Posted: 10/11/2013 by zandtao in Big Pharma, Health

This is very long so you can jump to the conclusion

I touched on the issue of vaccines when I was considering a flu jab – and rejected it out of hand. My flu problem was dragging on – it turned out to be a glandular issue (click tag cloud glands), so my mind turned again to vaccines. In this blog I analysed further the use of vaccines. I accepted the homeopathic principle (discussed here) that says that a small amount of the “virus” will help produce antibodies. However I concluded that:-

“Basically they didn’t make vaccines until they could be sure that nothing would happen to the companies if there were side effects. I don’t trust the companies anyway, and if they are given carte blanche – no way.”

Checkout this animate from the Health Ranger, I now consider him extreme but this is worth watching for details about the legal shenaningans in the US that support BigPharma.

I have seen further stuff on vaccines, and downloaded this film – The Greater Good. My first reaction was that I don’t feel it is hard-hitting enough. However it does raise questions, and that is what I want to do here – raise more detailed questions and look for answers.

There was one thing I didn’t factor into my consideration of vaccines because of my distrust of BigPharma, and that is how successful they have been in eradicating some diseases. So what do I replace this with if I make a blanket refusal to vaccinate? A much better question. Not only have these diseases been eradicated vaccines have been used over time successfully. So the real question is not just about vaccinating, but what has changed and when did it change? In the movie it says that children in the US are expected to have 69 doses for 16 vaccines in 2010s as opposed to when they had 23 doses for 7 vaccines in 1980s:-

This is a big change. Remember a vaccine contains a disease or virus, and the purpose of them is to build up antibodies. Are we giving our children too much to fight causing them illness?

But what put me off the flu vaccine was the chemicals that help the vaccine:-

Chemicals commonly used in the production of vaccines include a suspending fluid (sterile water, saline, or fluids containing protein); preservatives and stabilizers (for example, albumin, phenols, and glycine); and adjuvants or enhancers that help improve the vaccine’s effectiveness. Vaccines also may contain very small amounts of the culture material used to grow the virus or bacteria used in the vaccine, such as chicken egg protein.

This is from the CDC, so there is no dispute that there are chemical additives, the dispute is concerning the dangers of the additives. Mercury is recognised as a poison yet it is contained in many vaccines disguised as thimerasol; there is also formaldehyde and aluminium, all are discussed in the movie The Greater Good and also discussed here. What the movie points out is that there has not been sufficient testing of the vaccines long-term? I would also suggest that there has not been enough testing on the volume of vaccines. In the 80s when the vaccines eradicated diseases without the problems being reported now, they were only treating 7 diseases, now it is 16. Perhaps the immune system (that is producing the antibodies) has too much to cope with, and perhaps that is why we are having conditions such as autism arising from the vaccinations.

What horrified me was the boy in the movie whose mercury levels were so high:-

In the movie (43m 50s) one system doctor cited studies that the level of mercury in vaccines was acceptable, maybe it isn’t in an accumulation of vaccines. Either way for me taking any mercury is a huge risk, and each person has to balance this out with the risks of the disease itself. Another doctor (44m 50s) said that in 1999 the level had to be reduced, but that still leaves open the question why were vaccines not a problem in the 80s. What was also raised is that mercury tolerance is different for different people, and perhaps this boy was particularly vulnerable. Why isn’t that tolerance tested? Surely that can’t be difficult?

A fascinating point arose around 58m. As in my above conclusion it was pointed out that BigPharma is not liable. Initially they were, and paid out huge money. So the revolving door led to BigPharma becoming immune to prosecution. The lawyer effectively said the government made this for the “greater good”, there must be vaccination. Why doesn’t the government take control? Why doesn’t the government produce and test the vaccines for themselves? And have a procedure for accountability? Rather than leaving it in the hands of companies who put profits before people?

Here is another question, and it scuppers my original statement that immunisation has worked. This particular doctor suggested that improved hygiene awareness contributed to the reduction in disease:-

According to this doctor vaccines were introduced after the reduction in deaths. Is this true? Check this timeline.

This doctor is questioning the effectiveness of vaccines, but after reflection I tend to think this is a red herring; but I am not sure. The principle of vaccinating in my opinion is sound. It is the chemicals and volume of disease I have issues with.

The movie concluded with a very sound position. The science is not there to prove that vaccines are safe nor is it there to prove they are not safe. The problem is that BigPharma has control of the government (in the US the FDA and CDC), and vaccines are recommended or mandated. How can the vaccine be safe with mercury in it? That doesn’t make sense to me. What about other chemicals, that also doesn’t make sense to me.

The debate is polarised, this is the problem. When science is questioned scientists can get defensive. This page tells us which chemicals are in vaccines, it reads like a list of don’ts on my diet; it is produced by the CDC. There are strong detractors of vaccines such as the health ranger, holistic health 1 and 2 (disgusting does not make it bad for you?) , and here. Here is a UK detractor describing the cover-up of vaccine hazards, and here is the UK schedule – not legally mandated apparently.

The hazards are real. The benefits of sound vaccination are real. The vaccines the doctors give are unnecessarily hazardous because of the toxins they contain. Can we produce vaccines without these toxic chemicals? Here is a description, and here is a description of how UK vaccines can be hazardous. What struck me when reading this was that the science process was fine, and that the problems come from mass production – the need to mass produce requires preservation; and mass production is Big Pharma’s profits. So the way forward for vaccinating is clear – small is beautiful BigPharma can kill. The problem is – does small exist?

So I investigated the claims for homeopathic vaccines. I found some places on the net talking of homeopathic vaccines and nosodes, but it wasn’t clear. Then

The Faculty of Homeopathy represents hundreds of professionally qualified clinicians such as doctors, nurses, vets and dentists who are statutorily regulated and safely use homeopathy on a regular basis to the benefit of their patients, many of whom have found little or no relief from their symptoms using conventional medicine. Members of the Faculty of Homeopathy would never recommend homeopathic medicine instead of conventional immunisation. It is the poor advice given by some lay practitioners as highlighted in the Newsnight programme that undermines homeopathy as an effective medicine and results in the hostile media stories.” Case closed on homeppathy as an alternative for the moment.


Some vaccines are a necessity. It would be socially irresponsible to contract diseases that spread and cause deaths to others. But what is definitely clear is the role of the 1% in this. BigPharma use the puppet government agencies of the FDA and CDC in the US and their equivalents in other countries to mandate, or otherwise, the taking of their vaccines; but neither the FDA nor the CDC have properly monitored the quality of these vaccines. To increase their profits Big Pharma have used chemical processes that preserve the vaccines but in doing so have used chemicals that are toxic and some carcinogenic. The impact of these drugs is not consistent as some children have immune systems that can fight them. Whereas in some cases there are strong indications that in some children the vaccines have caused autism and other neural conditions.

Homeopathy sadly does not offer alternatives authoritatively.

So the vaccines taken need to be kept to a minimum because of the potential risks caused by the chemical additives. Vaccines that were given to me in the
50s and 60s have inoculated me for life, but it appears that changes made in vaccines have now made them more toxic. What these changes are is not clear, maybe it is just that there are more vaccines. Big Pharma cannot be relied on to deliver a safe vaccine, and as the government is their puppet do not expect their agencies to help you – to enforce safe practices.

Vaccines are necessary but are not being investigated. BigPharma is given carte-blanche to make vast vaccine profits with medicine that is now unproven. Parents must vaccinate but be prepared there are significant and regular side effects.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

  1. zandtao says:

    Click to access the_question_of_vaccination.pdf

    Here is a homeopathic view on childhood vaccinations.

  2. zandtao says:

    In this pdf, an Australian homeopathist, Pitcairn,advocates the use of homeopathic alternatives – nosodes. I begin to suspect politics when the British organisation, faculty of homeopathy, does not support their own vaccinations.

    Pitcairn says there is a similarity principle – like is like, this is the principle the mainstream vaccines use – but BigPharma adds poisons which has led to the outcry. I suspect the faculty could not cope with the adverse publicity.

    The solution for me still lies in vaccinations made safe through proper research – but that will never happen in our current 1% social structure. It also sounds like the 1% has intimidated the homeopathy establishment as well.

    But to be honest I cannot make any recommendations here, I know so little, but maybe you can find some homeopathist you trust to consider nosodes – or not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.