measles, polio, etc in

vaccinated populations. In Medical Practice (No 467) Professor Lépine

states : “In several developing countries it is thought that a single

vaccination campaign will resolve the problem. But we now see in some of

these countries that the frequency of the disease has almost quintupled

since vaccination.”

Deusberg, Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology at Berkeley

University, puts another view : “The credit is due to plumbers and farmers

! Thanks to them we have better hygiene and nutrition. With good nutrition

comes sound immune defences and we are no longer prey to these infections”.

(“AIDS From Drug Addiction and Other Factors of Non-Infectious Risk”, in

Pharmaceutical Therapy, Vo 55, Berkeley, 1992).

Hygiene and Disinfection

Hygiene is the important thing. We owe a great deal more to Préfect

Poubelle and to bleach than to Pasteur and vaccines. When it was discovered

that cholera and typhus were transmitted by water contaminated with fœcal

matter a radical approach to water supply, coupled with purification,

brought an end to epidemics of these diseases without recourse to

vaccination.

Curiously, the medical corps was not entirely receptive to hygiene and

disinfection. We need only mention the difficulties encountered by Dr

Semelweiss in Vienna : he wanted doctors to wash their hands in a

chlorinated solution before delivering babies : a measure that would have

reduced deaths from puerperal fever almost to zero. But he was laughed at

and died insane. He would have been forgotten had not Dr Louis-Ferdinand

Celine come to his rescue by way of a book on his life.

The Dayton Times, 28 May 1993, published details from a study by the

Department of Health which showed that half the victims of whooping cough

in 1987 and 1991 in Ohio state had been vaccinated against it according to

their medical records. It also disclosed for the same state that 72 per

cent (2720 cases) of victims of measles two years earlier had received the

measles vaccine.

Doctors rarely concern themselves with thorough follow-up, being

conditioned to see vaccines as effective and inoffensive. Inevitably,

therefore, they tend to assign the disease to other factors.

Professor Tara Shirakawa, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, has published the

results of a study in Japan on 867 infants who received BCG vaccine and had

tuberculin tests. Thirty-six per cent developed allergies, including

asthma. The number of TB cases in the province under review appeared not to

increase but, by contrast, the incidence of severe allergy clearly did.

(Science, Vol 275, 3 Jan 1997. )

What was feared by an editor in the Petit Journal, 19 September 1888, and

indicated by Dr Xavier Raspail, son of François Raspail, chemist and

politician, in Raspail et Pasteur, seems about be realised : “If these

hazardous inoculations contemplated by M Pasteur are introduced generally,

many people will eventually be transformed, tattooed from head to foot by

the so-called protective jabs like a sewage collector of multicoloured

vaccines”. Dr Raspail enquires : “Are we not poisoning humanity in small

doses ? It is diabolical that we are inflicting all these infections that

have assaulted human beings at one time or another. It is stupefying this

arrogant introduction into the blood of a cocktail of germs when for the

slightest surgical operation we wage unremitting war against them.

Vaccinations and the Third World

Mass vaccinations in the third world have not reduced infant mortality. In

effect, they have deprived these countries of basic nutritional

requirements and clean water supplies. In his La Recherche Contre le

Tiers-Monde (Editions PUF, 1993), Dr Mohamed Bouguerra of the Tunis Faculty

of Science and Associate Director of Research at CNRS, criticises the

corruption and machinations of multinational pharmaceutical companies and

proclaims the benefits of clean water supply, hygiene and adequate

nourishment. But he notes that these remedies do not generate profits for

those enterprises : “You would think a multinational pharmaceutical’s first

response would be for the benefit of mankind, to ease suffering. Wrong. The

sole aim is profit. When flu stuck India one of the multis increased the

price of vitamin C instead of reducing it. It is about time we punctured

the spurious proclamations of the multinational pharmaceutical firms. We

are all involved. Research should not be at the mercy of profit. I believe

that intelligent men should fight against such taking this route”.

Risks of Vaccination

" In the past, tyranny resided in the egotism of princes at the expense of

the multitude.

Today it is seen in the degradation and enslavement of the individual in

the name of collectivity. " Dr ph Roy

We make much of the dangers of infectious diseases nowadays. We dramatise

their consequences but make little or no reference to the potentially

unfortunate effects of vaccines. A vaccine is an infectious agent that must

be virulent to some degree to be active and everything depends on this

virulence and the subject’s powers of resistance, a factor that receives

only cursory attention at the time. In any event, each vaccine represents

an assault on the immune system, and there are long-term consequences to

think about since a virus can recover its pathogenicity.

The deleterious effects of vaccines are almost a taboo subject for many

doctors, no doubt because of the range of side effects observed.

When they say that no adverse reactions have been seen, that does not mean

that there have been none but that no study has been carried out or

published. Such reactions are often out of the ordinary. Deterioration in

the vaccinated can be difficult to evaluate and, in any event, adverse

reactions are not necessarily reported loud and long. In fact, that is the

last thing wanted since it might make the public inimical to vaccination.

In the British Medical Journal, 17 July 1971, Professor G Dick, Middlesex

Hospital Immunologist, reflected that : “Few doctors are willing to

attribute a death or complication to a method that they have recommended

and believe in”.

In Les Vaccinations, Prévention ou Aggression, (Vivez Soleil, 1995, 1995),

Dr Marie-Thérèse Quentin tells us : “At the Congress of the American

Pædiatric Academy in 1982 it was proposed by certain doctors that parents

should be alerted to the dangers of vaccinations but it would seem that

parents were considered incompetent in this respect – the resolution was

not carried”.

In his Dictionnaire de la Médecine Ecologique (Le Rocher, 1995), Dr ph

Levy enumerates various factors predisposing to onset of multiple

sclerosis. He cites, among others, vaccine and serums that “... probably

play a part. According to the noted immunologist, Professor A Good, the use

of animal vaccines and serums provokes the transformation of human and

animal lymphocytes. Such lymphocytes attack human cells as though they were

foreign cells to be eliminated.”

Isabelle Robard, a barrister specialising in medical cases, notes that “In

1991 the Ministry of Health put the risk of post-vaccination encephalitis

from smallpox at one in 400 000 whilst in the CEE member states the

estimated risk is one in 10 000. The Ministry did not take account of

consequences that led to court cases”. (La Santé assassinée, Isabelle

Robard, Ancre 1992). The disparity here illustrates all too well how

figures can be manipulated.

Besides, every time that the Minister is attacked in connection with

post-vaccination accidents, he cites the absence of a direct link between

the vaccination and the reaction, finds in favour of the plaintiff and the

state neglects to compensate the victims, who are often in dire straits.

Hence more stages in the process of litigation – and so complainants often

withdraw from the seemingly interminable, and onerous, procedure, with the

effect that the official number of victims is reduced, and particularly

where a victim withdraws by dying. How many parents would relive a

nightmare through a long legal process at the end of which they receive a

sum that, in relation to the life of their child, is an insult?

It is, of course, very difficult to demonstrate cause and effect, and it is

for the victims to provide the proof. Thus the authorities refuse to record

as vaccine reactions what are then treated as unfortunate accidents. For

want of the kind of evidence that would support going to law a large number

of vaccine complications are not reported officially.

In Vous et Votre Sante, (Special Issue No 4, 1995) Dr Marie-Benedicte Hibon

explains : “An infant’s immune system matures slowly, from the appearance

in the embryo of the first marrow cells up to the age of 10-12 years before

attaining adult ability. Only then is it really functional. In the first

two years the child’s system has to deal with ten vaccine interventions

(more if there are boosters). Who will link these with problems of

dyslexia, hyperactivity, mental disturbance,and diabetes and whether

apparent immediately or years later ? Why not let the disease express

itself naturally by the epidemic route ?”

Dr Alain Scohy has noted that the vaccine dose is the same for a baby as

for an adult. The baby’s immune system is incapable of establishing any

protection. Abnormally stimulated or irritated tissue is likely to react by

malfunctioning, then scarring and sclerosing, becoming inert and incapable

of natural defence, especially in fragile infancy.

One doctor who has attempted to throw light on the problems of vaccination

is Bousquet but her peers in the scientific community are

disinclined to listen because she attacks dogma : “The immune system should

not be imposed on recklessly and experimentally when it is in the process

of establishing itself in the young, or where it is still immature. The

consequences are now all too evident – AIDS”.

Immunity– Natural and Artificial

Apart from their toxic effects, vaccinations can have undreamed-of

consequences,Even the pro-vaccine accept that artificial immunity does not

last as long as natural immunity. In the USA adults are contracting

whooping cough and complications are frequent. France is witnessing the

same phenomenon.

“Voici le temps des supermicrobes” is the title of an article in Le Nouvel

Observateur, September 1994. It included a table of calamities of the near

future.

Traditional medical literature still treats microbes as responsible for

disease and contagion, but the works of Béchamp, Tissot and others make out

a case for microbes being evidence of disease, not the cause. So, when it

is argued that viruses cause disease it is reductionist doctors who are

presenting this view rather than homeopaths and doctors, who see man as

more than a simple physical entity.

Louis-Claude a past professor at the Ecole d’Anthropologie, Paris,

has conceived a bio-electronic method of defining state of health from

physico-chemical data obtained from blood, saliva and urine. The method has

interested famous names in medicine and biology but whereas it has not

received much attention in France it has been taken seriously in Germany

and the USA, where NASA uses it to monitor the health of astronauts in

space. Professor has demonstrated to the Congress of Comparative

Pathology that any vaccination against microbes, by upsetting the terrain,

quite clearly predisposes to viral disease and cancer, as polio vaccination

predisposes to TB. (See the Revue de Pathologie Générale et de physiologie

clinique, January 1958, Vol 694, p. 10).

Professor Dausset, Nobel prizewinner in 1980 for his HLA system (cell

group determination), has said : “Vaccination of infants against a series

of diseases could soon be a thing of the past. Vaccinations would then be

given only for high-risk diseases. We are on the verge of a new epoch when

everyone will receive personalised treatment”.

In Vous et Votre Santé Louis Bon de Brouwer sounds a warning : “Vaccine

damage is not accounted. With vaccination people become reservoirs of virus

and their immune defences are so affected that new and incurable ailments

appear... True medicine has been replaced by a pharmaceutical system whose

only interest is profit, not patients. This holds good for medicaments in

general but when medicine, in the name of prevention, institutes a

vaccination regime which seriously pollutes the bodies of people who are

perfectly healthy...”

Our immune system, which depends on our genetic patrimony, ensures the

endogenous functions that control hormones and antibodies as well as the

cleaning of abnormal or infected cells. This equilibrium can be upset by

injection of foreign proteins, whether attenuated bacterial (BCG), toxins

(tetanus and diphtheria), killed or inactivated viruses (polio,

whooping-cough, flu) or living attenuated virus (oral polio, measles,

rubella, mumps). We should note that live viruses have been found in

centuries-dead bodies, as also a live pathogenic virus in a Coptic mummy.

Viruses Can Recover Virulence

On 19 February 1985 Le Generaliste warned : “A virus, even attenuated, can

recover virulence – in particular the polio vaccine virus, which becomes

pathogenic and generally infectious after passage through the intestines.

Cases of polio in contacts of those vaccinated with oral polio vaccine are

well documented”. In his book, Tutoyer Le Virus, Professor Lise Thiry,

microbiologist, opines that viruses have been “attenuated a little, thanks

to luck”. Could they be attenuated, “thanks to luck”, rather less than they

would like us to believe ? Previously, in 1964, in Maroc Médical, No 43,

De Silva stated : “There is no vaccine strain derived from monkeys

that can be free from neurological virulence”.

For some time Professor R Delong has considered the problem of living

viruses. In Live Viral Vaccine, Biological Pollution, (Carlton Press, New

York, 1996)., he asks : “Have reason and logic abandoned epidemiologists

?”Alarmed that live-virus vaccines could generate new diseases,

malformations, chromosomal aberrations, mutations, or cancers, he writes :

“The intentional, unnecessary introduction of infectious viruses into a

human body is an error deriving from profound ignorance of virology and the

process of infection. [...] The ill that it does is incalculable”. That

vaccines can recover virulence and disturb equilibrium worries him. All

these risks, known for years, are important reasons for an immediate

cessation of all vaccination with living viruses and their manufacture.

Immunologically, Professor Delong finds it inconceivable that most

advocates of vaccines ignore what virologists have discovered in this

field, and that they continue without scruple to infect humans in this way

in the name of immunology : “Living-virus vaccines are experimental at

this time. May we hope that reason will prevail – that this kind of vaccine

will no longer be used?”

His French counterparts are nowhere near so forthright. In March 1987, Que

Choisir asked Dr Louis Léry, who oversees vaccination services at the Lyons

branch of Institut Pasteur, if, in seeking to reinforce immunity, we are

“allergising” the population. He replied : “I take your point but I’m not

rising to it”. Nevertheless, he added : “But if we vaccinate against

diphtheria, tetanus, polio, whooping cough and hepatitis B, that represents

a total of 8 mg of aluminium hydroxide. Then at least one does not

vaccinate allergic infants with this sort of vaccine”.

In other circumstances (before the European Assembly), the same doctor

affirmed : “Vaccination must not be obligatory. It must be considered case

by case and indicated or contra-indicated, and its efficacy must be

determined under surveillance”.

Thirty years ago in Tendance de la Médecine Contemporaine Professor Deloge

had warned his peers : “If we continue to make general use of vaccines and

to introduce more of them we may see in the decades ahead a new pathology,

the vaccinated society”. This new pathology could be AIDS, unknown in

Deloge’s time.

The National Cancer Institute has published studies showing that combined

vaccines can entail more general mutations or recombinations than single

vaccines. It would seem logical that our regulatory system could be upset

by a confusion of vaccines Taking advantage of this situation, viral

particles or the debris of genetic material could lodge in the organism in

such an unforeseeable and insidious way as to induce teratogenic or

carcinogenic consequences in the short or long term.

In Concours Médical, 20 January 1974, Professsor Pariente suggests that :

“To stimulate immunity, whether via tissue or serologically, is not perhaps

without danger”. And, in 1979, in Dangers of Immunization (published by

Biological Research Institute, Warburton, , Australia, 1979)., Drs

Kalokerinos and Dettmann of Australia’s Biological Research Institute, tell

us that : “According to sophisticated research [...] the effect of

vaccination programmes on T lymphocytes shows that the immune system is

substantially damaged after routine vaccinations. A significant part of

these lymphocytes is mobilised by the vaccine antigens and once activated

they become immunologically inert, incapable of reacting to or defending

against other antigens, infections or ailments. These discoveries tend to

show that infant immunological capital is depleted by current immunisation

programmes.”

More recently, the Journal du CNRS, April 1995, No 64, in an item on

Pasteur, raised the question : “What can we say about vaccination’s

prospects ? The time is past when we thought this practice the solution to

all the infectious diseases. Faced with AIDS, hepatitis C and malaria, the

method’s limits and problems are apparent. The main difficulty is

variability, which allows the pathogenic agent to escape the host’s immune

response and establish persistent infection”.

In Immunologie Fondamentale and Appliqué (Editions Medsi, Second Edition

1989), Professor Roitt states : “Results with acute viral infections should

be interpreted with caution. It may be possible to destroy viruses or

infected cells in vitro but is difficult to evaluate the importance of

these mechanisms in vivo.[...] The problem is crucial to vaccination. Since

we do not know the functions of normal protection in human and viral

infections, the production of vaccines remains empiricalThere is a real

danger of activating inappropriate functions, thus provoking more serious

diseases and an immune pathological state.”

Vaccines and AIDS

Quotidien du Médecin, 9 May 1996, looks at an American study that “shows

that antigenic provocation at the time of a tetanus booster temporarily

increases HIV 1 in infected individuals and renders the uninfected more

susceptible to the virus. This apart, the study suggests that bacterial or

parasitical infection seems to worsen HIV and even to predispose to HIV

infection. [...] It has also been shown that replication of HIV 1 is

increased after flu or hepatitis-B vaccination of HIV patients”.

The same journal tells us that a team under Dr Stanley and with Dr

Fausi has shown that vaccination seems to increase susceptibility to

infection in vivo of peripheral lymphocytes in the non-infected : “After

vaccination, viræmia was multiplied by a factor of 2 to 36 (for 13

patients), then fell to initial values over six weeks, and the proviral

charge (number of infected cells) was moderately elevated in the blood

(11/13 patients) or ganglions (2/2). Moreover, the virus was more readily

isolated from the lymphocytes after vaccination than before”.

These publications stress the aggravating role of vaccinations in the

development of AIDS and their role in the onset of HIV in the healthy. They

confirm studies already done in Vienna showing that tetanus vaccination

triggers a pre-AIDS situation, as indicated in the New England Journal of

Medicine, No 3, 1981 (Vol 310). The Austrian research team established that

between the third and fourteenth day after vaccination there was a

significant reduction in OKT 4 and OKT 8 lymphocytes or, in other words,

the vaccinee’s resistance was at its lowest point.

A similar warning is given in L’Eurobiology, No 216, 1995 (Tome XXIX) :

“The consequences of HBs vaccination are now appearing in the

immune-compromised (by drug addiction or iatrogenically), who are incapable

of responding to attempts to stimulate antibody production or achieve

protective level. [...] Specific cell immunity, which plays an important

part, partcularly through the ability of cytotoxic lymphocytes’ to

eliminate viral particles in acute infection, can be hindered by the

appearance of mutants that escape early defences, notably by becoming

defective in HBe antigens – the absence of various cytokines. These

anomalies are of concern as regards fulminant or chronic hepatitis B

because of reactivation of secreted viral particles when a another episode

of low immunity occurs. [...]”. Evidently, any vaccination entails a

reduction in immunity – and they insist on vaccinating at-risk subjects

against hepatitis B !

Diagnosis of a disease is frequently based on symptoms without any attempt

to identify the micro-organisms alleged to cause them. Thus when a vaccinee

contracts the disease in question, it may be diagnosed as a different

disease. After the introduction of Salk polio vaccine, cases of polio were

reported as viral meningitis and between 1955 and 1966 polio cases fell

whereas viral and aseptic meningitis cases rose.

In 1995, Vous et Votre Santé put out a special issue (No 4) on vaccinations

that everyone should read : “Mass vaccination is blind, rigid, routine and

heresy. It is retrograde and inappropriate and fails to recognise that

immunity is different for each of us. When someone is injected who is

already equipped with protective antibodies, as can happen, this is a case

of someone incubating the disease in question.

“Any therapy, whether curative or preventive, should be individualised,

hence the terrain is taken into account, which runs counter to compulsory

mass vaccination. Any vaccination should be preceded by a check on antibody

level to eliminate those already immunised”.

We stress here that any vaccination will produce a reaction, slight or

severe, or even fatal. Any vaccination constitutes an assault that the

subject may or may not be able to cope with. How many children find

themselves in a special home because of a handicap after immunisation ?

How many suffer from chronic fatigue, autism, hyperactivity, cancer,

leukæmia. degenerative disease, allergies ? How many are on dialysis or

heavy medication, or were found dead in their cots?

[Guest guest]

Hi Sheri

Just received an email from Sylvie and have ordered a copy of her

book. Thanks for contacting her for me, regards Debbie

> >>

> >> http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/sylviesimon.doc.

> >>

> >> From the ONLY woman (that I know of) in France trying to save

> >babies,

> >> children & adults from vaccines.

> >> A novelist and journalist working hard to make a difference and

> >get the

> >> word out (which is extremely difficult in France).

> >> Attitude in France is that nothing is wrong with any vaccines.

> >They are

> >> somewhat isolated from the world in that so many only speak

French.

> >> Doctors aren't even aware of vaccine problems and don't know

what

> >

> >

> >WARNING: The remainder of this message has not been transferred.

> >The estimated size of this message is 85626 bytes.

> >Click on the server retrieve icon above and check mail again to

get the

> whole thing. If the server retrieve icon is not showing, then

this message

> is no longer on the server.

> >

>

> --------------------------------------------------------

> Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath

> Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

> $$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

> vaccineinfo@t... voicemail US 530-740-0561

> (go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

> Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

> Vaccine Dangers On-Line course -

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

> Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm

> ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL

> OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS

ALONE.

> ******

> " Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside

down.

> Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities

destroy

> knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy

information

> and religions destroy spirituality " .... Ellner

>