EDUCATE BEFORE YOU VACCINATE
INTRODUCTION
When you think about it, what do you actually know about vaccines? Do they work? Are they safe? Do you
even know what’s in them?
In today’s world of organic chicken, fair-trade coffee and “my body is a temple” ideologies it is surprising that
most people will quite happily allow themselves to be injected with something they know little, or nothing,
about. We know the calorific content and every single ingredient of our breakfast cereal but something we
inject directly into our blood? Not a clue.
At the moment, there is a mass-media circus surrounding the allegedly impeding swine flu epidemic. How
much of this is warranted? There seems to be much opinionated fear-mongering in the media from a plethora
of ‘experts’ – often with vested interests – but a stark absence of any relevant facts surrounding the subject.
Perhaps if we had more information to work with we would come to different conclusions than those pushed
by the mass media and pharmaceutical corporations? At the very least we could make an informed decision for
ourselves.
SMALLPOX SAVIOUR
One of the most commonly held myths about vaccines is that they eradicated smallpox. This is what we are
taught, this is what we are told; it is the cornerstone of most people’s belief in the effectiveness of vaccines. Is
it even true?
Edward Jenner is the man heralded for developing the first modern vaccine for smallpox. His seminal paper on
vaccination was first published in 1798 and the procedure quickly became very lucrative for the medical
community.
Edward Jenner’s paper was based off results from 13 vaccinated patients, no control patients and garnered in
a fashion with less scientific rigor than a flat badger. However, this is not really that surprising considering ‘Dr’
Jenner had never passed a medical exam in his life, completed any course of medical study and actually bought
his doctorate for £15 from St. Andrew’s College, having never attended [1]. No further formal experiments were
conducted on vaccination until 1839 and even then they simply repeated Jenner’s flawed techniques. It wasn’t
until the national epidemic of 1871 that doctors began to doubt the veracity of Jenner’s variolation test enmasse when their own vaccinated and tested patients started coming down with smallpox. Eventually, even
Jenner himself had to make a U-turn on his claim that vaccination provided immunity from smallpox after
some of his more prominent patients contracted smallpox. Coincidentally, we still use a variant of this flawed
technique today to ‘prove’ immunity.
In Britain, state-supported facilities for vaccination began in 1803 and by 1840 the state started providing free
vaccination. In 1852 vaccination became compulsory and in 1867, a more stringent compulsory vaccination law
was passed where those who evaded vaccination were prosecuted, fined and, in some cases, imprisoned.
After an intensive four-year effort to vaccinate the entire population between the ages of 2 and 50, the Chief
Medical Officer of England announced in May 1871 that 97.5 percent had been vaccinated. By the end of the
year smallpox had claimed 44,840 lives in England and Wales. It was the worst smallpox epidemic for more
than half a century by a very large margin.
Hardly what you would call eradicating smallpox.
Resistance to mandatory vaccination began immediately after the passage of the 1852 law with violent riots in
Ipswich, Henley, Mitford, and several other towns. Anti-vaccination movements flourished in Britain and
elsewhere in Europe. After a massive anti-vaccination demonstration in Leicester in 1885 a royal commission
was appointed to investigate vaccination. The commission sat for seven years, and concluded that vaccination
protected against smallpox, but did recommend a relaxation of the penalties for vaccination evasion.
Two years later a new vaccination act was passed which relaxed the penalties and introduced a conscience
clause, allowing people to opt out of vaccination, albeit with some paperwork.
Many people did choose to opt out of vaccination around the country but there is one city which decided to
make non-vaccination a standard policy. That city is the City of Leicester and consequently, or coincidentally,
the case rate and death rate for smallpox dropped dramatically. In fact, during the period of 1891-4, the case
and death rates (as a percentage of the population) were around 70% and 80% less than Birmingham,
respectively, when historically they had been almost exactly the same. If you compare Leicester with other
similarly-sized towns and cities in England over the same period of time, you get pretty much the same figure.
By 1907, the Vaccination Acts of England were repealed completely, with the help of some of the world's
preeminent scientists who had turned staunchly against vaccination:




Alfred Russell Wallace (one of the founders of modern evolutionary biology and co-discoverer with
Charles Darwin of the Theory of Natural Selection)
Charles Creighton (Britain's most learned epidemiologist and medical historian)
William Farr (epidemiologist and medical statistician, discoverer of Farr's Law)
Edgar M. Crookshank, Professor of Bacteriology and Comparative Pathology in King's College, London
“How is it that smallpox is five times as likely to be fatal in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated? How is it
that in some of our most highly vaccinated towns smallpox is rife, whilst in some of our most poorly vaccinated
towns, such as Leicester, it is almost unknown? How is it that something like 80 percent of the cases admitted
into the Metropolitan Asylums Board smallpox hospitals have been vaccinated, whilst only 20 percent have not
been vaccinated?” – Dr. L. Parry commenting on statistics from the Royal Commission’s Report, British Medical Journal
(Jan. 21, 1928 p.116)
We see the same pattern repeating in other countries around the world.
Germany, considered to be the best vaccinated country in the world, recorded 120,000 deaths from smallpox
during the epidemic of 1871, almost all of which had been reportedly vaccinated. An address sent to the
governments of the various German states from Bismarck, the Chancellor of Germany, contained the following
comment: “the hopes placed in the efficacy of the cowpox virus as preventative of smallpox have proved
entirely deceptive.”
“Italy is one of the best-vaccinated countries in the world, if not the best of all. For twenty years before
1885, our nation was vaccinated in the proportion of 98.5 percent. Notwithstanding, the epidemics of
smallpox that we have had have been something so frightful that nothing before the invention of vaccination
could equal them.” – Charles Rauta, Professor of Hygiene and Material Medical at the University of Perguia, Italy. New
York Medical Journal (Jul., 1899)
When Japan started compulsory vaccination against smallpox in 1872 the case rate and death rate increased
year-on-year. In 1892 more than 165,000 cases occurred with 30,000 deaths in a completely vaccinated
population. During a 15-year period around the same time, Australia, one of the least vaccinated countries in
the world, had only three deaths from smallpox.
If you are still looking for reasons as to why smallpox was eradicated, consider for a moment what kind of
conditions people were living in at the time. The consensus among leading medical historians is that the
decline in all infectious diseases was due to improvements in diet, hygiene, sanitary measures, non-medical
public health laws, and to a host of new non-medical technologies, like refrigeration, faster transportation,
removing horse manure from cities, and the like (McKinlay, 1977; McKeown, 1979; Moberg & Cohen, 1991;
Oppenheimer, 1992; Dubos, 1959).
According to World Health Statistics Annual, 1973-76, Vol.2, "there has been a steady decline of infectious
diseases in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these
countries."
The CDC reported (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 30, 1999, 48:621-628) that improvements in
sanitation, water quality, and hygiene had been the most important factors in control of infectious diseases in
the past century. Although vaccines were mentioned, they were not included among the major factors.
THE INGREDIENTS
Pretty much everything we ingest into our bodies comes with a little sticker on the back with a list of
ingredients, from vitamin tablets to breakfast cereal. Most even tell you how much of your recommended
daily allowance it contains.
This is good, I’d like to know what I’m putting into my body. So why don’t vaccines have one of those little
stickers? Especially since we are injecting them directly into our blood and bypassing the body’s many immune
system defences in the digestive system, lungs, etc.
Why don’t we try to create one for vaccines then? In fact we’ll go one better and find out a little about what all
the ingredients actually are.
Aluminium hydroxide and phosphate - known to be linked to some neurodegenerative diseases, including
Alzheimer's disease; the Office of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reports x-ray
evidence of pulmonary fibrosis among workers studied; it also reports that patients undergoing long-term
kidney dialysis develop speech disorders, dementia, or convulsions;
-- formaldehyde, a known carcinogen according to the National Cancer Institute; it's also linked to upper
respiratory tract problems and effects on lymphatic and hematopoietic systems (relating to human blood
cells);
-- gelatin, polysorbate 80 and resin - ingredients causing severe allergic reactions;
-- ammonium sulfate, a suspected gastrointestinal, liver, and respiratory toxicant and neurotoxicant;
-- sorbitol, a suspected gastrointestinal and liver toxicant;
-- phenoxyethanol (antifreeze), a suspected developmental and reproductive toxicant;
-- beta-propiolactone, a known carcinogen and suspected gastrointestinal, liver, respiratory, skin and sense
organ toxicant;
-- triton X100, a strong detergent;
- diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue; and/or
-- calf and fetal bovine serum
-- macerated cancer cells;
THIMEROSAL
Thimerosal is a preservative, it was first introduced by a company called Eli Lily in the late 1920s and started
being used in vaccines in the 1940s. Since then it has been banned in many countries from over-the-counter
products such as eye drops, nasal sprays and ointments and is largely being phased out from vaccines in most
western countries. However, most influenza vaccines, including the latest swine flu edition, and others still
contain thimerosal.
By weight, thimerosal contains 49.6 per cent mercury and breaks down into an organic form of mercury (ethyl
mercury). There is no doubt that mercury is highly toxic, it is recognised as a developmental toxicant, a
neoplastigen (cancer-causing), a teratogen (causes birth defects) and has been linked to cardiovascular
diseases, kidney dysfunction, skin discolouration, autism, seizures, mental retardation, hyperactivity, dyslexia
and many other nervous system conditions. The question really isn’t whether mercury is dangerous but,
rather, how much is dangerous?
While some studies have reviewed statistics from other, unrelated, experiments, there has only ever been one
experiment done directly on thimerosal in humans and even then it was not specifically designed to examine
toxicity (Powell and Jamieson, 1931). It was off the back of this research that thimerosal originally obtained its
licensing and is often referred to as proof that thimerosal is of a “low order of toxicity” in humans. Though it is
difficult to comprehend how such a definite conclusion could be drawn from a study with only 22 patients – all
hospitalized with meningitis. Especially since 7 of 22 were only observed for one day and the longest
observation time was merely 62 days; largely owing to untimely patient mortality.
In truth, there are no guidelines when it comes to ‘safe’ levels of exposure to the specific type of organic
mercury that thimerosal breaks down into (ethyl-mercury). The closest we have are those issued for oral
exposure to methyl-mercury (a similar form of organic mercury). These vary from agency to agency but give
between 0.1 to 0.3µg per kg of body mass as the safety limit of mercury in the blood.
Multi-dose vials of the latest swine flu vaccine contain 25µg of mercury per 0.5mL dose[2]. Children less than 3
years of age are administered a half dose (0.25mL)[2]. Using the guidelines for methyl-mercury this works out
thusly:
Age
6 Months
3 Years
5 Years
10 Years
16 Years
20 Years
Average
Weight (kg)
7.5
14
18
33
58
65
Recommended Safety Limit
(µg)
Low
High
(0.1µg/kg)
(0.3µg/kg)
0.8
2.3
1.4
4.2
1.8
5.4
3.3
9.9
5.8
17.4
6.5
19.5
Mercury dosage
(µg)
12.5
25
25
25
25
25
Mercury dosage / safety
limit
Low
High
(0.1µg/kg)
(0.3µg/kg)
1667%
556%
1786%
595%
1389%
463%
758%
253%
431%
144%
385%
128%
If you use the above table as a reference then methyl-mercury would need to be at least 6x more toxic than
ethyl-mercury for the amount of mercury in vaccines to be safe for all age groups, even using the most
optimistic guidelines.
It should be noted that methyl-mercury is generally considered to be more toxic than ethyl-mercury but there
is insufficient data to really quantify this. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that ethyl-mercury is
metabolized quicker than methyl-mercury, the half-life is purported to be 6-7 hours[8]. Both compounds are
metabolized into inorganic forms of mercury which are then slowly excreted from the body over time.
Mercury, being a heavy metal, is remarkably difficult for the body to get rid of and for some people this is
much more pronounced. There is evidence that children with autism have a significantly decreased ability to
excrete mercury than their control counterparts, giving credence to the theory that autism is very much linked
to, if not actually, mercury poisoning[9].
One last point of interest on mercurial pharmacology is that toxicity appears to be gender-specific in both
ethyl-mercury[4] and methyl-mercury[5]. The experimental results indicate that both these mercuric compounds
are around 4x more toxic in males than females. This is of interest, of course, because autism is estimated to
be between 3-4x more prevalent in males than females[6].
In 2001, the Institute Of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence was
inadequate to either accept or reject a causal relationship between thimerosal exposure from childhood
vaccines and the neurodevelopmental disorders of autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and
speech or language delay[3]. Nevertheless, the Committee did believe that “removing thimerosal from any
biological product to which infants, children, and pregnant women are exposed” would be prudent [3].
After an extensive three-year investigation initiated by the US Committee on Government Reform, a report
was released[7] in 2003 concluding that, “there’s no question that mercury does not belong in vaccines” and
called for an immediate withdrawal of all remaining thimerosal-containing vaccines from the US market. Other
choice quotes from this report include:
“Manufacturers of vaccines and thimerosal have never conducted adequate testing on the safety of
thimerosal. The FDA has never required manufacturers to conduct adequate safety testing on thimerosal and
ethyl-mercury compounds.”
“To date, studies conducted or funded by the CDC that purportedly dispute any correlation between autism
and vaccines injury have been of poor design, under-powered, and fatally flawed. The CDC’s rush to support
and promote such research is reflective of a philosophical conflict in looking fairly at emerging theories and
clinical data related to adverse reactions from vaccinations.”
FORMALDEHYDE
Formaldehyde is a highly toxic gas used in the manufacture of plastics, adhesives, resins and is used to
embalm. In most manufacturing processes and vaccines, formaldehyde is used in a liquid form stabilized by
methanol (paint-stripper). Chronic formaldehyde exposure at very low doses has been shown to cause
immune system and nervous system changes and damage as well as headaches, general poor health,
irreversible genetic damage, and a number of other serious health problems (Fujimaki, 1992; He, 1998; John,
1994; Liu, 1993; Main, 1983; Molhave, 1986; National Research Council, 1981; Shaham, 1996; Srivastava, 1992;
Vojdani, 1992; Wantke, 1996).
SQUALENE
Squalene is an natural organic compound obtained for commercial purposes from shark liver oil and a variety
of vegetable oils. Squalene is produced by all higher organisms and is a vital part of the synthesis of
cholesterol, steroid hormones and vitamin D in humans.
In vaccines, squalene is used as an adjuvant – something which stimulates the immune system. It’s really quite
simple; when the immune system discovers something in the body that shouldn’t be there, it attacks and in
doing so develops antibodies to this foreign substance. These antibodies allow the immune system to
remember what this invader looks like, so to speak, so that if it is encountered again the immune system can
react faster. This is a gross simplification but essentially correct.
So, the idea behind vaccination is basically to induce the body to develop antibodies for whatever pathogen
you are vaccinating against; the more the better. There are two ways to do this; put more of the pathogen in
the vaccine or kick the immune system into overdrive by using adjuvants so it produces more antibodies than
it would naturally.
The rationale for using adjuvants in vaccines is clear; they are cheaper than growing more pathogens while, at
least theoretically, they give an equivalent immune system response.
On the face of it squalene may not appear to be dangerous, it is after all a substance naturally found in the
body itself. Indeed, you can consume squalene in olive oil and not only will your immune system recognize it,
you will also reap the benefits of its antioxidant properties. Injection, however, is an unnatural route of entry
and the immune system reacts strongly to it when administered in this fashion – that is, after all, the point of a
vaccine adjuvant. If injected squalene and naturally ingested squalene were perceived equivalently by the
immune system then this stimulation would not exist and there would be no point in using it as a vaccine
adjuvant. Clearly, there is a difference.
Numerous animal and human studies have confirmed that injected squalene can, and does, induce the
respective immune systems to develop antibodies to squalene. Remembering that antibodies are used to
identify and eradicate any foreign bodies from the body, a logical question may arise to the reader. Namely;
does the immune system attack all squalene in the body or just that which has been injected? For if the
immune system is stimulated into attacking all squalene then we have a problem because squalene is used all
over the body for very vital bodily processes.
To answer this question, one only needs to look at the myriad of animal experiments directly linking oil-based
adjuvants to autoimmune disease (see appendix).
The classic oil adjuvant, called Freund's Complete Adjuvant, is considered too inhumane to even inject into
animals. It does a terrific job of stimulating the immune system, though. Unfortunately, Freund's Complete
Adjuvant can cause permanent organ damage and incurable disease. As early as the 1930s, these oil additives
were notorious for inducing illness. By the 1950s, scientists knew these illnesses were specifically autoimmune.
Today, their chief use in research is to induce autoimmune disease in test subjects. Scientists studying
autoimmune disease cannot wait around for its spontaneous appearance in a lab animal; they inject it with
Freund's Complete Adjuvant to reproduce autoimmunity on demand. Oil adjuvants made with squalene are
equally effective at this job, and regrettably according to Dutch scientists, equally inhumane.
Dangers of squalene have been known since 1956 when Dr. Jules Freund, creator of this oil-based adjuvant,
warned that animals injected with his formulation developed terrible, incurable conditions: allergic
aspermatogenesis (stoppage of sperm production), experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (the animal
version of MS), allergic neuritis (inflammation of the nerves that can lead to paralysis) and other severe
autoimmune disorders.
“Truth”, Jan 3, 1923 The Fraud Of Vaccination – Dr. Hadwen
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
FDA website
Immunization Safety Review: Thimerosal - Containing Vaccines and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
(2001)
Gender-selective toxicity of thimerosal - Donald R. Branch, March 2008
Sex differential of methyl-mercury toxicity in spontaneously hypertensive rats - Hidehiko Tamashiro,
Mikio Arakaki, Hirokatsu Akagi, Kimiko Hirayama, Koji Murao and Michael H. Smolensky, Dec 1986
Ehlers and Gillberg, 1993
“Mercury in Medicine - Taking Unnecessary Risks”, Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness,
Committee on Government Reform, United States House Representatives, May 2003
The Lancet article, Michael E. Pichichero, MD (2002)
Reduced levels of mercury in first baby haircuts of autistic children - Holmes AS, Blaxill MF, Haley BE.
Int J Toxicol. 2003 Jul-Aug;22(4):277-85.