Tag Archives: Bmj

Non-Profit Co-Founder Ousted By Vaccination Ideology He Supported

Cochrane Gøtzsche

Founder of non-profit Cochrane Collaboration Dr. Peter Gøtzsche, John McDougall YouTube

“We acknowledge the concerns that groups ideologically opposed to vaccination may exploit scientific uncertainties or propagate fraudulent research, e.g. Andrew Wakefield and co-workers’ unfounded claim that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine can cause autism. However, this does not mean that we should not openly discuss and investigate possible harms of vaccines in a misguided attempt to protect their reputation.” – Gøtzsche et al. to the European Ombudsman, November 2, 2017

What Peter Gøtzsche claimed to denounce in the second sentence is exactly what happened to Dr. Andrew Wakefield and what has just happened to Gøtzsche himself. A co-founder of the non-profit Cochrane Collaboration and director of the Nordic Cochrane Centre has been evicted from the board of the organization he helped establish after publishing critically on the HPV vaccine. Sound familiar?

Wakefield’s GlaxoSmithKline-funded ex-boss Mark Pepys admitted, “We paid him to leave.” Then Pepys forced Wakefield’s coauthors into a retractionsabotaged vaccine injury litigation in the United Kingdom and leaked medical records to a freelance opposition researcher.

Yet the victim, according to Gøtzsche as recently as last May, is the opposition researcher who illegally obtained disabled children’s medical records (translated from Danish):

“He (Wakefield) is a fraud. And it is quite unreasonable that people are shooting at Brian Deer who revealed it. He has made a sober contribution, and BMJ’s chief editor also calls Wakefield’s study a fraud. It takes a lot for an editor-in-chief to say such things. I have nothing more to say.”

It takes a lot of Merck and Glaxo money to say such things. That’s the same editor who ironically cites Wakefield not joining his coauthors in the fraudulent, Pepys-forced retraction as evidence of fraud. But Gøtzsche probably thought he could insulate himself from attack by throwing Wakefield under the bus. Sorry doc, doesn’t work like that.

Either you can criticize any vaccination or none at all. Either all doctors are safe from pharmaceutical industry retaliation or none are. Obviously, no one is safe. Wakefield was the rule, not the exception. Criticizing vaccinations brings you into “disrepute” no matter who you are.

Too bad Peter Gøtzsche didn’t get the memo before he was ousted from his own non-profit organization. GlaxoSmithKline wants to profit off all its drugs and vaccines. The doctor is no economist. He’s also no crusader against the pharmaceutical industry, just an opportunistic hypocrite.

Sir Mark Pepys – GlaxoSmithKline’s Medical Record-Leaking “Superstar”

“ARGUABLY THE FINEST PRIVATE COLLECTION OF CHILDRENS MEDICAL RECORDS..” -Cartoon satirizing a photo of freelance writer Brian Deer, http://adversevaccinereaction.blogspot.com/

“I know the names and family backgrounds of all 12 of the children enrolled in the study, including the child enrolled from the United States.” – Brian Deer on children seen at London’s Royal Free Hospital, BMJ, 2010

“Brian Deer has done an excellent job.” – Royal Free’s Head of Medicine Dr. Mark Pepys, BBC Radio, 2011

The GlaxoSmithKline puppet who bullied coauthors of the Wakefield autism-vaccine paper into signing a fraudulent retraction also leaked the medical records of children in that paper.

As you would expect from a doctor who cares nothing for patient safety, Dr. Mark Pepys does not care about patient confidentiality either. He has praised the freelance writer who obtained confidential medical information about patients seen at Pepys’ own hospital. Dr. Pepys even allowed that writer to quote him divulging information he had promised to keep secret.

The writer Pepys praised, Brian Deer, had no right to the names or family backgrounds of any of those children. That didn’t phase Mark Pepys who agreed to be interviewed by him.

Even worse, Pepys was the Head of Medicine at the Royal Free Hospital when Deer obtained confidential information on patients seen there. No investigation as to how that happened was ever launched. Instead, the Royal Free “investigated” doctors who saw the children including Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

Mark Pepys is 100% responsible for all leaks of patient information to the media, given his position at Royal Free. In his interview with Brian Deer, Pepys revealed he had no respect for confidentiality by leaking conditions for the departure of Dr. Wakefield from the hospital staff:

“one of the conditions of him going away was that I wasn’t supposed to say anything critical of him to anybody, for ever after.”

That condition wasn’t kept by GlaxoSmithKline’s designated “superstar.”

Any patient who enrolls in Sir Mark Pepys’ GlaxoSmithKline trials should know that Sir Leaksalot will sell out both their safety and their privacy for commercial gain.

Fake Medical Protection Society Won’t Say Vaccine Criticism is Free Speech

Dr. Robert Hendry, Medical Director of Medical Protection Society, BMJ Blogs

The UK’s Medical Protection Society sure does a hell of a job defending medical experts of vaccine injury. Just a few months ago, its medical director contributed a blog to the BMJ. That journal called the 1998 autism-vaccine paper fraudulent despite knowing that it isn’t.

But nothing says more about the Medical Protection Society than its decision to yank £500,000 from the lead author’s appeal. That is except for the following question Autism Investigated asked of MPS regarding the General Medical Council hearing.

Is this a legitimate judgement to make against doctors as GMC has made against Wakefield and Walker-Smith?

“b. You knew or ought to have known that your reporting in the Lancet paper of a temporal link between the syndrome you described and the MMR vaccination, Admitted and found proved i. had major public health implications, Admitted and found proved ii. would attract intense public and media interest, Admitted and found proved”

RESPONSE:

Dear Mr Crosby

I have been forwarded copies of your emails of 30 June, 5 July and 6 July 2018.
I am afraid due to member confidentiality I am not able to respond to the questions you raise.
Yours sincerely
Dr R A Hendry
Medical Director

“Confidentiality” is no excuse to duck saying whether or not publishing alleged vaccine injuries amounts to misconduct. The Medical Protection Society might as well “protect” doctors from accusations of heresy. Its no different, after all.

Comment to Del Bigtree That He Out Lancet Liar Richard Demirjian and Son


Lancet Liar Richard Demirjian Libels Vaccine-Autism Science. Comment here, include contact info below.

My son’s autistic behaviors did NOT begin a week after administration of the vaccine, in fact they began several months afterwards with several medical complications occurring in between. The bottom line is that, if my son is indeed Patient 11, then the Lancet article made a false assertion set in immediately after MMR. -From letter by Richard Demirjian, Lancet Liar

That is who Del Bigtree is keeping anonymous. Demirjian is a fabricator. He knowingly lies that his son was misrepresented in an early vax-autism paper. Richard Demirjian does NOT deserve the title of Lancet Father. He is the Lancet Liar!

Here is what the paper really says about his son Vahe Demirjian.

Only “viral pneumonia” is mentioned, nothing about autism

Richard Demirjian knows what the paper says. Autism Investigated left messages. He blocked Autism Investigated from calling.

His son has blocked Autism Investigated on Facebook when shown the above table. Therefore, the Demirjians are evil people. They throw your kids to the fire.

Please comment underneath Del Bigtree’s new episode. Tell him to out Lancet Liar Richard Demirjian and his son. They don’t deserve to be hidden.

Share their contact information obtained by Autism Investigated everywhere you can so that other people can write the Demirjians. We need to tell them that the anti-vaccine movement will tell the world that they have no character. Therefore, they must retract their lies about vaccine-autism science and tell the BMJ to retract its attacks on the Lancet paper.

Vahe Demirjian’s online contact information:

https://vahedemirjian.academia.edu/contact
www.facebook.com/vahe.demirjian.1
vahedemirjian@cox.net

Richard Demirjian’s phone number and address:

949 718 0180
11 Canyon Terrace, Newport Coast, CA 92657

BLOCKED – Lancet Child 11 Refuses Autism Investigated Contact

Vahe Demirjian blocks Autism Investigated’s editor

Vahe Demirjian blocked Autism Investigated on Facebook. Below is the email Autism Investigated sent to Lancet Child 11 Vahe Demirjian just last week. He knows he is Lancet Child 11 and that the vaccine people used his medical records to spread lies about The Lancet paper, Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the vaccine-autism link. Vahe can still be reached through Facebook (www.facebook.com/vahe.demirjian.1), he’s only blocked Autism Investigated. You can also email him (provided below). His father’s number is 949 718 0180, he lives at 11 Canyon Terrace, Newport Coast, CA.

Nowhere in this table from the paper does it say that Vahe’s autistic symptoms because within one week of the vaccine, as the BMJ and Richard Demirjian falsely claim.

 

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: You Are Child 11 in The Landmark Vaccine-Autism Paper
From: <info@autisminvestigated.com>
Date: Mon, November 13, 2017 10:55 pm
To: vahedemirjian@cox.net

Dear Vahe,
This is Jake Crosby – editor of AutismInvestigated.com – I am an autist like you. I am writing to tell you that you are child 11 in Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s 12-children 1998 paper published in the medical journal The Lancet. It described autism and bowel disease connected to vaccination. Your dad is quoted in the British Medical Journal as falsely saying that your medical history was misrepresented in that paper in a hit-piece calling it fraudulent: http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347
 
He insists this because he was led to believe that the paper described you as developing autism within one week of your vaccination, but it doesn’t. The fraud accusations are a lie in their entirety.
I’ve been trying to get a hold of your father, leaving multiple messages on his answering machine. He has not called me back. The truth is that many children with autism are suffering because of the false statements your dad made about how you were portrayed in that paper. Many children continue to be needlessly harmed and denied care. The paper remains wrongly retracted. (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/abstract) While you are fortunately doing well, many children and adults are struggling.
So I would greatly appreciate it if you could please put me in touch with your dad so I can talk to him. He can easily make this right simply by taking back his accusations against The Lancet paper and Dr. Wakefield and by publicly demanding that the British Medical Journal [retract] its attacks on them.
I would also appreciate hearing from you too. You can reach me at this address or on my cell by dialing [REDACTED]. I look forward to hopefully getting in touch with you.
Best,
Jake Crosby, MPH

 

Contact Lancet Family 11: Richard, Aida and Vahe Demirjian

The summary of each key member of the Demirjian family is as below.

Richard Demirjian, father 11, lives at 11 Canyon Terrace, Newport Coast, CA below. Call him to share your the story about your child and urge him to take back his false accusation that The Lancet paper is fraud. His number is 949 718 0180.

Aida Demirjian (photo credit: Palisades Tennis Club of Newport Beach), child 11’s mother, apparently escaped the notorious serial killer nicknamed the “Bedroom Basher.” Could this explain why Richard Demirjian (call at 949 718 0180 to share your story, but be civil) was paranoid enough to believe Dr. Andrew Wakefield fabricated his son’s records despite also believing his son is vaccine-injured? Read PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs. GERALD PARKER (a.k.a. the Bedroom Basher). His death sentence was just upheld by the California Supreme Court.

Vahe Demirjian (photo from Facebook profile) is child 11 in The Lancet paper, son of Richard and Aida Demirjian. It is Vahe’s case that was allegedly fabricated, but it wasn’t. Despite Richard Demirjian’s claim that the paper reported Vahe’s autistic symptoms as beginning one week after the vaccine, the paper describes the first symptoms associated with exposure as “viral pneumonia.”

Vahe Demirjian can be reached at vahedemirjian@cox.net. He is an adult and knows how his medical records were used for lies. Please contact him too.

INTRODUCING Vahe Demirjian – The Lancet Paper’s Very Own Child 11

This charming-looking young man was the 11th child in the landmark Lancet paper authored by Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

An inquiry from Autism Investigated to Vahe’s email address vahedemirjian@cox.net has not gone answered. Autism Investigated will update readers if that changes. Meanwhile, Autism Investigated encourages readers to write Vahe to tell him about your child’s struggles and what his dad Richard Demirjian’s horrific smear attack on Wakefield means to you. (dad’s phone and address found here)

Meanwhile, here’s a rundown of where he works and attends college, from Facebook:

He’s quite a prolific Facebook poster too. Here’s a sample of what he’s written:

Although today’s Democratic victories in New Jersey and Virginia have been interpreted by some as signs of anti-Trump energy, the exit polls released by NBC News make clear supporting or opposing Trump is not the main reason for Democratic victories in the governor races in New Jersey and Virginia because maybe some war veteran voters still think that Trump is temperamentally unfit to control himself when handling North Korea.

Clearly, he is doing well compared to most other people with autism. Maybe that’s worth reminding him of too.

Think Autism Investigated is too harsh? Think Autism Investigated is prying too much into the lives of the Demirjians? Watch the below video of what parents in the Demirjians’ home state can now expect when they walk their children to the school bus stop. Without a doubt, the vaccine people want to spread this all over the country. They’ve already done it in California by taking advantage of the Demirjians’ paranoia. California might even deny doctors the right to exempt schoolchildren from vaccination.

Facebook Vahe Demirjian: https://www.facebook.com/vahe.demirjian.1

Write Vahe Demirjian: vahedemirjian@cox.net

Call Richard Demirjian: 949 718 0180

Here is where he lives: 11 Canyon Terrace, Newport Coast, CA

Send them InfoWars’ video, and tell them what happened to your child. Also tell them that nowhere in this table from The Lancet paper does it say Vahe’s autistic symptoms began one week after vaccination as Demirjian claimed:

:

Therefore, Richard Demirjian must RETRACT his BMJ claim of fabrication or be rightfully regarded as dishonest for living this lie.

FOUND: Richard Demirjian, Father of The Lancet Paper’s Child 11

Richard Demirjian’s house: 11 Canyon Terrace, Newport Coast, CA

It’s happened folks. Richard Demirjian, father of The Lancet paper’s child 11, has been located! He lives in the above house high up in the hills of Southern California – 11 Canyon Terrance, Newport Coast to be exact. His phone number is 949 718 0180. Autism Investigated was able to find it all online, posted publicly.

Despite multiple left voice messages, Autism Investigated could not get Demirjian on the phone. He simply won’t speak to Autism Investigated, but maybe he could speak to you. Call his number.

If he doesn’t answer, and he most likely won’t, leave a message about what happened to your own kid. Also, ask him to take back his false allegation that The Lancet paper was wrong on when 11’s autism occurred. Do not be threatening, do not use abusive language. This is simply a teachable opportunity to politely tell Demirjian about the harm he has caused and how he can help make it right.

Otherwise, his name will forever be associated with the lies used to justify hiding vaccine dangers. He will also no longer be given the benefit of the doubt that he was deceived and instead be rightfully painted as a liar.

BMJ Deceived Lancet Parent Into Attacking Dr. Andrew Wakefield

The British Medical Journal (BMJ)’s commissioned writer Brian Deer duped the father of the 11th child described in The Lancet paper into believing his son’s case was misrepresented. That father, Richard Demirjian, was led to believe the paper said his son’s autistic symptoms began weeks after vaccination when the report said no such thing. The Lancet paper was perfectly consistent with what Demirjian said happened to his son.

So Autism Investigated wrote BMJ editor Dr. Fiona Godlee about how Deer misrepresented Demirjian’s son. Yes, it was that Dr. Godlee who Autism Investigated’s editor confronted back in 2011.

Despite past history, she replied cordially:

Thank you for your message. Might you or Richard Demirjian send a rapid response to the article on BMJ.com. We can then ask Brian Deer to respond. Best wishes. Fiona Godlee

But two months after Autism Investigated submitted a rapid response at her invitation, she coldly rejected it:

I have now had an opportunity to discuss this with our lawyer. We will not be publishing your rapid response. It is highly defamatory of Brian Deer and the allegations you raise have already been refuted in detail by Brian Deer on his website. Best wishes, Fiona Godlee

When asked for details, Godlee gave no reply.

In any case, read the below response and see for yourself if it defames Brian Deer. It doesn’t, but it shows Deer and the BMJ defamed Wakefield – in large part by deceiving parent Richard Demirjian.

Lancet father 11 hammers a nail into the coffin of Deer’s fallacious allegations

Brian Deer republished his Sunday Times accusations in the BMJ knowing that they were refuted in Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s 58-page press complaint against him and against the newspaper that ran the article two years prior.(1) Deer’s justification for doing so was the GMC’s ruling in favor of his earlier accusations of unethical research.(2) He has also misled a parent of one of The Lancet paper children (child 11) into believing The Lancet paper misrepresented the child’s case, but the wording in The Lancet paper itself confirms that the child’s case was not misrepresented.(3) The GMC’s findings have been overturned,(4) and a letter from the parent corroborates that The Lancet paper accurately represented his son’s condition.(5)

Two months after the article was published, Brian Deer received a letter from the parent of The Lancet child 11 that directly contradicts Deer’s account. Yet no correction has ever been made in the BMJ.

In the first article of Brian Deer’s MMR series for BMJ, Deer wrote of The Lancet Child 11:

But child 11’s case must have proved a disappointment. Records show his behavioural symptoms started too soon. “His developmental milestones were normal until 13 months of age,” notes the discharge summary. “In the period 13-18 months he developed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements. Over this period his parents remarked on his slow gradual deterioration.”

That put the first symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy received the MMR vaccination. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father’s eye. What the paper reported as a “behavioural symptom” was noted in the records as a chest infection.(6)

However, Deer’s claim that child 11 regressed before the vaccine was disputed by child 11’s father in the letter he wrote to Deer (that is currently posted on Deer’s website):

One of the incorrect statements in my son’s discharge report was that autistic symptoms were seen from 13-18 months, while the vaccination was at 15 months. This is clearly inaccurate as his symptoms began several months after the MMR, as reflected in my initial correspondence to the Royal Free requesting my son be included in the research study.(5)

In the private meeting between Deer and father 11 that was referenced in Deer’s article, Deer had apparently misled the father into believing The Lancet paper misrepresented his son’s case. In that same letter to Deer, father 11 echoed Deer’s false statement that The Lancet paper put child 11’s first autistic symptoms at one week after the vaccine when in fact, the paper makes clear that that was only when child 11’s first behavioral symptom (associated, as also described in Table 2, with recurrent “viral pneumonia”). The first symptom, that could have been any of a number of behaviors such as permanent or chronic change in sleep pattern, occurred after vaccination. The table father 11 referred to in The Lancet paper makes no mention of onset of first autistic symptoms.(3) Father 11 corroborates The Lancet paper and contradicts Deer’s BMJ article.

Despite Deer being told by father 11 directly that his son did not regress until after his vaccination, Deer made no effort to correct the misinformation in his BMJ article. On Deer’s personal website, he even continues to cast doubt on father 11’s account:

Which is true for child 11? Who can say, years later? The father says one thing, the medical records another. Nobody can time-travel back to the 1990s. And in lawsuits, it is the records that usually count. But, whichever version is right, Wakefield’s story was not. Neither can be reconciled with The Lancet.(7)

The fact is there is only one correct version: The Lancet paper account corroborated by father 11 twice, both in his correspondence with the hospital and with Deer. The incorrect version is the faulty discharge summary exploited by Deer to mislead. This is not the first time that evidence was submitted to BMJ that dismantles the article’s veracity post-publication.

When other evidence was previously brought to the journal in November 2011 that also supported The Lancet papers findings,(8)(9) Deer deflected by referring back to the GMC findings.(10) Though Deer cited them to add credibility to all his allegations, the findings themselves have been deemed unsustainable by an English High Court ruling.

In 2012, Justice Mitting overturned the GMC decision that The Lancet paper had misrepresented its patient population, was unethical and was part of a litigation-funded project.(4) By extension, the paper’s lead author Dr. Andrew Wakefield could not have been dishonest for not disclosing that the paper was funded by litigation or was part of that project when neither was the case.

In fact, the court decision refutes all the GMC findings that Dr. Wakefield broke any rule of professional conduct as laid out in GMC’s Good medical practice guidance.(11)(12)(13) Likewise, there is no existing justification for the paper’s retraction.(14) The Lancet knows this. When I confronted The Lancet ombudsman, Dr. Malcolm Molyneux, with the fact that the GMC findings that served as the basis for the retraction were killed, all he could say was:

In the retraction statement, the editors of The Lancet stated that “several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect. In particular….’” The retraction then mentions the enrolment procedure and ethical clearance, but implies that there remain other elements on which the decision was based.(15)

As the above statement reveals, the ombudsman is unable to state a single reason for the paper to remain retracted. Furthermore, there can be no “other elements on which the decision was based” since the retraction statement only cites the GMC findings – now overturned.(14)

Of Brian Deer’s many false claims, among the most egregious is his deceiving father 11 and misrepresenting child 11’s case.

1.     http://www.autisminvestigated.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Complaint_to_UK_PCC1.pdf

2.     http://briandeer.com/solved/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf

3.     See Table 2: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext

4.     http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.rtf

5.     http://briandeer.com/solved/dan-olmsted-child-11.pdf

6.     http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

7.     http://briandeer.com/solved/dan-olmsted.htm

8.     http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/09/re-how-case-against-mmr-vaccine-was-fixed

9.     http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/17/re-pathology-reports-solve-%E2%80%9Cnew-bowel-disease%E2%80%9D-riddle

10.   Deer dismissed slides from The Lancet paper co-author Dr. Andrew Anthony later supplied by Dr. David Lewis on the excuse that Dr. Wakefield could have tampered with them. The only supporting evidence Deer offered of tampering was the GMC’s ruling that Dr. Wakefield had been “dishonest” based on the disciplinary findings that were since overturned. http://briandeer.com/solved/david-lewis-2.htm

11.    See 12a, which proves Dr. Wakefield was not professionally obligated to disclose his personal connection to litigation or his patent application to the editor of The Lancet. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/30191.asp

12.    See page 8, endnote 7, which refers to the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) rules for when Research Ethics Committee (REC) approval is necessary. (NRES link in endnote no longer works) http://www.gmc-uk.org/Good_practice_in_research_and_consent_to_research.pdf_58834843.pdf

13.    NRES rules prove Dr. Wakefield’s birthday party blood draws did not require REC approval because they were not done on patients, therefore falling outside GMC’s authority to make any judgement on the matter. http://www.hra.nhs.uk/documents/2013/09/does-my-project-require-rec-review.pdf

14.    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60175-4/fulltext

15.    http://www.autisminvestigated.com/the-lancet-dr-andrew-wakefield/

INFOWARS: ENORMOUS BASIC LIES ABOUT VACCINATION

Why wasn’t this a gigantic story in the press? Why hasn’t the government investigated?

Q: Yes. That’s what I’ve been taught.

A: But you see, there is one vaccine (Hepatitis B) that is given to a baby the day it is born. The baby has no immune system of its own. In fact, some researchers say a child doesn’t fully develop his own immune system until age 12-14.

Q: Yes? So?

A: A vaccine can’t cause the desired “rehearsal” unless the recipient has his own immune system. That’s obvious.

Q: But that would mean the vaccine can’t work during those years when a child doesn’t have his own fully developed immune system.

A: Correct.

Q: But then all the experts would be wrong.

A: That’s right.

Q: What about the elderly? We constantly hear they must get vaccines because they have weak immune systems.

A: That’s another piece of fake information. Vaccines can’t make a weak immune system stronger. According to conventional wisdom, vaccines merely prepare a functioning immune system for a disease that will come along later. Actually, a vaccination given to people whose immune systems are weak can have a decidedly negative effect. The vaccination can overwhelm the weak immune system.

Q: But we have a great deal of information stating that vaccines have wiped out traditional diseases. The success rate has been remarkable.

A: Two points here. As Ivan Illich states in his book, Medical Nemesis: “The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” (Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977)

Q: What’s the other point?

A: When the experts claim vaccines have wiped out traditional diseases, what are they really saying? They’re saying that the visible symptoms of those diseases are seen rarely now, compared with earlier decades. But why have those visible symptoms receded into the background?

Q: Yes, why?

A: It could be because those symptoms have been wiped out. But it could be because those symptoms have been suppressed.

Q: I don’t understand.

A: Consider the basic symptoms of measles. Rashes, fever. Conventionally speaking, are they simply the result of infection by the measles virus? No. The symptoms are a combination of infection AND the body’s immune system reacting to the germ. That reaction—the inflammatory response—is the body’s attempt to throw off the effects of the germ. THAT’S WHY WE SEE THE SYMPTOMS.

Q: Yes? So?

A: Vaccines contain toxic elements. Germs, chemicals like aluminum, formaldehyde. If these toxic substances weaken the immune system, then there will NOT be a full inflammatory response. The immune system won’t be capable of mounting that response. Therefore, the visible symptoms of the disease won’t appear, when the real disease comes along. Do you understand?

Q: Yes. The immune system is too weak to fight back.

A: The vaccination weakens the immune system. So when the measles disease actually comes along later, the person who received the vaccine won’t be able to fight it off easily. Therefore, you won’t see rashes and fever. The rashes and fever occur when the immune system is capable of mounting a full response.

Q: Therefore?

A: Therefore, after mass vaccination campaigns against measles, it will seem as if measles has been wiped out because, by and large, we don’t see the traditional symptoms anymore. But that’s an illusion. Measles hasn’t really been wiped out. Instead, people are now suffering from a weakened immune system, and symptoms of THAT will be different.

Q: That’s a disturbing idea.

A: Yes it is. Because now you’re talking about chronic illness, not acute measles which burns out quickly in the presence of a fully functioning immune system.

Q: Wait a minute. For a long time, millions of cases of measles have been reported in the Third World, where children’s immune systems are very weak. So the symptoms of measles WERE visible.

A: Yes. Let’s say those children’s immune systems were, at one time, barely strong enough to mount an inflammatory response. That’s why the rashes and fever appeared. But then, after vaccination with toxic elements, that wasn’t the case anymore. All those children were now “below the line.” When the measles came along, you could no longer see the symptoms. After vaccination, their immune systems were too weak to mount the inflammatory response. This isn’t “we wiped out measles.” This is “we replaced measles with chronic disease.”

Q: You seem to be saying we need to make people’s immune systems stronger. That’s the real answer. Then children will get the real diseases and overcome them—and then they’ll be immune for life.

A: Yes, absolutely.

Q: What medical “fix” will do that?

A: There isn’t any. Making a person’s immune system stronger is a non-medical situation. It involves better nutrition, better local sanitation, and other factors, none of which have to do with medical treatment.

Q: You’re also saying that a weak immune system opens the door to all sorts of disease conditions.

A: Correct. Vaccination can’t cure a weak immune system. The solution has to be non-medical.

Q: I don’t imagine medical experts like that idea.

A: That would be a vast, vast understatement.

Q: But there must be a medical solution to weak immune systems.

A: Why?

Q: Because if there isn’t, everything we’ve been taught is wrong.

A: And you can’t accept that?

Q: If I did accept that, it would mean the medical system has a large stake in keeping people’s immune systems weak.

A: And miles of propaganda tell you that couldn’t be true.

Q: Right.

A: Whose problem is that?

SILENCE.

Q: I don’t want to think about this. I’d rather bury my head in the sand. Let me shift the conversation to something you wrote about—the flu vaccine. This troubles me, too. You quoted author Peter Doshi, who published an article in the BMJ Journal. Can I quote you?

A: Feel free. Go ahead.

Q: “Dr. Peter Doshi, writing in the online BMJ (British Medical Journal), reveals one monstrosity.”

“As Doshi states, every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory samples are taken from flu patients in the US and tested in labs. Here is the kicker: only a small percentage of these samples show the presence of a flu virus.”

“This means: most of the people in America who are diagnosed by doctors with the flu have no flu virus in their bodies.”

“So they don’t have the flu.”

“Therefore, even if you assume the flu vaccine is useful and safe, it couldn’t possibly prevent all those ‘flu cases’ that aren’t flu cases.”

“The vaccine couldn’t possibly work.”

“The vaccine isn’t designed to prevent fake flu, unless pigs can fly.”

“Here’s the exact quote from Peter Doshi’s BMJ review, (BMJ 2013; 346:f3037)”:

“’…even the ideal influenza vaccine, matched perfectly to circulating strains of wild influenza and capable of stopping all influenza viruses, can only deal with a small part of the ‘flu’ problem because most ‘flu’ appears to have nothing to do with influenza. Every year, hundreds of thousands of respiratory specimens are tested across the US. Of those tested, on average 16% are found to be influenza positive’.”

“…’It’s no wonder so many people feel that “flu shots” don’t work: for most flus, they can’t’.” (end of Doshi quote)

“Because most diagnosed cases of the flu aren’t the flu.”

“So even if you’re a true believer in mainstream vaccine theory, you’re on the short end of the stick here. They’re conning your socks off.”

A: You have a question about this?

Q: More like a…it’s shocking. Deeply shocking.

A: It’s supposed to be shocking. Facts sometimes are.

Q: But how could this escape mainstream journalism? Why wasn’t this a gigantic story in the press? Why hasn’t the government investigated?

A: Why don’t you answer your own question?

Q: Because I’m afraid my answer would shock me.

A: And whose problem is that?

SILENCE.

This article first appeared at NoMoreFakeNews.com.