oil vaccines 1964

[Guest guest]

ADJUVANTS IN USE and WORKING IN 1964

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1815579/

A lot of people in the 2012 vaccine

idustry seem to be under the impression that ONLY aluminium has EVER

been used for adjuvants until around 20 years of so ago.

Nothing could be farther from the

TRUTH.

First ONLY aluminium is ambiguous since

the range of aluminium adjuvants is very large.

Today there are at least THREE major

classes of DIFFERENT aluminium adjuvants.

For a medical fraternity that will

argue that methyl mercury is NOT the same as ethyl mercury (it is

SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT) it seems strange that they would imagine a

natural and NEUTRAL compound of aluminium would be the same as the

BASIC hydroxide of almuinium about as far different as you can get

without moving to ACIDIC chlorides of aluminium.

Modern vaccines with NOVEL species of

aluminium are regularly passed off as the same as those used before

REGULATION. But theyu are known NEUROTOXINS. How can a RESPONSIBLE

regulatory agency allow CONTINUING, INCREASING, DIFFERENT neurotoxins

to be injected into children at such earlier ages that we are

dexposing them even in the WOMG and in face of LONG, HARD, DIFFICULT

to prove ADVERSE EVENTS from 50 years ago and the debacle of

thalidomide.

Moving to oil adjuvants, there were two

papers in August 1964 discussing TRIALS of oil adjuvant vaccines.

This is NOT the first usage but a retrial to bring them into

practice.

The second paper is instructive as it

follows in time the production of immunity and its slow decline over

a period of time and the need for the annual boosters.

A sobering thought therefore that

perhaps NOONE has immunity from any illness if they haven't had their

SHOTS as we inflict on baby now from the time he is in the womb until

he is a TEENAGER.

But sobering also that in 1964 they

could tell you exactly HOW much or HOW little immunity you had. Today

if you haven't got 100 per cent proof yourself its roll up roll up

roll up your sleeves. There are serious HEALTH implications to using

anyone as a pin cushion when modern medicine has so ways to keep us

healthy or return our health if our million year immune system can't

cope with biowarfare experiments inside vaccine plants and their

accidental spills into the local community.

Revaccinating the protected is a

distinctly, DANGEROUS practice, since even in 1964 it was obvious

some vaccinees ANTIBODY levels went sky high with implications of

possible CASCADE events. Ie. seizures, epilepsy and death.

Nobody MUST think that vaccines do NOT

work. They clearly, measurably and scientifically DO work but if used

in the hands of persons with limited knwoledge can kill you while

guaranteeing that you will NEVER die from that particular vaccine

preventable illness. How much vaccine science does the person giving

you your vaccine REALLY know.

You have in effect got a SUPER but

LETHAL amount of antibodies to protect you. Enough antibody to save

your town from illness in effect. But too much for one LIVING person.

Perhaps they use these people to RECOLTE the next years supply of

VACCINE?

I only ask, as in the FIRST paper, they

did magnaminously look at the SAFETY and WELFARE of the vaccinees.,

until it got too embarrassing that is.

There were three groups:

Group 1 to be tested for three winters

1 619 people 65 years of age of which

81 didn't make it. They died. Percentage dying given down to 1 per

cent. Strange because if you add all up, you get over a 5 per cent

kill rate. QUITE impressive for a vaccine for a minor illness.

Now for three winters you might argue

this is high?

But if you read the paper you find that

they ABANDONED this group EARLY in their TRIALS.

Group 2 also to be tested for three

winters.

2 341 with chest problems (bronchitis)

of which 127 didn't make it. They died. Again percentage figures seem

this time to be quoted less than 3 per cent but globally again it is

over a 5 per cent kill rate.

Again this trial was HALTED early.

So we have a new OIL ADJUVANT vaccine

killing over 5 per cent of the trial group.

IS THIS SAFE?

Difficult! Difficult for the COMMITTEE

to decide that is. Is this the fault of any COMMITTEE? They can watch

DEATH in the face at a rate higher than PANDEMIC and then recommend

this PRACTICE to be widespread and in use. GREAT!

Included in this eminent committe I

note PROFESSOR SIR ( not MEADOW) but BRADFORD HILL. Are these HONOURS

always DEBILITATING?

How do they HANDLE this in the 1960's?

Well lets put this first in our PAPER.

We expected these people to DIE.

GREAT!

That's WHY we chose them.

They didn't, they SELECTED their group

so as NOT to react badly.

Do I believe this?

Only if I believe in FAIRIES.

Only if I believe you can TRUST YOUR

DOCTOR.

Only if you believe of vaccines: THEY

WOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING TO HURT YOU.

Anyway its a bit tempting to take them

at their word. It is in the BMJ.

But in their favour they do say:

It is difficult to say that these

vaccines PROTECT.

At the very end after the discussion is

the summary:

Lets put this in FULL

Analysis of deaths in

the old and bronchitic patients failed to reveal any effect

of vaccination on

mortality due to influenza, respiratory disease, or all causes.

So give someone an OIL based flu jab,

watch 1 in 20 die and you can't see a single problem with your

vaccine?

What Planet do vacciniders come from?

And they do say: WE CUT THE RECORDING

OF DEATHS SHORT.

They planned an experiment and REFUSED

to follow it through.

Obviously the deaths would not rest at

5 per cent.

And cutting short did not mean the

patients AVOIDED any dodgy vaccines.

It simply meant they were ABANDONED to

their fate, to their death and we rest IGNORANT what the final tally

was for these VOLUNTEERS.

The rest of the time was for the

BENEFIT of the volunteers to monitor their HEALTH.

Because of what was going on they

refused the WELFARE of their experimental groups.

Not JUST lab rats but DISCARDED lab

rats washed down the PLUGHOLE of life to certain DEATH.

They mention USA oil adjuvant work a

decade earlier with oil vaccines circa 1954.

And they do in this first BMJ paper

talk of OPERATIONS for NON FATAL conditions after vaccines but my

article rests on the ONE in TWENTY dead and the conclusion that the

VACCINES paly no part in this GENOCIDE. And that one in twenty in

medical speak can be as little as 1 per cent. AMAZING!

A continuing tradition and medical

practice repeated until 2012 where they cheerfully list on vaccine

inserts (get out your electron micrscopes) all the dead bodies and

then tell you its COINCIDENCE.

So there it is:

1964 1 in 20 death is a COINCIDENCE

from new oil adjuvant flu vaccines. We forgot PROPER controls or did

they? No CONTROLS as it is more convenient not to have them.

1980 Peaking of cot deaths (not then

called SBS, MSBP FII et al) at 1 in 500 is a COINCIDENCE and

coincidentally ONLY if babies are fully vaccinated as for non

vaccinated the coincidence falls to 1 in 500 000. Controls by now

were UNETHICAL.

2000 21st Century vaccine

inserts state: 1 in 1 000 dead is a COINCIDENCE and again the

coincidence is not there in unvaccinated at these levels. Controls at

present are both UNETHICAL and EMBARRASSING

Getting there SLOWLY? NOT?

RUSSIAN ROULETTE is not a good turn of

phrase as in RUSSIA these TOXIC vaccines are NOT USED in ANY vaccine,

BY LAW.

ADJUVANTS IN USE and WORKING IN 1964