Vaccination: Is Vaccination Safe And Effective Or Is It Just A Massive, Profitable And Dangerous Confidence Trick? (And How Soon Will They Make It Compulsory?)
Dr Vernon Coleman
Fact 1: Dr Coleman is a fully registered and fully licensed general practitioner. He is registered and licensed with the General Medical Council of London.
Fact 2: Most of the doctors (including nearly all GPs) who write and speak in favour of vaccination are making money out of it.
Enthusiasm for vaccination has became almost hysterical in much of the world. Drug companies promote vaccination programmes because they make billions of dollars out of vaccines. Doctors are equally enthusiastic because they can charge huge fees for vaccinating their patients. And governments everywhere are enthusiastic because they have been told (by drug companies and doctors) that vaccination programmes help prevent disease and therefore save money.
But the enthusiasm for vaccination is, in my considered view, a massive confidence trick. There is now much talk in America and Europe of compulsory vaccination programmes being introduced.
Already there are doctors (who will make vast amounts of money out of a compulsory vaccination programme) who recommend that all children be vaccinated whether or not their parents approve. It is likely that those parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated will have them taken away from them. As Dr Ron Paul, former American Presidential Candidate, has pointed out: `When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we, in essence, accept that the state owns our bodies.'
Compulsory vaccinations have already been introduced in some areas of the world, and in Britain some GPs (family doctors) are already refusing to look after patients if they don't agree to have their children vaccinated. (There is a financial reason for this. If patients refuse vaccination, British family doctors lose out on huge cash bonuses.)
I now have no doubt that despite the dangers and inefficiencies known to be associated with it, vaccination will become compulsory in the West. The hazards and inadequacies will be ignored. It will not be the first time. Compulsory vaccination was introduced in Britain in the mid 19th century and in 1871 Public Vaccinators were appointed.
There are already many senior members of the medical establishment in Europe and America who want vaccination to be compulsory. You will not be convulsed with shock when I tell you that drug companies which make vaccines would not be averse to their products being made compulsory. I understand that. I would like my books to be made compulsory reading.
The French have already started talking about mass vaccination programmes. I have absolutely no doubt that compulsory vaccination is EU policy. And since the EU always gets what it wants, compulsory vaccination will come to be.
One local authority in England has already created secret vaccination centres, stating that it is doing so under `special powers granted to HM Government under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004'.
Senior doctors recently suggested not only that vaccination should be compulsory but that children who were not vaccinated should not be allowed into school. Social workers will be quick (and eager) to take children away from parents who oppose vaccination.
Politicians have been persuaded that vaccinating the population at large helps save money. The theory is that if you vaccinate 1,000,000 children against, say, whooping cough and, as a result, you prevent 1,000 children getting the disease then the country will avoid the cost of 1,000 parents staying at home for a week or so to look after their child. If one child is permanently brain damaged by the vaccine that is bad luck on the child and his or her parents but, as long as the State can avoid financial responsibility by denying that there is any link between vaccination and brain damage, then it is ahead of the game. In reality, the evidence shows that even this cold-blooded, steel-hearted philosophy is faulty. The problem is that vaccines are so ineffective and so dangerous that instead of being an advantage to society as a whole they are a costly disadvantage.
Drug companies make huge amounts of money out of selling vaccines. And the establishment has fiddled the evidence, and denied or suppressed the inconvenient truths, in order to promote the official point of view. In Britain I have been banned from speaking to doctors. Debates about vaccination are unknown.
The global vaccine market reached $21 billion in 2010 and is growing at a rate of 16.5%. The whole business of vaccinating people is so hugely profitable (largely because it is something that doesn't rely on finding a large number of sick people but also because it is something that can be done on a regular basis) that drug companies, having almost saturated the `vaccinating-children' market are moving heavily into adult vaccines. There is, for example, a vaccine planned to prevent atherosclerosis. I suspect that doctors will claim that this will enable people to keep eating a bad diet and yet avoid heart attacks.
Those who promote vaccines often claim that vaccination programmes have reduced illness, prevented millions of deaths and are the main reason why the average life expectation has risen.
These are all barefaced lies.
The whole vaccination story is one of the great modern scandals of our time. The entire medical profession (at least the part of it in general practice) has been bribed by the drug industry, working through the government and using taxpayers money.
The few doctors who do stand up and say something, and who dare to point out that vaccination programmes are a hazard and do more harm than good, tend to be quickly silenced. They are discredited and scorned and their work is not published.
The truth is that doctors, whether working as hospital consultants, GPs or public health officials, know very little about vaccination. Most simply follow the establishment line, never question what they are told by the drug industry and dismiss all critics of vaccination as dangerous lunatics.
I do not intend to repeat all the evidence here (it is available in books of mine, including Superbody, Coleman's Laws and Animal Experiments Simple Truths and on my website) but I will provide more detail in my next column here.
In Britain, doctors give five vaccines to babies with developing immune systems. They start dumping the damned stuff into babies when they are two months old, for heavens sake. And yet there is no evidence that vaccines are safe in the long-term. No research is done to check this. The establishment puts the onus on the doubters to find the evidence, knowing that is pretty well impossible. In the USA a huge medical practice of paediatricians with 30,000 child patients do not vaccinate their patients at all. Guess how many patients with autism they have? If you guessed `none' you guessed right.
The evidence shows that vaccination programmes have not done the things they are credited with but have done most of the things they are blamed for. The decline in disease, the reduction in infant mortality rates and the increase in average life expectation are all due to improved living conditions. Cleaner water, efficient methods of removing sewage, fresher food, less poverty and less overcrowding are the real reasons why these improvements have taken place. Anyone who doubts this has only to look at graphs showing mortality rates and life expectation rates alongside graphs showing when vaccines were introduced. The graphs show clearly that the improvements took place before vaccines were introduced.
Why don't doctors say anything?
Sadly, that is because the medical profession has been bought. GPs lost their final scrap of integrity on the day when they agreed to take money if they managed to vaccinate enough patients. That sort of conveyor belt, bonus ridden philosophy is better suited to the manufacture of motor car parts than the practise of medicine.
In Britain GPs receive huge bonus payments if they vaccinate enough patients. Every vaccination they give (or authorise) is another nice noise in the cash register. Epidemics produce a bonus. In the autumn of 2009, GPs (paid on average £106,000 a year) were demanding £7.51 to give a swine flu vaccination. That meant that each GP would earn up to £27,000 from giving vaccinations against swine flu. (And most would tell their practice nurse to give the vaccination, so they wouldn't have to do anything themselves. A practice clerk would fill in the claim forms. So that's £27,000 for doing nothing.)
The enormous and rich vaccine industry has bought the medical profession, lock stock and syringe barrel. GPs, once members of a proud and distinguished profession which gave us such medical giants as Joseph Lister, have been reduced to snivelling, whining needle-men for the drug industry; hand-maidens to an industry which cares nothing for people but everything for profits.
Doctors have lost their way. The drug industry has done it cleverly, of course. GPs receive massive bonus payments for vaccinating patients not from the drug industry directly but from the Government. A GP who jabs enough patients gets a thumping great wodge of cash. A GP who is questioning and discerning will be punished. And so the vast majority of GPs do as they are told. Most know nothing about the dangers of the damned vaccines they so happily jab into patients' arms. Question the whole damned sordid business and these ill-educated propagandists (who know nothing about the risks of the toxic mixtures they are promoting) will throw up their hands in horror.
Most western doctors long ago lost any sense of right or wrong. They long ago lost the passions and beliefs and yearnings that (hopefully) took them into medicine. Today, the lives of the vast majority of practising doctors are driven by a potent and destructive (and distinctly patient-unfriendly) mixture of ambition, greed and denial. There are very few Western doctors in practice today who want to save the world, or even change it very much. Their aims are selfish and personal. A bigger house, a faster car, even shorter working hours and longer holidays.
The number of health problems (varying from autism to severe brain damage) caused by vaccines will soar. The link between vaccinations and illness will continue to be as strenuously denied as was the link between smoking and lung cancer. Countries which have not yet adopted mass vaccination programmes would, perhaps, be wise to ask some serious questions before starting to do so.
Just about every healthy individual in the `developed' world will at some time or another be vaccinated. Individuals who have absolutely nothing wrong with them visit their doctor and allow themselves to be vaccinated in the belief that they are being injected with something perfectly safe which will protect them from disease in the future.
Sadly, there is now a dramatic amount of evidence to show that their faith is misplaced and that vaccines may cause an enormous amount of trouble - and do serious and possibly sometimes irreparable harm to the body's immune system.
Most practising doctors and nurses at the sharp end of medicine undoubtedly believe that vaccines have helped wipe out some of the deadliest infectious diseases. Many members of the medical profession would put vaccination high on any list of great medical discoveries.
The mythical power of vaccination programmes has for years constantly been sustained by governments and organisations such as the World Health Organisation announcing that such and such a disease will be eradicated when the relevant vaccination programme has been completed.
The theory is that when an individual is given a vaccine - which consists of a weakened or dead version of the disease against which protection is required - his or her body will be tricked into developing antibodies to the disease in exactly the same way that a body develops antibodies when it is exposed to the disease itself.
But in reality things aren't quite so simple. How long do the antibodies last? Do they always work? What about those individuals who don't produce antibodies at all? Vaccination, like so much of western medicine, is a far more inexact science than doctors (and drug companies) would like us to think.
Vaccination is widely respected by doctors and others in the health care industry because of the assumption that it is through vaccination that many of the world's most lethal infectious diseases have been eradicated. But infectious diseases were conquered by the provision of cleaner drinking water and better sewage facilities. The introduction of vaccination programmes came along either just at the same time or later when the death rates from the major infectious diseases had already fallen. There isn't any evidence to show that vaccination programmes have ever been of any real value - either to individuals or to communities.
One of the medical profession's greatest boasts is that it eradicated smallpox through the use of the smallpox vaccine. This simply isn't true.
One of the worst smallpox epidemics of all time took place in England between 1870 and 1872 - nearly two decades after compulsory vaccination was introduced. After this evidence that the smallpox vaccination didn't work the people of Leicester in the English midlands refused to have the vaccine any more. When the next smallpox epidemic struck in the early 1890s the people of Leicester relied upon good sanitation and a system of quarantine. There was only one death from smallpox in Leicester during that epidemic. In contrast, the citizens of other towns (who had been vaccinated) died in vast numbers.
Obligatory vaccination against smallpox was introduced in Germany in around 1816, largely as a result of state by-laws, but these vaccination programmes had no influence on the incidence of the disease. On the contrary, the smallpox epidemic continued to grow and in 1870 the war with France led to the gravest smallpox epidemic in Germany history. At that point the new German Reich introduced a new national law making vaccination against smallpox an even stricter legal requirement. The police were given the power to enforce the new law.
German doctors (and medical students) are taught that it was the Reich Vaccination Law which led to a dramatic reduction in the incidence of smallpox in Germany. But a close look at the figures shows that the incidence of smallpox had already started to fall before the law came into action.
Doctors and drug companies may not like it but the truth is that surveillance, quarantine and better living conditions got rid of smallpox - not the smallpox vaccine.
When the international campaign to rid the world of smallpox was at its height the number of cases of smallpox went up each time there was a large scale (and expensive) mass vaccination of populations in susceptible countries. As a result of this the strategy was changed. Mass vaccination programmes were abandoned and replaced with surveillance, isolation and quarantine.
The myth that smallpox was eradicated through a mass vaccination programme is just that - a myth. Smallpox was eradicated through identifying and isolating patients with the disease.
It is worth pointing out that Edward Jenner, the inventor of the smallpox vaccine, tried out the first smallpox vaccination on his own 10 month old son. His son remained mentally retarded until his death at the age of 21. Jenner refused to have his second child vaccinated.
Vaccination against tuberculosis is often given as the reason why that disease stopped being quite the threat to life that it had been in the 18th century.
But again, this isn't true.
Robert Koch discovered the pathogen that causes TB back in 1883. After that BCG vaccination was introduced and then, subsequently, mass treatment programmes were devised with chemotherapy.
None of these discoveries or introductions had a significant effect on the incidence of tuberculosis.
Contracting TB doesn't provide any immunity against a second infection. And if a natural infection doesn't provide protection then a vaccination certainly won't provide protection. How on earth can it?
It was noticed decades ago that in the lung sanatoriums that specialised in the treatment of TB patients there was no difference in the survival rates of patients who had been `protected' against TB with BCG vaccination when compared to the survival rates of patients who had received no such `protection'.
The tuberculosis vaccination (the Bacillus Calmette-Guerin - known as BCG) consists of a weakened, living bovine mycobacteria. The vaccine was used for many years but a trial in India showed that the vaccine offers no protection against the disease. Indeed, when new cases of tuberculosis increased annually in the area where people had been vaccinated against the disease, the trial seemed to suggest that there might be a link between the vaccine and outbreaks of the disease.
Paralysis caused by poliomyelitis is now unheard of in Germany. But every year there are some cases of paralysis caused by the oral polio vaccine.
In America the incidence of polio increased dramatically (by around 50%) after the introduction of mass immunisation. In some states the incidence of polio roughly doubled after the polio vaccine was introduced. The number of deaths from polio had fallen dramatically before the first polio vaccine was introduced. As with other infectious diseases the significance of polio dropped as better sanitation, better housing, cleaner water and more food were all made available in the second half of the 19th century. It was social developments rather than medical ones which increased human resistance to infectious diseases.
Proof that the introduction of the polio vaccine wasn't the success it is often made out to be isn't difficult to find. In Tennessee, US, the number of polio victims the year before vaccination became compulsory was 119. The year after vaccination was introduced, the figure rose to 386. In North Carolina, the number of cases before vaccination was introduced was 78, while the number after the vaccine became compulsory rose to 313. There are similar figures for other American states.
The fact is that polio (like many other infectious diseases) comes in cycles. When a disease is at a high point in its cycle the authorities (egged on by doctors and drug companies) will use this to frighten citizens into agreeing to be vaccinated. And when a disease is at a low point in its natural cycle it is often vaccination programmes which get the credit. This is exactly what happened with polio.
When you study (as I have) the evidence relating to whooping cough, tetanus, diphtheria and other diseases it is clear that the incidence, and number of deaths were in decline long before the relevant vaccines were introduced.
But as the years have gone by the number of vaccines available has increased steadily. Modern American children receive around thirty vaccinations by the time they go to school.
A decade or two ago the only vaccines available were against a relatively small number of diseases including smallpox, tuberculosis, polio, cholera, diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough. Today, the number of available vaccines seems to grow almost daily. In the past, vaccines were produced against major killer diseases. Today vaccines are produced against diseases such as measles, mumps and chickenpox which have been traditionally regarded as relatively benign inconveniences of childhood.
In the UK the death rate from measles had dropped dramatically decades before the vaccine was introduced. Today the incidence of measles is rising again.
Does anyone know what happens inside the body when all these different vaccinations are given together? Do different vaccines work with or against one another? What about the risk of interactions? Exactly how does the immune system cope when it is suddenly bombarded with so much foreign material?
I am an enthusiastic supporter of the principle of preventive medicine. It is usually much easier to avoid an illness than it is to treat one.
Vaccination programmes are usually sold to the public as though they are an integral part of a general preventive medicine programme.
But vaccination programmes cannot truly be described as preventive medicine. On the contrary, they are a very profitable confidence trick.
Vaccinations have been linked to a number of general health problems. It now seems possible, for example, that individuals who receive vaccinations may be more prone to develop diabetes, allergies (such as asthma), eczema and bowel disease (such as Irritable Bowel Syndrome). The explanation - which makes sense to me - is that vaccinations interfere with the immune system and make the recipients more susceptible to disease. It has also been suggested that vaccinations may be the explanation for the mystery problem `cot death'. And it now seems that in cases where parents (and others) have been accused of murdering their children by shaking them or in some other way abusing them, the real culprit may well have been a vaccine. Brain swelling, intracranial bleeding and other symptoms of `shaken baby syndrome' can all be produced by vaccines. However, this isn't widely known - perhaps because doctors and drug companies would rather that unfortunate parents took the blame for these deaths.
Tragically, many doctors seem to know very little about the vaccines they advocate. In my view, if a doctor wants to vaccinate you or a member of your family you should insist that he confirm in writing that the vaccine is both entirely safe and absolutely essential. You may notice his enthusiasm for the vaccine suddenly diminish.
You will not hear any of these arguments discussed in the mainstream media. And you will not hear any debate about these issues on radio or television. To help spread the truth about vaccination, please encourage as many people as you can to read this article.
Copyright Vernon Coleman 2011
Vernon Coleman MB ChB DSc is registered and licensed with the General Medical Council in Britain as a GP.
There is more about vaccination in Vernon Coleman's books Coleman's Laws, 2020 and Superbody