Vaccines, Antibiotics, Etc.

"Antibiotics disrupt the normal population of beneficial microbes/bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract of all Human/animals. These beneficial bacteria are the first fine of defense against most diseases, without them the Human/animal is more susceptible to other infections. Antibiotics depress the immune system by decreasing the number of circulating white blood cells. This lowers the Human/animal's ability to fight infections. Some antibiotics, such as chloramphenicol, can cause irreversible damage to the bone marrow. Many bacteria develop resistance to the effects of antibiotics. This resistance can be passed to other bacteria, The concern is that if humans are exposed to resistant bacteria then the use of antibiotics may be ineffective in treating any resulting disease.” - Richard J. Holliday, DVM

"You can’t make an animal MORE immune to a disease by vaccinating them over and over- no matter what a Vet tells you." ~ By Ed Frawley

The unfortunate thing about Vaccinosis is that people don't get involved in learning about it until after there is a problem, and by then its often too late.

Vaccinosis is the term used for "reactions our pets have to being vaccinated". It is far more common than we are lead to believe. In fact most veterinarians refuse to talk about it because they are the ones who give the shots that cause Vaccinosis.

Over the past servable years I have started to seriously question what the Veterinary industry recommends for a regimes of yearly vaccinations on our dogs. I will tell you that I no longer vaccinate my dogs every year. I strongly recommend that you research this issue and not blindly accept the advice of your local vet, no matter how nice of a person he or she is.

It is my opinion after the initial puppy vaccinations additional vaccinations often cause more problems than they cure. My research indicates that side effects from yearly vaccinations are thyroid problems, epilepsy, cancer, allergies and behavioral problems just to mention a few. I would recommend that you do your own research. Go to Google and search on "Vaccinosis". Ask yourself if you honestly think the veterinary medical industry is that far behind the human medical field. Humans do not need yearly vaccinations and I do not think our dogs need yearly vaccinations. There is an excellent book out entitled Shock to the System. If you want to have your eyes opened, read this book.

The purpose of vaccination is to protect your pet from potentially fatal infections by pathogenic (disease-causing) viruses such as distemper, rabies, and others. The way this is done is to inject either a killed virus or a 'modified' (non-pathogenic) live virus, which sensitizes the immune system to that particular virus. Thereafter, if your dog is exposed to, let's say, parvovirus, s/he will be able to respond quickly and vigorously, producing antibodies to overcome the infection.

This sounds like a pretty good plan, on the surface. However, as with any medical procedure, we must ask the simple and direct questions, Is it safe? Is it effective? Do the benefits outweigh the risks?

'Routine' vaccination, as it is practiced today, is not always effective (especially in the case of the feline leukemia vaccine), and frequently has adverse side effects, either short term or long term. With the use of multivalent (combination: 3-in-1, 6-in-1, etc.) vaccines that are repeated year after year, the frequency and severity of these side effects in our pets has increased dramatically.

Not surprisingly, most of the problems involve the immune system. After all, the immune system is what vaccines are designed to stimulate. But they do so in a very unnatural way that can overwhelm and confuse the immune system. The body may overreact to normally harmless substances (allergies, especially flea allergies and other skin problems), or even produce antibodies to itself (auto-immune diseases).

At the same time, the body may be sluggish in responding to those things that it should reject, such as common viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites. This can result in increased susceptibility to acute infections (such as parvovirus), chronic or recurring infections (such as ear infections in dogs, bladder infections or feline leukemia in cats), or other chronic problems such as arthritis, kidney disease, or even cancer.

In summary, there is a great deal of evidence implicating vaccination as the cause of many serious chronic health problems. For this reason, I do not recommend vaccination for dogs or cats.

In particular, I strongly recommend against vaccination for Feline Leukemia in cats, because (a) it is not very effective, and (b) I have found that vaccinated cats that subsequently contract the virus are much more likely to die from it. I also recommend against vaccination for Lyme disease and kennel cough in dogs, again due to lack of effectiveness, and the fact that these conditions are generally not very serious. As such, the potential harm of the vaccine is not justified.

In all fairness, the choice to forgo vaccination for your pets does carry some risk. Your puppy could contract parvovirus, for instance, which that particular vaccine is effective in preventing. Fortunately, parvo is generally quite easy to treat homeopathically. Distemper and infectious hepatitis are rarely seen anymore.

Unfortunately, the law now requires rabies vaccination for dogs and cats. This is for reasons of potential human exposure, not for the health of your pet.

You should know, however, that all vaccines, including rabies, are medically approved for use in healthy animals only. This is explicitly stated in the package insert for every vaccine. So if your dog or cat is showing any signs of acute or chronic disease, the manufacturers do not recommend administration of the vaccine.

Finally, for some good news, rabies titers are being increasingly used to demonstrate effective immunity and avoid unnecessary revaccination.

Rabies vaccination should be followed immediately by a single dose of the Lyssin 30C, which is the rabies nosode. This should help to minimize the harmful effects of the vaccine. However, if you see any symptoms or reaction to the rabies vaccination, you should consult a veterinary homeopath for treatment instructions.

Treatment with allopathic drugs (antibiotics, steroids, hormones, etc.) should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. The need for drug treatment is actually quite unusual, and should be considered a last resort. Antibiotics are often completely superfluous, such as in treating abscesses or viral infections. They should also not be used routinely to prevent infection, such as after most surgery or dental procedures. For most situations in which antibiotics are given, there are safe, effective alternatives.

Corticosteroids (cortisone-type anti-inflammatory drugs) are the most abused and dangerous class of drugs. Not only do they not cure the underlying cause of the problem, they usually make the underlying problem, that is, the real problem, worse.

The greatest harm of drug treatment is usually not so much the toxicity or side effects as it is the effects of suppression. Allopathic (conventional Western) medical thinking generally seeks immediate gratification: just make the symptom go away. So the patient may be better in the short term, but is usually worse in the longer term. Homeopathy is just the opposite: sometimes the symptoms are worse in the short term (such as with aggravation or the reversal of a previous suppression), but the real benefit is in the longer term.

A symptom, say itchy skin, is the body's response to a deeper problem. When a symptom is suppressed, it is only the outward manifestation of the problem that goes away. Since the deeper problem is still there, the body may, in time, produce the same symptom again. Another possibility is that, as a result of the suppression, the deeper problem progresses to the point that a deeper, more serious symptom is produced. So the itchy skin may go away, but then chronic diarrhea develops. If the diarrhea is then suppressed as well, it may lead to, say, liver disease. But hey, at least the skin is cleared up!

I see this pattern, or variations on it, very frequently in reviewing the medical records of new patients. It is the unrecognized, and often high, price that we pay for the quick fix, for immediate gratification, for the shot or pill that seems to make the problem go away.

Doctor Levy is a Classical Veterinary Homeopath located in Williamsburg, MA. 01096 Phone (413) 268-3000

JON RAPPOPORT

Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.

A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say which ones.

Q: Why not?

A: I want to preserve my privacy.

Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?

A: I believe I could lose my pension.

Q: On what grounds?

A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.

Q: Harassed by whom?

A: The FBI.

Q: Really?

A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.

Q: So much for free speech.

A: I was "part of the inner circle." If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.

Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?

A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall "brilliance" of modern medicine.

Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?

A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.

Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.

A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.

Q: Why?

A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.

Q: And then?

A: I did my own investigation.

Q: What conclusions did you come to?

A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.

Q: What conditions?

A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don't contract the diseases as easily.

Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?

A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies.

Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?

A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.

Q: Why?

A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.

Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?

A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases -- say, meningitis -- that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.

Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.

A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.

Q: Which is?

A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.

Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history.

A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.

Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.

A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.

Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.

A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I'm talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors -- that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don't know are in those kidneys.

Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?

A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba.

Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.

Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines.

A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time -- which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was a very small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called "foreign protein," which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.

Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.

A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.

Q: How were your findings received?

A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this can't be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animals' tissue, and that's where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines.

Q: This information is pretty staggering.

A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don't find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea.We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.

Q: And beyond the purity issue?

A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer cells."

Q: The immune system is?

A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.

Q: So the level of general health is important.

A: More than important. Vital.

Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?

A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you've concealed the root cause of the problem.

Q: And that happens?

A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the disease.

Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?

A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.

Q: What was the turning point for you?

A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.

Q: Did you investigate?

A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way.

Q: What do you mean?

A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.

Q: Why doesn't it make sense?

A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?

Q: And that is what you found?

A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time.Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation.

Q: Has it been enough?

A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.

Q: Which is?

A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, "This vaccine is safe." But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.

Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.

A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations.

Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?

A: Yes I did.

Q: What happened?

A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labeled with "guilt by association." All in all, though, I behaved myself.I made sure I didn't create problems for myself.

Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?

A: First of all, there is no "if." They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn't. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you've said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network.

Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation?

A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realizing the whole truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.

Q: This network you speak of.

A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue.

Q: And in the industrialized nations?

A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefare germs are going to win out. This is an important time.

Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one good avenue.

A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine-and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles -- is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from "unknown causes," and that's why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and the so-called studies that back it up.

Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.

A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blair's wife is involved with alternative health. There is the possibility that their child has not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to invasive questioning of his "personal and family life." In any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to all the families who have come forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR.

Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.

A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national security.

Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel.

A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation. It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.

Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.

A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.

Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?

A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don't need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers -- a few -- might start leaking information.

Q: A good idea.

A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.

Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?

A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period.

Q: Then we have the fall flu season.

A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.

Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?

A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well.

Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?

A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there.

Q: The things that are not there.

A: Yes.

Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.

A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn't get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what's called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.

Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?

A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I'm saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don't get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe.In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings.They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.

Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he didn't get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine?

A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time.

Q: How long did you work with vaccines?

A: A long time. Longer than ten years.

Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?

A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I'm not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.

Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.

A: The operative word is "appear." What about all the children who can't focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both.

Q: So we come to the level playing field.

A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.

Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don't get shots.

A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person's responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win.
_________________________________________________________________

Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher who worked for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government's National Institutes of Health.

Mark retired during the last decade. He says he was "disgusted with what he discovered about vaccines."

As you know, since the beginning of nomorefakenews, I have been launching an attack against non-scientific and dangerous assertions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

Mark has been one of my sources.

He is a little reluctant to speak out, even under the cover of anonymity, but with the current push to make vaccines mandatory -- with penalties like quarantine lurking in the wings -- he has decided to break his silence.

He lives comfortably in retirement, but like many of my long-time sources, he has developed a conscience about his former work. Mark is well aware of the scope of the medical cartel and its goals of depopulation, mind control, and general debilitation of populations.

MMR was introduced across the UK in 1988 but claims in 1998 that the vaccine might be linked to autism provoked widespread alarm. Researchers looked at the vaccination records for Scotland for all children born between 1987 and 2004 and the impact of adverse publicity surrounding the injections.

“Consumers who do care about managing the effectiveness of their dog’s immune system against the most dangerous canine viral diseases now have the means to do so without risking their dog’s health in the process. When you and your dog visit your veterinarian for an annual checkup, take the titer test”...

Testing a dog’s serum antibody titers can prevent over vaccinating
by Lorie Long from Whole Dog Journal~

Taking blood for an annual titer test, to check a dog’s level of immune defenses, should replace the habit of vaccinating dogs annually whether or not they need it.

Few issues in veterinary medicine are as controversial as the debate about administering annual vaccinations to our dogs. Long considered part of the standard of baseline, responsible veterinary healthcare, and credited with conquering some of the fiercest canine viral and other infectious diseases, vaccinations now are also suspected of creating vulnerability to illnesses and chronic conditions such as anemia, arthritis, seizures, allergies, gastrointestinal and thyroid disorders, and cancer. As we’ve previously discussed in numerous articles, few people advocate refraining from the use of vaccinations altogether, but increasing numbers of veterinary experts recommend administering fewer vaccines to our dogs than was suggested in recent years. The current wisdom is to vaccinate our animal companions enough, but not too much. Does this seem a little arbitrary? It could, especially since the veterinary profession lacks complete information about exactly how long the effects of canine vaccines last. (We bet you thought that most vaccines “last” about a year, which is why you are supposed to bring your dog to the vet for more shots every year, right? Well, you’re wrong, and we’ll explain why below.) Fortunately, there is a tool that veterinarians and dog owners can use to determine whether or not a dog really needs further vaccination at any given time. It’s called a “titer test,” and it’s readily available, not terribly expensive, and offers multiple advantages over the practices (intentional or not) of over-vaccination and under-vaccination. To understand what a titer test is and what it can do for you and your dog, you need a little background information about vaccinations and their use in this country.

History of “recommended vaccine schedules”
As lifesaving vaccines for various canine diseases have been developed over the last 50 years, veterinarians and dog owners gladly embraced them. Many diseases were prevented, and a new industry was born. Like any industry, it soon set about making itself indispensable. Increasingly, veterinarians were sold on the concept that if some vaccines are good, more are better – for their patients and their bottom line. So it came to pass that for decades, vets followed the label recommendations directing that canine vaccines be administered annually. In the late 1970s, a deadly parvovirus epidemic killed thousands of dogs and wiped out whole litters of puppies, eventually halted by the mass administration of the parvovirus vaccine. This episode emphasized the important role of vaccinations in canine healthcare and labeled veterinarians who challenged the annual administration of vaccines as mutinous. And there was, in fact, a small population of insurgent veterinarians who had doubts about the necessity of frequent vaccination. Many holistic practitioners – who often see patients with complex, mystifying symptoms of poor health, patients who have not been helped or even diagnosed by conventionally trained veterinarians – suspected a link between vaccines and immune disorders. In their minds, it was easy to surmise that there might be a connection between agents that are designed to provoke an immune response and their patients’ poor or inappropriate immune responses. But while drug companies are motivated to fund studies that can develop more vaccines they can sell for a profit, they are understandably disinclined to spend money on studies that may discover their products’ potential for harm, or how few vaccines our companion animals really need for disease protection. As a result, only anecdotal evidence provided by “vaccine rebels” – owners and veterinarians who either do not vaccinate or vaccinate on a reduced schedule – seemed to suggest that dogs and cats might be better off receiving fewer vaccines. But until recently there was little scientific evidence that supported this idea, perhaps none that was accepted in the conventional university veterinarian research community. Then, in the early 1990s, laboratory researchers at the University of Pennsylvania noticed a connection between the marked increase in the number of sarcomas, or cancerous tumors, under the skin at the site of rabies vaccine administration in cats. Later, researchers at the University of California at Davis noted that feline leukemia vaccines seemed to cause the same results. Taken aback by the inflammatory nature of the animals’ reaction to the vaccines, veterinary researchers began to suspect that immediate reactions to vaccinations, delayed reactions to vaccinations, or the combined effects of multiple vaccinations, could be risk factors for other ailments and chronic diseases in cats and dogs. As vaccines and their long-term effects became a (at least minor) topic of mainstream veterinary interest, one small but important fact came to light: there is no universally accepted “standard vaccination protocol” that has the approval of say, the American Veterinary Medical Association and/or the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine. The prevailing vaccination recommendations and schedules that most veterinarians and veterinary colleges recommend have been based on the research and suggestions of the manufacturers – not on independent scientific research. This point had long been recognized by the vaccine rebels, but disregarded by most conventional veterinarians.

Why more is not better
Jean Dodds, DVM, a highly respected veterinary hematologist, and founder and president of the nonprofit Hemopet, a California-based animal blood bank, pioneered the vaccine debate decades ago and is now considered one of the leading authorities on canine vaccine protocols. According to Dr. Dodds, many recent studies confirm that the vast majority of dogs, in most cases at least 95 percent of the subjects, retain immunity after vaccination for many years after the administration of a vaccine. She states that the “evidence implicating vaccines in triggering immune-mediated and other chronic disorders (vaccinosis) is compelling.” Adverse reactions to conventional vaccines can be the same as reactions to any chemicals, drugs, or infectious agents. Immediate (or anaphylactic) reactions can occur in the 24-48 hours following exposure to the vaccine. Delayed reactions can occur 10-45 days after receiving vaccines. Symptoms include fever, stiffness, sore joints, abdominal tenderness, nervous system disorders, susceptibility to infections, and hemorrhages or bruising. Transient seizures can appear in puppies and adults. More long-term harmful effects can result in permanent damage to the dog’s immune system, which increases the dog’s susceptibility to chronic, debilitating diseases affecting the blood, endocrine organs, joints, skin, central nervous system, liver, kidneys, and bowel. In addition, vaccines can overwhelm a chronically ill dog, or a dog that has a genetic predisposition to react adversely to viral exposure, even from the modified live viral agents or killed virus in vaccines. So, given the possible health risks of administering too many vaccines, especially when a dog likely retains the immunologic protection supplied by previous vaccinations, how can a responsible dog owner decide on a safe and effective vaccine schedule for the life of their dog? As we suggested earlier, the answer is titer tests.

Understanding titer tests
The term “titer” refers to the strength or concentration of a substance in a solution. When testing vaccine titers in dogs, a veterinarian takes a blood sample from a dog and has the blood tested for the presence and strength of the dog’s immunological response to a viral disease. If the dog demonstrates satisfactory levels of vaccine titers, the dog is considered sufficiently immune to the disease, or possessing good “immunologic memory,” and not in need of further vaccination against the disease at that time.

Using the new TiterCHEKTM test kit, your veterinarian can now draw blood from your dog when you first arrive for his annual health exam, and within 15 minutes, be able to tell you whether or not he needs any vaccines.

Titer tests do not distinguish between the immunity generated by vaccination and that generated by natural exposure to disease agents. A dog may have developed immunity to a viral disease by receiving a vaccine against the disease, by being exposed to the disease in the natural environment and conquering it, sometimes without having demonstrated any symptoms of exposure to the disease, or by a combination of the two. Therefore, titer tests really measure both the “priming of the pump” that comes from vaccines, and the immunity resulting from natural exposure to disease during a dog’s lifetime. Only an indoor dog that has been totally sequestered from the natural environment is likely to have developed all of its immunity from vaccinations. Although the magnitude of immunity protection received by vaccination only is usually lower than by vaccination plus exposure, it doesn’t matter how your dog developed its strong immunity to specific viral diseases, as long as the immunity is present. By “titering” annually, a dog owner can assess whether her dog’s immune response has fallen below adequate levels. In that event, an appropriate vaccine booster can be administered.

Which titers tests?
Some dog owners, aware that there are dozens of vaccines available, are concerned that they would need to order titer tests for each vaccine. Actually, measuring the titers for just two vaccines, according to Dr. Dodds, can offer the dog owner a reliable “picture” of the dog’s immunological status. Good immunity to canine parvovirus (CPV) and canine distemper virus (CDV), she says, indicates proper “markers for the competence of the dog’s immune system.” Although the laboratories will also perform vaccine titer tests for other canine diseases, such as coronavirus and Lyme, Dr. Dodds deems these tests a waste of money. Protection from coronavirus, Dr. Dodds explains, depends on the current state of health of the dog’s gastrointestinal tract, not on what’s in the dog’s blood, so serum tests are not conclusive. Lyme is regionally based and not a significant threat to the general canine population, so only dogs in a high-risk environment need titer testing for Lyme. Dr. Dodds emphasizes that titer testing is not a “guess” at immunological response in a dog; when dealing with CDV and CDP, there is absolute correlation between certain high titer values and what is frequently referred to as “protection” from the diseases in question. In this case, the animal’s owner and veterinarian can feel quite confident that the animal possesses sufficient resources for fighting off a disease challenge. When the tests reveal that the animal has borderline or low titer values, the owner and veterinarian should consider revaccinating and then testing the titers again. It may turn out that the animal simply needed a booster to stimulate a stronger immune response. Or, maybe the people involved learn that the animal lacks the ability to respond normally to vaccines, that is, by mounting a proper immune response. In this case, the owner and veterinarian have gained very valuable information about the dog’s compromised immune status – information they never would have gained by simply vaccinating and assuming the dog was “protected” as is usually the case with healthy dogs. As you can see, in reality, simply administering vaccines to dogs every year is more of a guessing game than using titer tests to learn about the dog’s immune competence. Studies worldwide support titer test results as comprehensive information about a dog’s immunological response capabilities.

Now more affordable
Because the more widely recognized benefits of titer testing have caused an increase in the number of titer tests performed at veterinary laboratories, the price is coming down and the tests are available from a wide range of providers. Veterinary laboratories offer traditional vaccine titer testing by looking at a blood sample from a dog and identifying a specific level of actual immunity in the dog. Reputable laboratories use commonly accepted immunological techniques that have been validated against original test techniques and found to be accurate. Be certain your veterinarian sends blood samples to a major professional veterinary laboratory such as Antech Diagnostics (www.antechdiagnostics.com), Idexx Laboratories (www.idexx.com), Vita-Tech Laboratories (www.vita-tech.com), or one of the major university veterinary laboratories, including Cornell, Colorado State, Michigan State, Tufts, and Texas A&M. In early spring 2002, Synbiotics Corporation, a San Diego-based manufacturer of diagnostic materials and instrumentation for the veterinary market, rolled out an innovative tool that should make titer testing even more readily available and affordable. TiterCHEKTM is the first in-office titer test licensed by the USDA for use in veterinary clinics. TiterCHEKTM tests titers for canine parvovirus and canine distemper virus, registering the degree of strength of the immune response in varying color shades. If the test results denote a weak immune response level, blood samples can be sent to a veterinary laboratory for more comprehensive testing. Dr. Dodds estimates that more than 95 percent of in-office tests will indicate a satisfactory immune response present in a dog that has received its puppy vaccinations and one-year boosters, so follow-up is rarely required. Expect to pay your veterinarian from $40 to $100 for CDV and CPV titer testing from a laboratory, and slightly less for an in-office test, for which your veterinarian must purchase the TiterCHEKTM test kit.

Why Are Many Veterinarians Are Resisting Vaccine Titer Testing?!
As practicing clinicians, veterinarians are hesitant to adjust any clinical regimen they have adopted until they see research study data that they judge to be functional and applicable in the real world. Many veterinarians resisted rethinking the annual canine vaccine regimen based upon the early findings of researchers. However, the increased evidence linking over-vaccination to acute and chronic diseases in dogs has finally caused a mainstream conviction that vaccination protocols are not a one-size-fits-all healthcare decision. Indeed, Dr. Dodds, once considered a rebel by the veterinary profession, now speaks to standing-room-only audiences at the most prestigious professional conferences in the country. The perceived need for annual vaccinations used to motivate many dog owners to make appointments with their veterinarians for their dog’s annual wellness checkup. Veterinarians now hope that annual titer tests will perform a similar function. Having your dog examined by a veterinarian at least once a year is critically important for detecting, preventing, and treating any diseases or other ailments as early as possible. Adding the ability to check your dog’s immunological health and custom-tailor his vaccine schedule to his actual needs will impressively augment this important task. It has been estimated that only about 60 percent of pet dogs receive the minimum disease prevention vaccination protocol. Ironically, in an attempt to provide their beloved animal companions with the best possible care, many highly motivated owners arrange for their dogs to receive several times the necessary dose of vaccinations, to the point of risking the adverse effects of over-vaccination on the health of the dog’s immune system. Consumers who do care about managing the effectiveness of their dog’s immune system against the most dangerous canine viral diseases now have the means to do so without risking their dog’s health in the process. When you and your dog visit your veterinarian for an annual checkup, take the titer test.

Lorie Long is a frequent contributor to WDJ. She lives in North Carolina with two Border Terriers, Dash (a three-year-old female and agility queen) and Chase (a five-month-old male with an agility future).

New “Monster” strains of Virus’ and Bacteria are being discovered, which are not responding to antibiotics. That’s why it’s IMPERATIVE to build up strong Immune Systems. It’s up to YOU to empower your body with what it needs to fight off these dangerous microbes. Don’t wait until you, your family and/or pet's are faced with illness or poor health, I implore you!

You should always consult with a healthcare professional before taking any dietary, nutritional, herbal or homeopathic supplement. All information contained on this web site is for informational purposes only. The United States Food and Drug Administration has not evaluated the statements made on this web site. Therefore, the information provided on this web site is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any condition or disease and should not be used as a substitute for your own Health Care Provider's advice.