I'd like to acknowledge a few books that opened my eyes to this controversial but fascinating field of research.
The first is The Virus and the Vaccine, a fascinating true story of the contamination of the polio vaccine with a cancer-causing monkey virus.
The second is Dr. Mary's Monkey. Although I didn't use this book as a source, it's a thrilling story in its own right, and weaves together the JFK assassination, the contaminated polio vaccine scandal, and a secret project to develop a bio-weapon to kill Fidel Castro.
Lastly I owe much of this research to the indispensable Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners. The thousands of references provided have proved to be a veritable gold mine.
The Herd Immunity Illusion and Other Scary Scenarios
Perhaps the most oft-cited truism among those who unequivocally defend the current vaccine program is the notion of “herd immunity.” The idea is that if a large enough percentage of the population is immunized against a certain disease, then epidemics can be prevented.
Originally, it was suggested that 60-70% of the population needed to be immunized to reach those goals...today some claim that 95-100% immunization is needed.
There is a very strong, and rarely mentioned, case against the perceived state of “herd immunity” in the population today. The mistake lies in the assumption that high percentages of the population are still immune to diphtheria, smallpox, pertussis, etc.
The media and vaccine enthusiasts would have us believe otherwise, like claiming that as many as 40,000 people die from the “flu” every year, despite this claim being completely unsupported by the data.
In fact, Peter Doshi, Ph.D., a Johns Hopkins scientist, recently issued a blistering report, claiming that only a small portion of those diagnosed with the “flu” actually have the influenza virus present.
According to Doshi, “The vaccine may be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza seems to be overstated. For most people, and possibly most doctors, officials need only claim that vaccines save lives, and it is assumed there must be solid research behind it.” That's not the case, he says.
Hopefully, the latest Tamiflu debacle will help reignite this crucial conversation.
Another method of the pro-vaccine scare campaign is to evoke mortality rates in the thousands or millions from previous eras or Third World nations.
One of the most common themes among proponents of the flu vaccine is that everything must be done to prevent the 1917-1918 flu epidemic that killed millions.
However, recent research raises serious doubts about blaming a “wild” strain of the influenza virus for the extraordinary number of deaths. Evidence suggests it was none other than Bayer's indefatigable promotion of aspirin that may have been largely responsible.
Before the mortality rate spiked, Bayer embarked on an aggressive ad campaign to promote their new product. Furthermore, autopsy reports from 1918 are consistent with what we know today about the dangers of aspirin toxicity.
Another terrifying epidemic in American history was the 1916 polio outbreak that killed at least 5,000 people. As can be seen by this graph, the 1916 death rate from polio was extremely anomalous, and was one of the many events that inspired the push to develop a polio vaccine when rates began rising again in the 1940s and 50s.
Although originally blamed on “Italian immigrants,” this explanation is beginning to be seriously called into question. A study was published by H.V. Wyatt in 2011 that suggests a much more sinister explanation for the outbreak:
It seems it would be premature to completely dismiss this hypothesis, especially since an extremely virulent multi-virus (MV) strain of polio was being experimented on within walking distance of the worst polio outbreak in half a century. Mortality rates reached 25% among those afflicted, compared to the usual mortality rate of less than 1%.
These past events and their “official” explanations are extremely important to reanalyze, because they could potentially be used to mislead the public.