Germs, vaccinations and science

Since the very beginning of vaccinations we have been told that they are based on science. But that couldn’t be further away from the truth. Reality is that vaccines are based on folklore, myths, assumptions, wishful thinking and a lot of lies.

Let’s start with the concept of natural immunity. We all know that if you have had e.g. measles or smallpox once you are protected for life and will never get it again. Right? Wrong. This kind of immunity has never been proven to exist. It’s folklore. Many people get these diseases only once and so this idea developed. And once everyone believed it this idea became fact. But if you ask around you will be surprised how many people have had e.g. measles, chickenpox or whooping cough multiple times. It’s not even rare. And of course most people won’t know that they had it multiple times, for “you already had the measles ten years ago, so it can’t be measles”. This kind of thinking is not limited to doctors’ offices. Most people will believe this.

Folklore 1 – Science 0

But viruses cause disease, so the body needs to defend itself against them. Right? Wrong. When you look into the background of virology you will be in for a shock. From the very beginning it was all assumptions. A sick plant was assumed to be affected by a germ. When something new was found this was assumed to be a germ. Then it was assumed that this new germ was the cause of the disease. And that was the start of virology. (It appeared later that plant disease was caused by a nutrient deficiency, caused by monoculture. That made it the first nutrient deficiency disease that was blamed on a virus. Many others would follow.)

Assumptions 1 – Science 0

germs

But scientists can see how viruses enter cells and that’s how they learned how they cause disease. Right? Wrong. Viruses are way too small to be seen under a light microscope and an electron microscope kills them immediately. All a person can see is fragments of DNA, which are assumed to be viruses. All the stories about how viruses spread, how they cause disease and how the body defends itself against them are fantasies. They cannot be based on anything else, for nobody can know what a fragment of DNA can do.

Fantasy 1 – Science 0

But germs spread easily and when we have a disease we can infect others. Right? Wrong. The idea of infectious diseases is folklore. It’s true that often multiple people in the same group get a disease and it’s not so hard to see how people came to the conclusion that this means one person gives it to another. But just like with immunity this incorrect idea became fact and nobody ever questioned the fact again. In reality many people in the same group don’t get the disease. And those who do get sick have a lot of other things in common. Infectious diseases have never been proven to exist.

But this myth has led to other made up explanations, like the story of the incubation period. Why would a germ wait a week or longer before making someone sick? And why doesn’t the immune system attack the germ immediatly? It doesn’t make sense. It’s a theory that was developed out of necessity. If someone gets e.g. measles who hasn’t been anywhere near someone with measles for a week, then a week must be the incubation time. As many people tend to get the flu at the same time the flu must has a very short incubation time (and as so many people get the flu it must be highly contagious). This is all “must be” science, which of course is no science at all.

Folklore 1 – Fantasy 1 – Science 0

So if immunity doesn’t exist, germs don’t cause disease and infectious diseases are folklore, then what about vaccinations? They are based on all these incorrect beliefs. Yes, exactly. That’s why they don’t work. None of them. Not a bit, not for a short time, not for some people. Just not. They cannot work. But most people who are vaccinated against measles don’t get it. Right? Wrong. They don’t get the measles diagnosis, but that’s something entirely different. Doctors are trained and instructed not to diagnose these kind of diseases in vaccinated individuals. There are many stories of doctors who diagnosed disease X and then changed that diagnosis as soon as they heard that the patient was vaccinated. “If it looks like measles, it feels like measles and it sounds like measles, but the patient is vaccinated against measles, then it’s anything but measles”. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Besides doctors are very bad in diagnosing anyway. Which is not so strange, as many diseases are not so easy to diagnose as we are led to believe. All these rashy diseases children have look a lot like each other. They can come with a lot of spots, or just a few. They can come with a fever, or without. The kid might feel sick, or not. So generally these diseases are diagnosed based on disease history and vaccination status. The same goes for coughs, fevers and other problems. For adults it’s not much different. We have been trained to believe that disease diagnoses are based on facts and science, but in reality the diagnoses are all over the place and largely depend on the personal interests or knowledge of the doctor.

Beliefs 1 – Science 0

Vaccine-in-vial-with-syringe

So do vaccinated individuals get all the diseases they are vaccinated for? Generally they do. Or they don’t, but that has nothing to do with the vaccine. If you would vaccinate children against broken bones there is a good chance that it would “work” for most, as most children don’t break bones. That’s hardly science.

So what does science really say about vaccinations? It says that they are based on a lot of myths, folklore, fantasies and assumptions and that no scientific facts are involved. Science also says that injecting babies, children, teenagers and adult with large amounts of toxic substances inevitably will lead to health problems. (But actually we don’t really need science for that. A good dose of common sense will lead to the same conclusion.) And that’s also exactly what we see in society. Sick is the new healthy and there aren’t a lot of healthy children left. Doctors and scientists have no idea why we are all so sick. So they keep researching and researching, trying to find answers that are staring them in the face. But they rather blame genes than vaccines. Because genetics has a lot of prestige and you can make a good career studying that. But if you are a scientist or doctor who points out everything I have written here then your career is generally over.

Vaccines are not about science, they are about beliefs. And those who turn against the religious establishment they once belonged to are treated like heretics.

Religion 1 – Science 0

(This is a blog, not a book. So I need to keep it short. If you want to know more about all this, you can easily look it up yourself. The information if plentiful and can be found everywhere, on line and off line. You can also read my books “The Fiction of Science” and “Medical Mythology”, both for sale at Amazon.)

 

 

Advertisements

Polio, numbers and herd immunity

3d Little man looks through a magnifying glass at percent sign

Let’s do a bit of medical calculating. About polio, also known as infantile paralysis (because it rarely happened in adults). Before there was a vaccine everyone over 10 years old was supposed to be immune. They were assumed to have had the infection and developed life-long immunity against it. That’s about 85% of the population. Most children would also have been exposed, without getting sick. Considering the quite low rate of paralysis we can set the percentage of immune children at 90%. That means that only 1.5% of the population did not have immunity, which equals a herd immunity percentage of 98.5%. That’s more than a vaccine could ever cover. Nevertheless this didn’t stop some children from getting polio.

In spite of this simple scientific fact the polio vaccine is still pushed in most countries in name of herd immunity. For “there must be at least 95% vaccine coverage to protect everyone”. If 98.5% natural immunity didn’t work, the 95% of vaccine immunity most definitely won’t work.

Science: 0

Common sense: 10

Melanoma therapy trials – more of the same

New research has found that some therapies could stop melanoma from spreading or returning. Well, that’s what they hope. But is that hope based on anything?

“One Australian dies every five hours from advanced melanoma,” That’s about 1500 a year. And the number is probably increasing, just like with all cancers. And melanoma therapies have not been particularly effective, just like with all cancer therapies. “Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) said the findings could change the way the cancer is treated in the future.” Could, but not will. But I suppose that’s because they are still trials. The problem is that all those medical trials rarely lead to anything useful and therefore there is no news value in publishing this kind of stuff. But I suppose that without publishing “promising research” the medical journals couldn’t exist anymore.

7928628-3x2-940x627“block the BRAF gene — which causes melanoma to spread.” Ah, another genetic cancer, which was rare or non-existent 100 years ago. It’s amazing how quickly all these genetic diseases have spread. I have no idea how researchers find genes that they can blame for diseases, but it cannot possibly be based in science. Generally it’s a matter of “so many people with this gene have the disease”, so the gene must be the cause. But many people with the disease don’t have the gene and many people with the gene don’t get the disease. Which makes the correlation very weak at best. And BTW, a gene is nothing more than a complex molecule. I’m not sure how you can block a molecule.

“found the therapy prevented Stage III melanoma from recurring, and helped improve patients’ overall survival rate.” How long have these studies been going? To improve survival rates you would need to keep going for at least five years and to be sure that the cancer indeed doesn’t come back you would need to have at least 20 years. I don’t think that has happened. Cancer statistics are usually highly manipulated to make them look better than they are. If the patients that got the therapy developed another cancer and died from it, then the melanoma didn’t recur. But that didn’t really help the patient. Oncology is chockful of smokescreens and most cancer patients don’t know it.

“said the drugs reduced the rate at which the disease would return by 53 per cent.” Professor Scolyer, how do you know that? And how exactly did you measure this? “basically stop melanoma in its tracks,” Does it really? Or does it so in theory? And what does this mean for the life expectancy of the patients? For the latter is what matters, not all the theories about one disease. It’s remarkably that oncologists never talk about life expectancy, which is the only thing that is important. If you don’t get melanoma back, but you die from another cancer, or a heart attack, then this is hardly helpful. “also reduced the rate the disease would return by about 35 per cent. ” Same here. Why doesn’t it return? Is the patient healthier? That’s not very likely, considering the high toxicity of cancer treatments.

“worked to help boost the body’s own immune system to fight the cancer.” These are the most bizarre types of cancer treatment. Boosting the immune system should be done with good food, fresh air, sunshine, low stress, happiness and such things. The idea that you can improve the immune system with toxic drugs is weird, not to say laughable.

melanoma“But he said it was too soon to tell if those drugs improved overall survival rates.” Huh? Professor Scolyer, you have me confused now. The new drug stops melanoma and prevents it from recurring, but you don’t know if it actually works? What are you talking about? “They only work locally, but don’t prevent the disease if it’s already spread elsewhere,” So you say that you don’t know why people get melanoma and why they get cancer somewhere else, or what that means. You actually say that you don’t know much at all. I already got that impression. “there must be little seeded deposits of little cells that we can’t detect now ” This sounds a bit desperate, like you really don’t know what you are doing and make a wild guess. If the therapy would remove those deposits, then the patients should survive longer. But you just say that you don’t know about that.

Then we still get a story of a cancer patient who was part of the trial and has a really positive story. But at a closer look the story isn’t that positive at all, but full of mights and maybes. And how the other people in the trial do is unclear. Probably not so good, for else it would have been mentioned.

The reality is that in the war on cancer no battles have been won. A few have been undetermined, but most battles have been lost. And a lot of number manipulation, vague terminology and other smokescreens are necessary to hide this. The only ones that benefit from cancer treatments are the pharmaceutical businesses that make the drugs. Cancer drugs are the most profitable category and the manufacturers would like to keep the many billions of dollars coming.

It is a scientifically proven fact that in most cases not doing anything gives a much better life expectancy than getting conventional treatments. And it is also a scientifically proven fact that natural therapies cure cancer and they usually do that fast, cheap and without any dangerous side-effects. But there is not a lot of money in them and so patients aren’t told this life-saving information.

Anti-vaccine myths debunked?

Professor Brendan Murphy, Australia’s chief medical officer, says that there is no truth in the anti-vaccine campaign. And he’s a professor, so he knows, right? Wrong. Very wrong. Just the idea that an “education campaign” will work where blackmail failed is so absurd, that you can’t take the person suggesting it seriously.

“suggested autism might be linked to vaccines was “completely false and has been debunked.” Professor, did you see the movie Vaxxed? Or are you saying that everyone is lying, including official CDC documents? You say that thoroughly proven CDC fraud is a figment of the imagination? Then you live in fantasy land yourself. I suppose you didn’t like the movie to be such a success and now you are showing your despair? Not smart to show it so clearly. It will just make more people wonder what your problem is.

“with evidence-based information that parents could easily access.” Evidence-based information? I would like to see that. My guess is that it will be just the same unscientific propaganda as usual. 8522258-3x2-340x227Professor, you cannot convince anyone with repeating the same old stuff again and again. You would have to come with something new. Maybe you can make a documentary about a pro-vax whistleblower who exposes all the anti-vax lies? Somehow I feel like it wouldn’t quite work, because you couldn’t find the evidence.

“Nationally the immunisation rate is 93 per cent” I would love to see proof of that. Parents stop vaccinating in large numbers. Many others never even start. And nobody changes their mind once they stop (though some can be blackmailed). But the government keeps telling us that the vaccination rates remain stable, or even go up. Something is seriously wrong with the statistics.

“our job here to say that message is false, untrue, incorrect.” Now it gets funny. Your job is to say this? Wouldn’t it be your job to prove this? You know, many parents have found truckloads of proof to know that vaccinations and unsafe and ineffective. You telling them that they are wrong won’t make a difference. Don’t treat the citizens of Australia like they are just as dumb as their government. It will backfire big time, you know.

“in relation to a [measles] breakout at a local school,” Mr. Hunt, you speak like a politician who has no idea about reality. Oh wait, you are. Two cases of measles is not an outbreak. It’s not worth media hysteria. It’s not news. It’s just two cases of measles. Just like there are cases of measles everywhere. But in vaccinated children the disease is not diagnosed as such.

“Our baby Dana died from whooping cough.” Every baby who dies is a tragedy. But many babies get whooping cough and survive. With the right treatment it’s nothing but a very unpleasant experience. On the other hand at least one baby a week dies from the whooping cough vaccine. Why doesn’t that get any attention from the government? An education campaign should show both sides of the story. Else it’s a propaganda campaign. The government has used the help of this family multiple times before. It didn’t work then, it won’t work now. Come with something new, Mr. Hunt.

images.duckduckgo.com“Doctors said diseases like measles could be wiped out through immunisation.”Doctors say a lot, but that doesn’t mean they are correct. Doctors are trained and actively encouraged not to diagnose vaccine diseases in vaccinated individuals. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, but the only thing that gets wiped out is the diagnosis, not the disease. Families who stop vaccinating usually know this. You can’t fool them anymore repeating the same old stuff.

“But Professor Murphy said nearly eradicated diseases like polio could also spread again” Also polio has been nominally eradicated by renaming it. There are now more people with paralytic diseases and more people using ventilators than there ever were before 1950. Renaming a disease doesn’t make the vaccine effective. It just shows how ineffective the vaccine is. After all, if it would work the renaming trick wouldn’t be necessary.

“seeing the horrible complications from measles,” Professor Murphy, you are now intentionally telling lies. Or you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And again, the parents who have stopped vaccinating know that you are lying. So repeating your lies might make them laugh or shake their heads, but that’s about it.

“Parents need facts and that is what this campaign does. Get the facts.” Your campaign will present facts? That I would like to see. So far it sounds like it will be nothing more than a repetition of the old propaganda. And if you would know anything about psychology you would know that this campaign will just make more people curious why you think you need to repeat the old stuff. And why you can’t come with something new and convincing. Just like all the negative talk about the movie Vaxxed made people go to the screenings in large crowds. I would like to know how many people have Googled Vaxxed after the avalanche of warnings. Your new campaign will likely do the same.

“Immunisation is incredibly safe, and it does save lives.” Why don’t the manufacturers accept liability for a product that is so incredibly safe? Can you explain that, professor? And if vaccines are such a fantastic product, then why exactly do you feel that you need to spend 5.5 million dollars for an advertising campaign? A good product sells itself. You don’t need to blackmail people to buy it. And BTW, I can imagine that many people are not happy that so much tax money is spent for an advertising campaign. It gives them the feeling that you have other interests than the health of the people.

Vaccinations are not based on science. From the very beginning they were based on myths, lies and greed. And luckily the people start to see that. A government campaign won’t change that. And that is really not rocket science.

Iron, rust and Alzheimer’s disease

Australian researchers say they have discovered a new link between Alzheimer’s disease and the levels of iron in the brain. They can think all kinds of things, but that doesn’t mean that they are correct.

They start out with an assumption that has been proven to be incorrect: “amyloid — the Alzheimer’s protein”. That story about amyloid plaques and Alzheimer’s has been debunked decades ago, but that is generally ignored. Modern scientists do that a lot, which automatically makes their work unscientific.

“Three-dimensional brain scans suggest lower iron levels may delay the progress of memory loss” It suggests that it may. That’s not a discovery, that’s a theory.  “scientists have known for some time that iron levels in the brain rise with age.” Why? Is there a reason for this? Does it happen to everyone? If it doesn’t happen in everyone, then this statement is incorrect and the rest of the research is rubbish.

“this iron elevation that occurs in humans and all mammals is unnecessary,” Unnecessary? According to whom? Considering that evolution doesn’t allow for flawed design you say now that God has made a mistake. That’s quite arrogant, professor Bush. I tend to not listen to people with a god complex. ” if the two phenomenon occur together you get conditions that appear to lead to Alzheimer’s disease.” If that happens. So under what circumstances does that happen and why does it happen so much more now than a hundred years ago? Dementia is an epidemic and that has very little to do with the increased age of the population.

8742698-3x2-700x467

“amyloid, which scientists have long known” Nope, they have assumed that for a long time. And once it was proven to be incorrect they didn’t correct their assumption. And from that moment research became pseudo-science. “the amyloid with such high levels of iron that seems to set up the deterioration.” Professor Bush, how large was your control group? How many old people without cognitive problems did you put into your scanners? I assume none, as that would not be ethical and it would be hard to find volunteers. Without a control group your findings are worth nothing.

“occur very early on and allow us to actually predict the age at which a person is going to come down with symptoms.” You can predict that? How would you know? You make gigantic assumptions here, which most probably will never amount to anything. Like with most medical research.

“That’s going to help us with our drug-making in particular.” Professor Bush, can I ask who paid for this research? It sounds like you were just told to come up with something that would create options for a new drug. But I’ll tell you a secret: Alzheimer’s disease is not caused by lack of a drug. No disease is caused by lack of toxic pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, these drugs do cause a lot of disease. Why won’t you do a study to see if there is a correlation between the use of certain drugs and Alzheimer’s? Just a suggestion. It would make a lot of sense, wouldn’t it? Except that it will be hard to find anyone who would pay for this.

Here’s another suggestion. Cultures that eat a lot of turmeric and coconut oil have very low incidence of Alzheimer’s. That strongly suggests Alzheimer’s is an inflammatory disease. You see, professor, that makes sense. And I’m sure that it could pretty easily be proven to be correct. So why don’t you do some useful research for a change?

A new drug to fight viruses

Researchers think they will soon have a “breakthrough” drug to help the immune system fight viruses. But the immune system works on things like good food, lack of poison, fresh air, sunshine and happiness. So how can a toxic drug help?

The new drug would “negate the need for some vaccinations”. That sounds odd. Vaccines are the backbone of the pharmaceutical industry and their only hope in financially uncertain times. So why would they want something that takes away the needs for vaccines?

“They said the treatment could help save the lives of 3,000 Australians aged over 50 who died each year because of the flu,” 3000? Over 50? That almost sounds like the flu is a dangerous disease that can even kill middle aged people. Luckily that’s not true. These kind of numbers are completely made up. It’s not so easy to determine the cause of death, especially when someone has multiple medical problems, which is often the case nowadays. So if someone has lung problems, bad kidneys and a very bad immune system and then the flu makes a visit, then the person doesn’t die from the flu. He/she dies from a very weak body, that can’t handle the flu anymore. And many of these people end up in hospital, which is so dangerous that almost anyone who “died from the flu” probably died from the bad medical treatment.

8721202-3x2-340x227“enhanced viral disease in mice” and was highly likely to have the same effect in humans.” Let’s put this into the category wishful thinking. Many things that work fine in mice and rabbits do not work in humans. Besides it’s often overlooked that the mice die or get health problems after the treatment and that is usually something that does show up in humans as well.

“protein that causes inflammation” Inflammation is a very important reaction. Something you really don’t want to mess with. “reduces the immune system’s ability to clear infection”. Now it gets interesting. The science behind the flu is laughable, as I explain here. Viruses don’t cause disease anyway, so how exactly does the immune system clear an infection with a non-existing pathogen?

“Professor Doug Brooks said viruses had evolved over the past 500 million years”. Professor, I can only shake my head here. You are using the belief in evolution to explain non-existing viruses? I would have thought that someone with the title professor would at least use a bit of science. But you have entered now the area of pure fiction. You should consider writing novels.

“You don’t get all the cell death, all the inflammation and all of the mucus.” So you are saying that all those billions of years of evolution have resulted in a body that doesn’t know how to fight an infection. You are saying that what the body is doing is wrong. That definitely sounds like you have a god complex, but that doesn’t combine well with your belief in evolution.

“with no side effects” No side effects? That would be the first drug that doesn’t have any side-effects. Someone should really draw you back to reality. “unnecessary to create new flu vaccines each year” And why would anyone (except the ordinary person) want that?8721284-3x2-700x467 Even though the flu shot sales go down every year, the profits are still pretty high. Big Pharma won’t let anyone get in between them and their profits. Unless they would expect this new drug to become a blockbuster, which is highly unlikely. “the body could generate its own antibodies”: But professor, don’t you know that antibodies have nothing to do with immunity? That has already been known for a very long time. If you don’t know that, then why would anyone take you seriously?

“anti-viral drugs that must be taken in the early days of contracting a virus to be effective,” Anti-viral drugs effective? I suppose that depends on your definition of efficacy. Do these drugs kill viruses? Well, they are so toxic that they kill loads of things in the body, also the viruses that the body produces to get healthy. Virus dead, patient dead, drug effective. Hardly the kind of drug that doesn’t have any side effects. If you compare your product to these drugs, then we can only expect the worst.

Let’s face it: the last thing the world needs is another flu-fighting drug. The current anti-viral drugs have already killed many and saved none. There is no reason to think that a drug that interferes with the defense mechanisms of the body will be any better. The best way to get over the flu quickly is to take high doses of vitamin C and D. Cheap and totally safe. (Don’t you know that, professor?) Add a box of tissues and few days off work and you will be fine. The most important thing to do when you have the flu is to stay away from doctors. They will give you all kinds of drugs that only increase your chances of death. And that, professor Brooks, has been thoroughly scientifically proven.