There is no evidence that any vaccine works

And other great unchallenged assumptions of our time

Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash

One of our obsessions at the moment is to inject each other with toxins and mRNA to improve our health and then to discuss whether it’s working.

From Jenner’s lethal procedure for smallpox onward not a single study has been performed comparing differences in outcomes, such as frequent illness or longevity, between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

There was no evidence that cowpox protected against smallpox. Indeed there was no evidence that cowpox existed beyond lesions from repeated milking and the use of detergents on the udders of cows and the palms of milkmaids. There are many reasons why country women with access to fresh air, clean water and fruit and veg would have better complexions that women living in smog filled towns that have nothing to do with pre-exposure to a different type of pox, giving ‘immunity’ to smallpox.

The smallpox vaccine, and every one after, was simply accepted as effective, based on no evidence, by the medical establishment and government. Where records were kept the smallpox vaccine was always positively associated with death. Luckily by the end of the 19th century improvements in sanitation, housing and child labour laws had done what the vaccine couldn’t do; ‘eradicate’ smallpox.

All about the original and worst vaccine

The myth of the antidote/antibody began when people, who were afraid of being poisoned, themselves took small amounts of mercury and alcohol. A person unaccustomed to alcohol may die upon injesting large amounts. A pre-dosing with a small amount of alcohol did appear to protect them but not by making them ‘immune’ to alcohol but by their body producing the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase to break it down. However the idea that a small amount of toxin such as mercury, or a mild form of a disease somehow protected the body persisted. The logic that avoiding poisons such as mercury and large amounts of alcohol was all that was required to remain healthy was suppressed by the burgeoning medical and vaccine industries.

Vaccinologists know that there is no evidence that vaccines improve outcomes, and that it is impossible that they could. Illness is not caused by ‘viruses’ so pre-dosing with ‘mild’ or small amounts of them will have no effect, vaccines are simply needlessly administered toxins. However a convenient surrogate marker for effectiveness was found; the production of ‘antibodies’. The detection of antibodies has, of course, never been shown to be beneficial to outcomes either. Indeed, in upside down virology world having antibodies to ‘HIV’ apparently doesn’t mean that you are immune but that you’re very sick.

Antibodies are globulins that seem to stick specifically and avidly to every antigen the body is exposed to. They are convenient to vaccinologists because this reaction can be observed and measured.

If viruses don't exist what about antibodies?

Low or high titres of antibodies cannot be used to imply weak or strong immunity to becoming ill: the association with outcomes has never been demonstrated. People with antibodies still get sick and people without don’t. Nor can low titre be used to infer that a virus has mutated and is no being longer recognised, or that antibodies are enhancing replication.

Antibodies aren't what we've been told

Antibodies are not the antidote that fight infections. So called infectious diseases are in fact detoxification events and the globulins produced are involved in regeneration and restoration of the body to balance

I hope that we can challenge all assumptions that we have about illness and vaccines before we waste anymore time and energy.

Jo