Please tell my I'm wrong (leaky vaccines)

[GodsHound]

Everything i've read on the leaky vaccine theory seems logical and sound, and corresponds exactly with current updates on mutations and variants.

I have to also admit that this leaky vaccine mechanism fits within all of the conspiracy theories... It's a perfect mechanism for breeding dependence within a mass of people - conforming individuals will get vaccinated and help to mutate a virus, increasing lethality, until it is so dangerous that non-conforming individuals will no longer have a choice but to vaccinate or perish... It's brilliant...

Or perhaps this is just the ways things are meant to end... the leaky vaccine theory is the perfect "**** you" from nature to humanity for actions of stifling life and bastardising the natural order. A never ending cycle of viral mutations that brings the modern world to its knees... a natural mechanism for wiping the slate clean...

So... please tell me why this theory cannot or will not occur... or else tell me what the way out of this is...

 

[TheSir]

1. The vaccine doesn't significantly hinder the spread of the virus as it is, resulting in little additional evolutionary pressure.

2. A vaccine-bypassing mutation doesn't necessarily mean that the virus will become more dangerous, since how dangerous the virus is has minimal relevance to the reproductive success of the virus and vice versa. To the contrary, more lethal viruses are less successful in the long term, guaranteed to fizzle out quicker than viruses with low mortality. This is why practically all persistent viral diseases become weaker over time, with or without vaccination.

 

[Michael Mohn]

1. The vaccine doesn't significantly hinder the spread of the virus as it is, resulting in little additional evolutionary pressure.

2. A vaccine-bypassing mutation doesn't necessarily mean that the virus will become more dangerous, since how dangerous the virus is has minimal relevance to the reproductive success of the virus and vice versa. To the contrary, more lethal viruses are less successful in the long term, guaranteed to fizzle out quicker than viruses with low mortality. This is why practically all persistent viral diseases become weaker over time, with or without vaccination.

Looks like you haven't read much about leaky vaccines. A good vaccine prevents infection, prevents transmission and lowers morbidity/ severity of symptoms. A leaky vaccine only lowers morbidity/symptoms and allowing more dangerous virus strains to propagate instead of being eliminated with their host.

This whole pandemic looks like it becomes the wet dream of the pharma industry. The back to normal narrative is on its way out. Swedish Professor Says 5 Shots Of COVID Vaccine May Be Necessary | ZeroHedge

 

[GodsHound]

1. The vaccine doesn't significantly hinder the spread of the virus as it is, resulting in little additional evolutionary pressure.

2. A vaccine-bypassing mutation doesn't necessarily mean that the virus will become more dangerous, since how dangerous the virus is has minimal relevance to the reproductive success of the virus and vice versa. To the contrary, more lethal viruses are less successful in the long term, guaranteed to fizzle out quicker than viruses with low mortality. This is why practically all persistent viral diseases become weaker over time, with or without vaccination.

Hi thanks for reply...

I am under the impression that it is not additional evolutionary pressure that creates the mutations of variants, but simply sustaining the environment for the virus to survive. And that as viruses mutate rapidly anyway... just by extending the amount of time the virus can survive within a set of hosts, or even reducing the symptoms within that set of hosts which also allows for an increased rate of transmission (as less hosts are bed-ridden and isolated) the virus is kept alive within the community for longer and has a greater chance to mutate.

But why successful mutations would be more dangerous is very good point! Like you said it would be not be favourable for a viral strain to be particularly deadly if it 'wants' to maximise rates of infection. BUT within a vaccinated community it wouldn't matter as the majority of hosts would survive anyway, it would only be the FEW unvaccinated people that would get rekt.

So it's not so much any added pressure on the virus to evolve but simply providing an environment that promotes random mutations of all kinds of variation which will inevitably include some of higher lethality. And the greater the percentage of vaccination within a community, the more "discreet" and "subtle" these mutations become, while still becoming vastly different to an unvaccinated person.

 

[Sitaruîm]

Everything i've read on the leaky vaccine theory seems logical and sound, and corresponds exactly with current updates on mutations and variants.

I have to also admit that this leaky vaccine mechanism fits within all of the conspiracy theories... It's a perfect mechanism for breeding dependence within a mass of people - conforming individuals will get vaccinated and help to mutate a virus, increasing lethality, until it is so dangerous that non-conforming individuals will no longer have a choice but to vaccinate or perish... It's brilliant...

Or perhaps this is just the ways things are meant to end... the leaky vaccine theory is the perfect "**** you" from nature to humanity for actions of stifling life and bastardising the natural order. A never ending cycle of viral mutations that brings the modern world to its knees... a natural mechanism for wiping the slate clean...

So... please tell me why this theory cannot or will not occur... or else tell me what the way out of this is...


View attachment 26321

The fact that hospitals are full of vaccinated people rather than unvaxxed seems to contradict this.

 

[TheSir]

A good vaccine prevents infection, prevents transmission and lowers morbidity/ severity of symptoms.

Note that no vaccine does all of this, hence they all depend on herd immunity.

A leaky vaccine only lowers morbidity/symptoms and allowing more dangerous virus strains to propagate instead of being eliminated with their host.

So it's not so much any added pressure on the virus to evolve but simply providing an environment that promotes random mutations of all kinds of variation which will inevitably include some of higher lethality.

Since there is no reason for a virus to mutate into a more dangerous version unless it is specifically driven to do so, it remains as you say, that only by bad luck could such a thing occur. Which, in case of something as harmless as coronaviruses, would translate to 'astronomically bad luck'. I can't see it as a realistic fear. A possibility, sure.

 

[Michael Mohn]

Note that no vaccine does all of this, hence they all depend on herd immunity.

Since there is no reason for a virus to mutate into a more dangerous version unless it is specifically driven to do so, it remains as you say, that only by bad luck could such a thing occur.

It did occure. Please, do some reading on a subject you comment on. Marek's disease - Wikipedia.

Herd immunity is not a medical phenomena but a statistical model. It just exists in some mathematician's imagination.

 

[Michael Mohn]

Note that no vaccine does all of this.

Smallpox vaccine did it all. But it is probably the only one. All vaccines today are feasting on the reputation of one success story.

 

[Michael Mohn]

Hi thanks for reply...

I am under the impression that it is not additional evolutionary pressure that creates the mutations of variants, but simply sustaining the environment for the virus to survive. And that as viruses mutate rapidly anyway... just by extending the amount of time the virus can survive within a set of hosts, or even reducing the symptoms within that set of hosts which also allows for an increased rate of transmission (as less hosts are bed-ridden and isolated) the virus is kept alive within the community for longer and has a greater chance to mutate.

But why successful mutations would be more dangerous is very good point! Like you said it would be not be favourable for a viral strain to be particularly deadly if it 'wants' to maximise rates of infection. BUT within a vaccinated community it wouldn't matter as the majority of hosts would survive anyway, it would only be the FEW unvaccinated people that would get rekt.

So it's not so much any added pressure on the virus to evolve but simply providing an environment that promotes random mutations of all kinds of variation which will inevitably include some of higher lethality. And the greater the percentage of vaccination within a community, the more "discreet" and "subtle" these mutations become, while still becoming vastly different to an unvaccinated person.

I guess mutations are just adaptation of the virus to different hosts and some adaptation might be more dangerous to latter infected. In unvaccinated these dangerous mutations just prevent themselves from being transmitted by forcing the host to isolate due to severe symptoms or death. In vaccinated they can be passed on and later in unvaccinated cause severe symptoms. The process in Marek's disease took decades and the animals were vaccinated on an industrial scale. I wonder who it could replicate in an uncontrolled human population.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Everything i've read on the leaky vaccine theory seems logical and sound, and corresponds exactly with current updates on mutations and variants.

I have to also admit that this leaky vaccine mechanism fits within all of the conspiracy theories... It's a perfect mechanism for breeding dependence within a mass of people - conforming individuals will get vaccinated and help to mutate a virus, increasing lethality, until it is so dangerous that non-conforming individuals will no longer have a choice but to vaccinate or perish... It's brilliant...

Or perhaps this is just the ways things are meant to end... the leaky vaccine theory is the perfect "**** you" from nature to humanity for actions of stifling life and bastardising the natural order. A never ending cycle of viral mutations that brings the modern world to its knees... a natural mechanism for wiping the slate clean...

So... please tell me why this theory cannot or will not occur... or else tell me what the way out of this is...


View attachment 26321

The whole concept of "Leaky Vaccines" revolves around traditional vaccines, which use a (supposedly) dead or weakened version of the virus to stimulate immunity.

Despite the Covid shots being called "Vaccines," they are absolutely nothing like any drug sold or called a "vaccine" prior to 2020. If you aren't worried about this concept with other drugs (like SSRIs, Benzodiazepines, HCQ, Ivermectin, etc) or treatments (like radiation), I don't know why you would be worried about "Leaky mRNA Shots."

 

[JohnHafterson]

I guess mutations are just adaptation of the virus to different hosts and some adaptation might be more dangerous to latter infected. In unvaccinated these dangerous mutations just prevent themselves from being transmitted by forcing the host to isolate due to severe symptoms or death. In vaccinated they can be passed on and later in unvaccinated cause severe symptoms. The process in Marek's disease took decades and the animals were vaccinated on an industrial scale. I wonder who it could replicate in an uncontrolled human population.

This biologist has some good videos on the immulogy, national security, and virology of things. He discusses the corona virus being a perfect vehicle due to its size to deliver drugs and other things. The virus is always mutating usually with non viable errors etc. Covid may have been altered to have less error rates. He discusses evolution of strains and things like viral swarms and quasispecies in this video:


View: https://m.twitch.tv/videos/1109331513

 

[Kozak]

Hi thanks for reply...

I am under the impression that it is not additional evolutionary pressure that creates the mutations of variants, but simply sustaining the environment for the virus to survive. And that as viruses mutate rapidly anyway... just by extending the amount of time the virus can survive within a set of hosts, or even reducing the symptoms within that set of hosts which also allows for an increased rate of transmission (as less hosts are bed-ridden and isolated) the virus is kept alive within the community for longer and has a greater chance to mutate.

But why successful mutations would be more dangerous is very good point! Like you said it would be not be favourable for a viral strain to be particularly deadly if it 'wants' to maximise rates of infection. BUT within a vaccinated community it wouldn't matter as the majority of hosts would survive anyway, it would only be the FEW unvaccinated people that would get rekt.

So it's not so much any added pressure on the virus to evolve but simply providing an environment that promotes random mutations of all kinds of variation which will inevitably include some of higher lethality. And the greater the percentage of vaccination within a community, the more "discreet" and "subtle" these mutations become, while still becoming vastly different to an unvaccinated person.

How the vaxxed will survive a "more dangerous" mutation? Their cells are made of steel and blood replaced by acid?

 

[psans]

Smallpox vaccine did it all. But it is probably the only one. All vaccines today are feasting on the reputation of one success story.

Frequency and Clinical Features

Smallpox vaccine is less safe than other vaccines routinely used today. The vaccine is associated with known adverse effects that range from mild to severe. Mild vaccine reactions include formation of satellite lesions, fever, muscle aches, regional lymphadenopathy, fatigue, headache, nausea, rashes, and soreness at the vaccination site.13,18,19 A recent clinical trial reported that more than one-third of vaccine recipients missed days of work or school because of these mild vaccine-related symptoms.18

In the 1960s, serious adverse events associated with smallpox vaccination in the United States included death (1/million vaccinations), progressive vaccinia (1.5/million vaccinations), eczema vaccinatum (39/million vaccinations), postvaccinial encephalitis (12/million vaccinations), and generalized vaccinia (241/million vaccinations).20 Adverse events were approximately ten times more common among those vaccinated for the first time compared to revaccinees.20 Fatality rates were also four times higher for primary vaccinees compared to revaccinees.21

Inadvertent inoculation is the most common adverse event associated with smallpox vaccination. It occurred at a rate of 529 per million vaccinations in a 1968 study.20 Inadvertent or accidental inoculation usually occurs when a person transfers the vaccinia virus from the vaccination site to another location on their body, usually the eyes, mouth, nose, or genitalia.20,22 Most lesions resolve without therapy, but vaccinia immune globulin (VIG) may be useful for difficult lesions. VIG can be considered for use in patients with severe ocular vaccinia, but it may increase the risk of corneal scarring.17,23

Progressive vaccinia (a.k.a. vaccinia necrosum, vaccinia gangrenosum) is defined as an uncontrolled replication of vaccinia virus at the vaccination site that leads to a slow and progressive necrosis of surrounding tissue.24 Satellite necrotic lesions typically develop, and ultimately vaccinia virus may be found in other tissues and organs.24 This condition typically affects individuals with incompetent immune systems.24,25 The cardinal clinical signs of progressive vaccinia include an unhealed vaccination site >15 days post vaccination, and the lack of inflammation or an immune response at the vaccination site.24,25 Untreated progressive vaccinia is fatal, but treatment with VIG or the antiviral cidofovir may be effective in some cases.24,25 VIG and thiosemicarbazone treatment in the late 1960s and 1970s reduced the fatality rate for progressive vaccinia from near 100% to 33%.23,25,26 Surgical debridement or amputation may also provide some benefit.24, 25

Smallpox Vaccine: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Smallpox inarguably shaped the course of human history by killing countless millions in both the Old World and the New World. Dr. Edward Jenner's discovery of vaccination in the late 18th century, and the global eradication of smallpox in the 1970s, rank ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[psans]

Smallpox vaccine did it all. But it is probably the only one. All vaccines today are feasting on the reputation of one success story.

William Egan , FDA testifying on vaccines to Congressman Dan Burton

They say that Pictures say a thousand words.I would like to add to that and say, that videos sometime give away much more than pictures, and some of them are just priceless. Like this one. If you a…

vaccinerisks.wordpress.com

Congressman Dan Burton : Mr Egan, has Thimerosal ever been tested by a health agency?
William Egan(WE) : (Clearly uncomfortable) Aaah…Its been early, in the world(slurring), those early tests that you know of, uh… that were done by, ahhhh… Eli Lily.
CDB (Interrupting) : And when was that tested? It was done in 1929.
WE : Yes
CDB (Continuing) : And lets just follow up on that.In 1929, they tested this on 27 people who were dying of meningitis . And all of them died of meningitis. And so they said, there was no correlation between their deaths, and the mercury in the vaccines. That is the only test that has ever been done on Thimerosal, that I know of. Do you know any other?
WE : No, in people , no. Except for accidental exposures over the…
CDB (Again, interrupting) : So we have mercury that has been put into people’s bodies ,and has been since the thirties, and it has never been tested by our health agencies. And yet, you folks come here , and you testify that there is no ‘conclusive evidence’ (emphasises here) and the IOM(*) says they favor, – get this – they don’t say they are sure, they say they favor rejection of a causal relationship between Mercury and Autism and other neurological disorders. Mr Egan, can you tell me right now that that amount of Mercury injected into a baby will not hurt it?
WE : Its.. You know, its, its , its impossible to (small pause) make those categorical statements that one hundred percent ….
CDB (Interjecting) : Thats right, That’s what I want you to say.
WE : (Incorrigible, almost inaudible) …..
CDB : So it *is* possible, that the amounts of mercury, when injected, even in trace amounts, could damage a child neurologically. Right?
WE : (Nodding, but still looking at the derrière of that imaginary person in front of him) I don’t think it has that capactity
CDB : ( Laughing, more like a snortish laugh) Hnnn Hnnn Hnnn
WE : I mean , you know, we can argue , but (looking at Dan burton with a smile for the 1st time)..(speech again drifts off)
CDB : I know you think it is, but you cannot say categorically, can you?
WE : Do I ? (Swallowing hard now) Do I have evidence for every single child ,for every p..possible dose, the answer is no (with emphasis)
CDB : There you go. We’ve been after this for eight years now.Progress is being made but sometimes I feel like its, its pulling a wisdom tooth, where they get in your mouth with both feet and both hands and they are jerking that tooth off.Its so hard, so hard to get it moving

 

[psans]

12. In 1956 the AMA (The American Medical Association) instructed each licensed medical doctor that they could no longer classify polio as polio, or their license to practice would be terminated. Any paralysis was now to be diagnosed as AFP (acute flaccid paralysis) MS, MD, Bell’s Palsy, cerebral palsy, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s Disease), Guillian-Barre (GBS), meningitis, provocation poliomyelitis, transverse myelitis, viral or “aseptic” meningitis, Chinese Paralytic syndrome, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, etc Included under the umbrella term “Acute Flaccid Paralysis” are Poliomyelitis, Transverse Myelitis, GBS, enteroviral encephalopathy, traumatic neuritis and Reye’s syndrome. Immunization This was orchestrated purposely to make the public believe polio was eradicated by the polio vaccine campaign but because the polio vaccine contained toxic ingredients directly linked to paralysis, polio cases (not identified as polio) were skyrocketing…but only in vaccinated areas. Your Child. Your Choice. Today most vaccine inserts declare paralysis as a potential side effect but “reframe it” as Guillian Barre or simply “paralysis”. This is purposely designed to obfuscate the public’s understanding of what causes paralysis, which is heavy metal poisoning plus vaccine induced autoimmunity……that ends with the body attacking and destroying its’ own nervous system pathways, in an rabid attempt to clean itself of the injected toxins. Guillian Barre and paralysis, as listed vaccine side effects, are also a way to get the public running east looking for a sunset, keeping them as far away as possible from connecting the dots around this medical polio obfuscation. Aluminum and mercury are ingredients in most (if not all) vaccines today and both are proven to cause paralysis and motor neuron destruction………..known as many different names, depending on just how much the science/medical authority figure in the room wants to lead you astray that day. The Effect of Aluminum in Vaccines on Humans

20 THINGS YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT POLIO.

By Jason Christoff. August 2017. Find Article Here:- 1. A pesticide common in the 1800’s was called Paris Green. A green liquid because it was a combination of copper and arsenic or lead and arseni…

thetruthiswhere.wordpress.com

 

[Tim Lundeen]

"While India’s oral polio vaccine (OPV) drives have eliminated polio from the country, they have also resulted in over 490,000 cases of paralysis during 2000—2017, says a new study based on national surveillance statistics. "

Oral polio drops linked to paralysis in India

India’s successful oral polio vaccine drives have been linked by a study to high paralysis incidence.

www.scidev.net

 

[ecstatichamster]

See

Best Explanation of vaccines, the epidemic of the vaccinated, and the nefarious plot against us

https://www.juliusruechel.com/2021/09/the-snake-oil-salesmen-and-covid-zero.html From an evolutionary perspective, this is a potentially dangerous scenario. What has been done by temporarily blunting the risk of hospitalization or death, but without stopping infection among the vaccinated, is...

raypeatforum.com

 

[Michael Mohn]

Frequency and Clinical Features

Smallpox vaccine is less safe than other vaccines routinely used today. The vaccine is associated with known adverse effects that range from mild to severe. Mild vaccine reactions include formation of satellite lesions, fever, muscle aches, regional lymphadenopathy, fatigue, headache, nausea, rashes, and soreness at the vaccination site.13,18,19 A recent clinical trial reported that more than one-third of vaccine recipients missed days of work or school because of these mild vaccine-related symptoms.18

In the 1960s, serious adverse events associated with smallpox vaccination in the United States included death (1/million vaccinations), progressive vaccinia (1.5/million vaccinations), eczema vaccinatum (39/million vaccinations), postvaccinial encephalitis (12/million vaccinations), and generalized vaccinia (241/million vaccinations).20 Adverse events were approximately ten times more common among those vaccinated for the first time compared to revaccinees.20 Fatality rates were also four times higher for primary vaccinees compared to revaccinees.21

Inadvertent inoculation is the most common adverse event associated with smallpox vaccination. It occurred at a rate of 529 per million vaccinations in a 1968 study.20 Inadvertent or accidental inoculation usually occurs when a person transfers the vaccinia virus from the vaccination site to another location on their body, usually the eyes, mouth, nose, or genitalia.20,22 Most lesions resolve without therapy, but vaccinia immune globulin (VIG) may be useful for difficult lesions. VIG can be considered for use in patients with severe ocular vaccinia, but it may increase the risk of corneal scarring.17,23

Progressive vaccinia (a.k.a. vaccinia necrosum, vaccinia gangrenosum) is defined as an uncontrolled replication of vaccinia virus at the vaccination site that leads to a slow and progressive necrosis of surrounding tissue.24 Satellite necrotic lesions typically develop, and ultimately vaccinia virus may be found in other tissues and organs.24 This condition typically affects individuals with incompetent immune systems.24,25 The cardinal clinical signs of progressive vaccinia include an unhealed vaccination site >15 days post vaccination, and the lack of inflammation or an immune response at the vaccination site.24,25 Untreated progressive vaccinia is fatal, but treatment with VIG or the antiviral cidofovir may be effective in some cases.24,25 VIG and thiosemicarbazone treatment in the late 1960s and 1970s reduced the fatality rate for progressive vaccinia from near 100% to 33%.23,25,26 Surgical debridement or amputation may also provide some benefit.24, 25

Smallpox Vaccine: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Smallpox inarguably shaped the course of human history by killing countless millions in both the Old World and the New World. Dr. Edward Jenner's discovery of vaccination in the late 18th century, and the global eradication of smallpox in the 1970s, rank ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I should have mentioned that I talk about smallpox vaccines done in the 18th. Century without injections.

 

[Michael Mohn]

.

 

[psans]

I should have mentioned that I talk about smallpox vaccines done in the 18th. Century without injections.

Dr suzanne Humphries author of " dissolving illusions" marshalls a significant amount of information that , it didnt work even back then.

Even the much-heralded success story of smallpox vaccination was not what it seemed. The enforcement of the compulsory smallpox vaccination law in 1867, when the death rate was already falling, was accompanied by an increase in the deaths from 100 to 400 deaths per million.

A 1764 article made it clear that the unintended result of inoculation was an increased death rate from smallpox.

It does not follow Inoculation is a practice favourable to life… It is incontestably like the plague a contagious disease, what tends to stop the progress of the infection tends to lessen the danger that attends it; what tends to spread the contagion, tends to increase that danger; the practice of Inoculation manifestly tends to spread
A 1764 article made it clear that the unintended result of inoculation was an increased death rate from smallpox.

It does not follow Inoculation is a practice favourable to life… It is incontestably like the plague a contagious disease, what tends to stop the progress of the infection tends to lessen the danger that attends it; what tends to spread the contagion, tends to increase that danger; the practice of Inoculation manifestly tends to spread
the contagion, for a contagious disease is produced by Inoculation where it would not otherwise have been produced; the place where it is thus produced becomes a center of contagion, whence it spreads not less fatally or widely than it would spread from a center where the disease should happen in a natural way; these centers of contagion are manifestly multiplied very greatly by Inoculation…{103}

According to the author, in the 38 years preceding the start of inoculation in 1721, deaths from smallpox relative to the number born was 90 per 1,000, and relative to the number of burials 64 per 1,000. In the 38 years after the start of inoculation, deaths from smallpox relative to the number born increased to 127 per 1,000 (a 41 percent increase) and relative to the number of burials 81 per 1,000 (a 27 percent increase).

The medically sanctioned operation was as likely to start an epidemic as to stop one.{104}
From the nipple of the cow


It was rumored among milkmaids that infection with cowpox could protect one from smallpox. In 1774 a farmer named Benjamin Jesty made scratches on his wife and two sons using a darning needle, then rubbed material from the pock of an infected cow into them. Allegedly, when Jesty’s sons were later deliberately exposed to smallpox, they did not come
down with the disease.

In 1796, believing these stories, Edward Jenner subjected an eight-year-old boy named James Phipps to an experiment. He took disease matter that he believed to be cowpox from lesions on the hands of dairymaid Sarah Nelmes and vaccinated James with it. The child was later deliberately exposed to smallpox in order to test the protective property of the cowpox inoculation. When the boy did not contract clinical smallpox, it was assumed that the cowpox vaccination was successful and that it would also provide lifelong protection against smallpox.

Immunology was so crude that knowledge of preexisting immunity or subclinical infection was not part of Jenner’s experimental design. Even though his claims were based on a sample of one and no scientific method, it fueled the belief that once a person was exposed to cowpox, lifelong protection from smallpox was possible.

Jenner’s claim was later replaced with varying estimates from 10 years to as little as 1 year.

A 1908 article{105} concluded that some limited immunity lasted only around three years.

…it is observed that all un-revaccinated children over one and a-half years of age, or thereabouts, and all re-vaccinated persons whose re-vaccinations are more than three years old, i.e., the vast majority of the entire population—are
unprotected.{106}






Another practitioner named Dr. Olesen claimed that revaccination should be done annually.






Recent successful vaccination is an absolute protection against smallpox. Protection lasts from six months to twelve months and often much longer. Revaccination is advisable once a year.{107}

Dr. Creighton published a book in 1889 that was highly critical of Edward Jenner and vaccination. He observed that people who had been exposed to cowpox virus had often previously received an inoculation of smallpox. Due to the anecdotal nature of his experiments, Jenner could arrive at whatever conclusion fit his predetermined outcome. Dr. Creighton summarizes:

The only real experiment in the paper on cowpox, as originally offered to the Royal Society, was the inoculation of James Phipps; the results of it, as we have seen, were recorded with a brevity which enabled Jenner to suppress the true and suggest the false. It is absurd to claim the dozen old cases of cowpoxed milkers, who were subsequently inoculated with smallpox, as experiments; there were many cowpoxed milkers… who submitted to inoculation along with others, whenever a general inoculation was afoot; and Jenner's cases were only a few, favourable to his contention… he himself stands for the man who “peremptorily

decides on the truth or falsehood of a theory, on the supposed authority of a few solitary instances.”{108}

Since the late 1700s, the medical profession has supported vaccination, even though there was never a trial where one group was vaccinated and compared to another group of the same size that was not vaccinated.{109}

The CDC admits that, even now, the level of antibody that protects against smallpox infection is unknown.{110} When the authors of Dissolving Illusions were growing up in the United States, children were considered vaccinated and immune simply by revealing the scar of vaccination years after the procedure.


after this the entirety of chapter 4 of " dissolving illusions" page 81-113 is all devoted to destroying the small pox vaccine/inoculation narrative

get the book free at ebook-hunter.org or book4you.org btw