Herd Immunity, article about mass vaccination from Suzanne Humphries, MD

Another important article about vaccination


“Herd Immunity.” The flawed science and failures of mass vaccination, Suzanne Humphries, MD

The oft-parroted sound bite – “we need herd immunity”- implies that if ninety five percent of the population can become “immune” to a disease via vaccination, target immunity levels will be met and diseases will either be eradicated or controlled. This sound bite is the most commonly pulled weapon used by the vaccinators, only second to “smallpox and polio were eradicated by vaccination.” “Herd immunity” is the trump card for the defense of vaccination on TV, Internet, medical journals and newspapers as to why we should be vaccinated over and over throughout our lives, with an ever-increasing number of vaccines.

Paul Offit smiled and PLAYED THE CARD while peddling his book on the comedy central channel as Steven Colbert jokingly said, “if the vaccines work so good for you, why do I need one?” Dr. Mark Segal PULLED IT on fox news as Mary Holland, JD eloquently described the issue of vaccine injury and loss of legal recourse in an era of forced and mandated vaccines. In addition to flaunting several false allegations and sound bites, Dr. Segal’s well-rehearsed rant brushed right over the issue at hand, the fact that victims of vaccine injury have no legal right to sue – and instead launched into his agenda of scaring the listeners by parroting the “herd immunity” dogma.

The hype about herd immunity unfortunately creates a wall of hostility between those who vaccinate and those who delay some vaccines, avoid certain vaccines, or quit vaccinating altogether.

Since the beginning of vaccination, there is little proof that vaccines are responsible for eradicating disease even when herd immunity vaccination levels have been reached. Yet celebrity doctors rattle on about your unvaccinated neighbor being the biggest threat to your child – as if vaccination was the only way to avoid an illness or stay healthy.

To make matters worse, this intimidation to vaccinate is played out in an environment where WHO and vaccine manufacturers have been accused of scandalous misrepresentations of disease risk or vaccine safety and effectiveness. If the allegations against these entities are true, which I believe they are, we are being systematically altered, sickened and manipulated by powerful governing bodies that either don’t understand the risks of vaccination, or don’t care. We are told that the health of the herd is more important than any single life, and you now have no conventional legal recourse when your little sheep is wounded by any type of vaccine, no matter how it happened.

The money factor
The population of the world is expanding over the past 200 years where vaccines have been used, and this makes obtaining herd immunity even more expensive and impossible today than ever. How many billions of people would need to be vaccinated how many times to eradicate just one illness based on the theory of vaccine herd immunity? How much would that cost? Consider the cost of vaccines, refrigeration, vaccinators, and hazardous waste removal. Just look at chicken pox vaccine at $7.25 per dose for the CDC discounted price. Each child gets 2 doses. The US census shows 25.7 million children between 0-5 years. Just the cost of the vaccines to vaccinate each of those children, not including the lifetime of boosters, refrigeration, administration and waste, costs the government over 372 million dollars. Chicken pox vaccines are now being exposed for the failure they are, but vaccine profits are still climbing. After the members of the herd stopped transmitting natural immunity to each other because of the vaccine effect, shingles increased. The response- more doses of vaccine for children and a shingles vaccine to adults. HERE is a recent journal abstract describing the failure of herd protection by varicella vaccines. In a SEPARATE DOCUMENT, Dr. Goldman says:

“Prior to the universal varicella vaccination program, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as school aged children)—these cases were usually benign and resulted in long term immunity. This high percentage of individuals having long term immunity has been compromised by mass vaccination of children which provides at best 70 to 90% immunity that is temporary and of unknown duration—shifting chickenpox to a more vulnerable adult population where chickenpox carries 20 times more risk of death and 15 times more risk of hospitalization compared to children. Add to this the adverse effects of both the chickenpox and shingles vaccines as well as the potential for increased risk of shingles for an estimated 30 to 50 years among adults. The Universal Varicella (Chickenpox) Vaccination Program now requires booster vaccines; however, these are less effective than the natural immunity that existed in communities prior to licensure of the varicella vaccine.”

In India, doctors are concerned about profit margins being protected before human lives, with recommendations to vaccinate every child with more expensive, newer vaccines.  Dr Jacob Puliyel describes the problems he sees..

“An analysis in the Lancet showed how the Pneumococcal vaccine reduces only 4 cases of pneumonia per 1000 children. The cost for vaccinating 1000 children comes to $ 12,750. Treating the 4 cases of pneumonia in India using WHO protocol, would cost $ 1. The pneumococcus strains prevalent in India are nearly all sensitive to inexpensive antibiotics like penicillin. In the US which has been using the pneumococcal vaccine for some years now, there has been a strain shift – strains covered in the vaccine are being replaced by other strains. Ominously the new strains are more antibiotic resistant. Vaccine has simply made the problem of pneumococcal disease worse. Yet this vaccine is being pushed in Africa and Asia.…It is not about lives lost in poor countries – it is all about the cash register. These organizations and their sponsors have profit margins to protect. Ethics is not a major issue with them.”

The profits to vaccine manufacturers and the government must be enormous.

The CDC is in the vaccine business. Members of the CDC’s Vaccine Advisory Committee accept payment from vaccine manufacturers. Sanofi-Pasteur, Merck and others specifically seek to employ CDC staff once their contracts have run out. Relationships have included sharing a vaccine patent, owning stock in a vaccine company, payments for research, payment to monitor manufacturer vaccine tests, and funding academic departments. Thanks to a 1980 law, the CDC currently holds dozens of licensing agreements. It also has numerous ongoing projects to collaborate on new vaccines.

The science?
What science is there behind the belief that the herd can be protected by vaccinating enough of the sheep? Or that any disease has been eradicated from the planet thanks to a vaccine?

Recently, I was told by a vaccinator that “herd immunity is just a definition and so it can’t actually be wrong. “ But the assumption of a 95% vaccination rate giving the herd a chance at eradication or higher levels of health – can be wrong. Let us go back in time and see just where the idea behind this definition probably comes from. Dr A.W. Hedrich in 1929, studied the natural occurrence of measles.

“On the basis of field surveys of various workers, it is inferred that approximately 95% of the children in cities suffer measles attacks by the fifteenth birthday. “  


Before vaccines, outbreaks of measles were observed in 2 to 3 year cycles, and 95% of the population developed immunity by the age of fifteen.

The original idea that vaccination could strengthen the herd’s immunity, assumed that there was only one clinical event, and that one natural exposure equated life -long immunity. But this was not the case back when the diseases circulated freely. Vaccinators miss the point that the body defends most efficiently as a result of ongoing re-exposure. They try to mimic this with boosters. But the vaccination plan leaves the elderly(due to vaccine-induced immunity being short-lived and antigens taken out of circulation) and the very young(due to lack of transferrable maternal immunity) more vulnerable to several diseases that were not a threat to them before vaccination. In the case of chicken pox, vaccination renders the elderly more apt to shingles infections, because the herd has now lost the continued and benign re-exposures to children with chicken pox.

Instead of figuring out why a very small number develop dangerous invasive conditions, vaccine enthusiasts recommend vaccinating as often as possible in order to protect against something that would never be a danger to the vast majority of those vaccinated. If you constantly swab throats of healthy people most would be carrying and circulating supposed pathogens, as commensals.[2] At any one time in any society, neisseriae(the bacteria isolated in some cases of meningitis) are being circulated, yet most of the time, nothing happens, other than the body notes it, defends against it, and the host has no idea that they even carried it.[3] But now that vaccines for as many types as possible have been developed, the vaccine is the answer to the problem. This is typical for diseases today.

It is well documented that prior to vaccination, cycles of natural infection added to the herd’s immunity.

“The formal demonstration that both maternal antibodies and early exposure to infection are required for long-term protection illustrated that constant re-infection cycles have an essential role in building a stable herd immunity. In a population that is not constantly exposed to the infection during early infancy under the immunologic umbrella of maternal antibodies or vaccinated thoroughly a serious risk of re-emerging infections may arise. “  


Vaccination creates a “quasi-sterile” environment that opens up the possibility of disease outbreaks.

“Attempts to eradicate measles virus or poliovirus eliminates antigen exposure of infants to these pathogens. Such quasi-sterile epidemiological situations may actually increase the risk of outbreaks.” 


We know this is possible because there have been eruptions of measles in the USA in populations that were 100 percent vaccinated.

“The affected high school had 276 students and was in the same building as a junior high school with 135 students. A review of health records in the high school showed that all 411 students had documentation of measles vaccination on or after the first birthday, in accordance with Illinois law.” 


Within the scope of vaccination, when a quasi-sterile situation is created, and measles breaks out in the midst, the only solution within that paradigm is to vaccinate more people, more often. This is a backwards solution to the problem when considering who remains susceptible even in the face of full compliance: infants and non-immune adults. Susceptible age groups have essentially traded places since vaccinating. What used to happen with measles is that infants were protected by maternal antibodies, adults were protected by continued exposure, and infected children handled the disease normally and became immune for long periods of time. So, while measles vaccines have decreased the expression of measles infections, it has not necessarily improved the bigger picture. And certainly there are numerous troubles with the side effects of the vaccine.

Prior to vaccination, mothers were naturally immune to measles and passed that immunity to their infants via placenta and breast milk. Vaccinated mothers may have vaccine immunity, which is not the same immunologically, as natural immunity. One of the major differences in the vaccine-induced immunity is that it cannot be passed from mother to infant.

Since most vaccines are delivered by injection, the mucous membranes are bypassed and thus blood antibodies are produced but not mucosal antibodies. Mucosal exposure is what contributes to the production of antibodies in the mammary gland. A child’s exposure to the virus while being breastfed by a naturally immune mother would lead to an asymptomatic infection that results in long-term immunity to that virus. Vaccinated mothers have lower levels of virus-specific antibodies in the serum and milk compared to naturally immune mothers and thus their infants are unprotected.

“Infants whose mothers were born after 1963 had a measles attack rate of 33%, compared to 12% for infants of older mothers.” Infants whose mothers were born after 1963 are more susceptible to measles than are infants of older mothers. An increasing proportion of infants born in the United States may be susceptible to measles.” 


For the disease of measles, we see that while the clinical case rate may have declined with vaccination, the most sensitive members of the herd are at an increased risk- as a result of vaccination.

Dr Peter Aaby has produced volumes of research on measles in Africa. Initially there was a belief that measles infection was associated with immune suppression and higher long-term mortality, but that belief came from vaccine research, not natural measles research.

“The belief in persistent immune suppression was stimulated by increased mortality after high-titre measles vaccination.” 


Once natural measles was monitored long-term the knowledge changed. According to Aaby,

“When measles infection is mild, clinical measles has no long-term excess mortality and may be associated with better overall survival than no clinical measles infection. Sub-clinical measles is common among immunised children and is not associated with excess mortality.”  


Measles is mildest when the infected person is replete with vitamins C and A. The devastation and mortality you hear about with measles comes from starving populations.

Do you know that 30% of cases of measles in unvaccinated are missed because they are so mild?[10] Subclinical measles is an entity that most doctors today are unaware of. If they are missed in unvaccinated, and there are known outbreaks of measles in 100 percent vaccinated populations, are cases missed in vaccinated populations too? Is measles still alive and well but going unnoticed in vaccinated countries, until a well-publicized outbreak occurs, as vaccine necessity is being trumpeted? What doctor would know or is even looking for atypical measles?

Talk to your grandmother about measles. Ask her if she saw death and destruction from the disease. It was not a disease that needed eradication. The high death rates were in countries where children were undernourished and lacked vitamins necessary to process the virus. Alexander Langmuir, MD is known today as “the father of infectious disease epidemiology.” In 1949 he created the epidemiology section of what is now known as the CDC. He also headed the Polio Surveillance Unit that was started in 1955 after the polio vaccine misadventures. Dr Langmuir knew that measles was not a disease that needed eradication when he said:

“To those who ask me, ‘Why do you wish to eradicate measles?,’ I reply with the same answer that Hillary used when asked why he wished to climb Mt. Everest. He said, ‘Because it is there.’ To this may be added, “. . and it can be done.”  


Langmuir also knew that by the time vaccination was developed, measles mortality in the USA had already declined to minimal levels when he described measles as a

“… self-limiting infection of short duration, moderate severity, and low fatality…” 


The vaccine was created because it could be done, not because we needed it. Measles is not eradicated. Outbreaks happen all over the world, and will continue. And now infants will be unprotected because of the absence of maternal antibodies in their vaccinated mother’s milk. So much for protecting the most vulnerable in the herd.


“We were fortunate enough to address their own medical (and) health officials where we reminded them of the incidence of smallpox in formerly “immunized” Filipinos. We invited them to consult their own medical records and asked them to correct us if our own facts and figures disagreed. No such correction has been forthcoming, and we can only conclude that between 1918-1919 there were 112,549 cases of smallpox notified, with 60,855 deaths. Systematic (mass) vaccination started in 1905, and since its introduction case mortality increased alarmingly. Their own records comment that “The mortality is hardly explainable.”

    —Dr. Archie Kalokerinos from

    • Second Thoughts on Disease

Orthopox is a member of the family of Poxviridae. The ancestor of the poxviruses is not known but structural studies suggest it may have been an adenovirus or a species related to both the poxviruses and the adenoviruses. Orthopox viruses include cowpox(vaccinia), smallpox(variola), and monkeypox. Mutations do occur in these viruses, but at a very slow rate.

Between October 1970 and May 1971 a poxvirus was isolated from some symptomatic patients in West Africa. That virus is now known as “human monkeypox.” Monkeypox got its name because monkeys were the first animals known to have harbored the monkeypox virus. Scientists now say that the primary reservoirs for monkeypox virus are not monkeys but probably squirrels. WHO officials in 1976 had no idea what the true reservoir of infection was.[13] Today, according to CDC, it remains uncertain.

Smallpox was declared eradicated worldwide by the World Health Assembly on May 8,th 1980. Vaccination was stopped in the USA in 1972. However, poxviruses that were indistinguishable from smallpox continued to cause human disease.

Monkeys in surrounding areas where monkeypox outbreaks occur usually test negative for monkeypox. But prairie dogs, exotic rodents, Gambian rats, dormice, rope squirrels and other animals have tested positive. Nobody really knows when or where monkeypox viruses originated, but they seem to be close relatives of cowpox and smallpox. All three viruses have rodent reservoirs, which is important when considering the history and current transmission of smallpox and monkeypox. Today, monkeypox outbreaks are blamed on rodents or exotic pet imports, not person-to -person transmission even though human transmission does occur. Historically, smallpox reservoirs were also rodents – during a time when rodents were eaten as food and when infestations were commonplace. Yet in the discussion of smallpox outbreaks this is rarely mentioned. What we hear is how the vaccine eradicated the disease.

THIS ARTICLE states that monkeypox was first recorded in 1970 after the eradication of smallpox in the Democratic Republic of Congo. University of California, School of Public Health epidemiologist Dr Anne Rimoin states that monkeypox first arrived in humans after smallpox eradication, even though it has been on the earth for millennia.

“Monkeypox has probably occurred for millennia in central Africa, but it’s only since the eradication of smallpox that it’s been a disease that actually happens in humans,” Rimoin says. ” 

There is absolutely zero certainty as to when monkeypox first colonized humans. It is more accurate to say that monkeypox was first detected in humans around the time that smallpox was being declared eradicated, not that it arrived in humans at that time. Differentiation tests were not carried out on most cases of pox in the past 200 years.

Laboratory diagnostic assays for monkeypox include virus isolation and electron microscopy, ELISA, immunofluorescent antibody assay, histopathologic analysis, and Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). Unfortunately, most of these methods are relatively nonspecific and are unable to differentiate monkeypox viral infection from infection with other poxviruses.[14] All but PCR are fraught with false positives, false negatives, and cross reactivity.

In the 1970s and 1980s, biochemical tests were unreliable in differentiating between monkeypox and smallpox. Animal challenge tests were historically used to determine the difference between monkeypox and smallpox. The technique involved inoculating rabbits and watching the characteristics of the pox. Initially the two kinds of pox appear similar in the rabbit, but after a few days, monkeypox distinguishes itself as it becomes hemorrhagic. LINK TO DOC HERE.

The problem with such means for distinction is that there has always been a hemorrhagic form of smallpox.

“There are four types of variola major smallpox: ordinary; modified; flat; and hemorrhagic…. Hemorrhagic smallpox has a much shorter incubation period and is likely not to be initially recognized as smallpox when presenting to medical care. Smallpox vaccination also does not provide much protection, if any, against hemorrhagic smallpox.”  


ELISA is not much of a gold standard test as it casts a very wide net, and is fraught with false positive and false negative results.[16]  ELISA TUTORIAL HERE.

The genomes of these three orthopox viruses are extremely conserved and require a technology that can detect the minute differences. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a newer test that came on the scene in the 1980s. This test is different in that it can potentially find pieces of DNA from a virus. The genetic sequence of a virus has to first be mapped prior to designing a PCR test. So before smallpox, cowpox, or monkeypox viruses were characterized genetically, PCR could not be applied to distinguish between them. The first PCR test for monkeypox was used in 1997, but highly sensitive real-time PCR was not in use until 2006.[17] Different biotech companies have developed different tests that use different primers. PCR, while highly sensitive and specific at about 98%, still has drawbacks, contamination being the biggest one. No test is foolproof. Nonetheless it is probably the best assay available for detection and distinction today.

It should now be obvious that during the two centuries of smallpox vaccination and up until the 1990s there was no certain way of testing for distinct orthopox viruses. During the two centuries of vaccination, the viruses were likely to mutate, and certain strains could have been selected out as a result of vaccination.

Therefore, does anyone know how much ‘smallpox’ disease was actually monkeypox or vaccinia? Given that monkeypox is thought to be an ancient virus, where was it during the smallpox epidemics? Was it called hemorrhagic smallpox?

In 1972, scientists were asking similar questions when they said:

“Is it possible that there is an animal reservoir for smallpox infection? Could monkeypox be a source of new outbreaks of true variola? Or, can the monkeypox virus undergo certain mutations and become identical in its pathogenicity and infectiveness to the variola virus?” 


ACCORDING TO SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN., monkeypox is not that rare. Seven hundred and sixty cases of monkeypox were counted in the Congo between 2006 and 2007.

Before and during the time of eradication declaration, PCR was unavailable, and the different poxviruses couldn’t be distinguished by their DNA, but by a skin test on rabbits, chick embryo membranes, and blood tests that were fraught with uncertainty. It seems to me that what was once called smallpox was likely a very non-uniform disease that could have been anything from cowpox to two forms of smallpox to chickenpox to monkeypox.

“Monkeypox virus is closely related to some other orthopoxviruses such as variola (smallpox) virus, and it cannot be distinguished from these viruses in some laboratory tests.…In 1996-1997, an outbreak [of monkeypox] in the DRC continued for more than a year, with a person–to–person transmission rate estimated at 78%. However, epidemiological evidence suggests that many of the cases in this outbreak may have been chickenpox (varicella); the number of monkeypox cases and the transmission rate might have been overestimated due to self-reporting and the unavailability of laboratory testing.” 


When vaccination stopped, monkeypox was suddenly diagnosed in humans. Diagnostic methods were absent during the great vaccine campaigns and everything pox-like was considered smallpox and counted as smallpox. Differentiating was not a priority.

Variola, the smallpox virus, is not in the smallpox vaccine. Instead, a cultured form of cowpox, called vaccinia, is the virus used to prevent smallpox. That same vaccine also covers monkeypox, according to the CDC:

“Because the monkeypox virus is related to the virus that causes smallpox, the smallpox vaccine can protect people from getting monkeypox as well as smallpox.

Smallpox vaccine is effective at protecting people against monkeypox when it is given before they are exposed to monkeypox. (Exposure includes very close contact with a person or animal that has monkeypox.) Experts believe that vaccination after exposure to monkeypox may help prevent the disease or make it less severe.” [20]

Even though PCR can distinguish between the three viruses, clinically and immunologically the viruses are so similar, that one virus in the vaccine is thought to immunize against the two other viruses. During outbreaks they all look the same.

After the world trade center collapses in New York there were concerns over potential bioterrorism. Forty thousand health care workers and first responders and 450 thousand military were vaccinated in 2003. They were all contagious for the nineteen-day post-vaccine shedding period. Some doctors were asked to receive the vaccine in order to care for those who took the vaccine and developed vaccinia, or to care for those who became infected upon contact with a recently vaccinated person.

Multi-state outbreaks of monkeypox were reported in the same year.[21] Most cases are presumed to have come from contact with prairie dogs exposed to rodents per CDC. However all cases were not exposed to animals.  ACCORDING TO A 2005 REPORT, of 72 cases only 37 cases were laboratory confirmed. Eleven original cases were thrown out of the database when they met exclusion criteria. EXCLUSION CRITERIA. There is mention of human to human infection, though in some reports this is denied.

This is a very strange coincidence; vaccination and concomitant pox outbreaks in the same year. Supposedly, monkeypox is not easily transmissible between humans, but there is a report in the literature of a 5 chain human-to -human transmission, and human-to-human monkeypox transmission is well documented.[22]  A NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE REPORT vaguely stated that “There was ‘limited or no’ spread of monkeypox virus through human contact during this outbreak.” 

In 2003, the year that half a million people were vaccinated in the USA – AND the only year of monkeypox outbreaks in the USA, a multistate (Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin) outbreak, was the source of the outbreak definitely prairie dogs? CDC doesn’t state how many pox cases were exposed to prairie dogs, just “the majority of them had direct or close contact.” The vagueness of CDC’s reports gives rise to doubts. Only 37 of 72 cases were confirmed with PCR tests, and eleven of the original total were excluded from analysis. Excluding numerous cases on frivolous grounds is one way to dampen a negative outcome after a vaccine accident.

Considering the link with vaccination is not far-fetched especially given that CDC reports say that only roughly half of cases were PCR confirmed. Vaccination has long been a relatively common means of transmitting pox outbreaks. According to Arita and Gromyko’s WHO bulletin in 1982, vaccination was a major fly in the eradication ointment…

“During the last 24 months, for example, surveillance reports from Canada and the United Kingdom have included 6 and 9 cases, respectively, of vaccine complications. At least 8 cases, however, were in persons who, while not vaccinated themselves, had been infected with vaccinia virus after being in contact with persons recently vaccinated. In some countries vaccination of recruits to the armed services has continued; these recruits will occasionally transmit vaccinia infection to unvaccinated persons, and inevitably some of the complications will be fatal. In the United Kingdom and Finland, smallpox vaccination of army recruits was discontinued in 1981.” 


Without discontinuing vaccination, it would have been impossible to stop the flow of smallpox. Doesn’t that lead you to wonder how much smallpox was the result of the vaccine rather than natural smallpox? We know that in places like Leicester UK, when vaccination ceased, so did smallpox. And there are numerous accounts of smallpox disease not only being much more severe and deadly among vaccinated populations, but also more prevalent.

Isn’t it interesting that smallpox vaccine defies everything we know about specificity in immunity and that one vaccine covers all sorts of pox, except chicken pox? Can you imagine, nowadays, if a vaccine researcher suggested that an illness could be prevented by using a slightly related virus? Today’s vaccines contain numerous strains and types of the same organism. Polio vaccine has 3 types of poliovirus, influenza 2 strains of type A and one strain of type B. But smallpox vaccine today contains one of many possible strains of a related virus, not even the smallpox(variola) virus at all. In Jenner’s time, it is anyone’s guess which viruses ended up in the vaccines since the technique was so primitive and typing methods were not available. Still, these vaccinia vaccines are thought to have eradicated smallpox, and serve as the foundation for vaccine faith.

Scientists back in the 1800s and early to mid 1900s had no way to differentiate smallpox, cowpox, monkeypox or most other pox diseases in humans. Nor was there any effort to differentiate, until the disease was declared eradicated – just like when polio was eradicated. Anything that looked like polio, but not caused by a polio virus, was called acute flaccid paralysis.

Monkeypox and smallpox look identical on physical examination. Have a look at these two photos:

You probably can’t tell the difference between the two diseases, and neither can most doctors. Edward Jenner and the doctors of the 1800s and 1900s were also unable to distinguish smallpox – major and minor, monkeypox, or cowpox, or even chickenpox.

“When [monkeypox]infection in human beings does occur, it can be clinically indistinguishable from smallpox, chickenpox, and other causes of a vesiculopustular rash.”


It is now known that many cases of smallpox were mild. These are termed variola minor as the mortality is only about one percent. Variola major and variola minor are indistinguishable using the sensitive PCR test. In order to distinguish the variants, because they are nearly identical, an ultra-sensitive, highly technical real time PCR test using MGB-Eclipse probe chemistry had to be designed. Note that these tests were designed using laboratory stored smallpox virus, not natural virus. Scientists have to go to great lengths in order to make a genetic distinction between these two variants because they are so very similar. So the question that begs an answer is, are these viruses really that different? Distinction is ridiculously laborious and such splitting hairs is fraught with potential errors. Loveless[24] et al. describe the tedious process of distinction and the pitfalls of the assay in their paper.  Other researchers note that about one-third of the variola minor viral proteins are 100% identical to correlates in the variola major strains and the remainder were >/=95% identical.

Do you think your doctor would know a case of variola minor if he/she saw it? Or would it just be called chicken pox? Do you think your doctor would even think that it could be smallpox, given that smallpox is thought to be eradicated? There are clinical means to distinguish the difference, but few doctors think of it, and in the minor forms of smallpox it wouldn’t matter anyway.

Many believe that smallpox was eradicated from the planet because of vaccination. I once believed this idea that was taught to me in medical school, and that all conventional doctors parrot as if they understood the history. With just a little research it becomes evident that even though smallpox seems to have disappeared, this was not the result of mass vaccination.

It is obvious that the vaccines of 1796-1900s were not purified or uniform, yet they serve as the foundation for successful vaccination. They were made on farms from scrapings of infected cow bellies, coarsely filtered, and mixed in glycerine. While today’s vaccine product may be more meticulously manufactured, the CDC admits that the science behind even modern smallpox recommendations has been little more than a guess.

“…data on duration of protection and recommendations on periodicity of vaccinations are limited and based to a large extent on historic precedent and expert opinion used to develop previous ACIP recommendations for smallpox vaccination for laboratory workers using orthopoxviruses.” 


And CDC has no idea what antibody titer is protective.

“The levels of antibody reported by these tests indicate only exposure, and the protective antibody titer against smallpox infection is unknown.”  


They surmise that the vaccine provides high-level immunity for 3-5 years.

Here is a graph of smallpox vaccination deaths and smallpox disease deaths, from England spanning the years of 1906-1922.

The vaccine-associated deaths are conspicuously high, at about half the rate of smallpox deaths.

Dr. Charles T. Pearce in his 1868 essay on vaccination wrote:

“It is a remarkable fact that Jenner’s[the inventor of smallpox vaccine] first child, his eldest son, on whom he experimented, died subsequently of consumption[tuberculosis]. Another of his subjects, the man Phipps, whom Jenner vaccinated, also died of consumption.”

Those who were vaccinated for smallpox were noted to be more severely affected by smallpox and tuberculosis. Many were exposed to tuberculosis from tuberculous animals that were used to make vaccines.  CLICK HERE TO LINK TO “SMALLPOX AND THE FIRST VACCINE” CHAPTER FROM OUR UPCOMING BOOK.

Smallpox manifested in several different forms(ordinary, modified, malignant, hemorrhagic). Genetically the minor and major forms of variola are related and indistinguishable by PCR. Individual susceptibility, rather than the virus probably made the biggest difference. Susceptibility would have certainly increased after injection of filthy vaccines that contained myriad bacteria and viruses.

What is most likely is that the appearance and disappearance of epidemics had much to do with the constitution and care of the population of the times. Scurvy was common in areas with hemorrhagic smallpox. This is no surprise to anyone who understands the full spectrum of ascorbic acid’s function in the body, especially on blood vessels.

Pox epidemics declined as a result of sanitation and improved nutrition. During the era of smallpox most people were living in squalor, eating no fresh food, but rotten milk and rotten meat, drinking sewer water, living among filthy rodents, and working long hours for little pay. Pox viruses are ancient, but smallpox evolved as a deadly killer as humanity devolved to overcrowded city dwellers living with filth, squalor, and desperation.

Historical evidence points to the fact that the vaccinated were amongst the sickest in times of smallpox vaccines. Protests against the vaccinators and smallpox vaccination were massive.[27] Parents commonly chose jail rather than permit their newborn babies to be vaccinated. Entire towns and districts revolted before the disease was finally declared eradicated, and the vaccine madness ended.

Smallpox vaccination ended in the 1980s because smallpox had declined and because there was so much trouble with the old unsafe vaccine. That same trouble with the newer supposedly more safe smallpox vaccines is why smallpox vaccination ended after the 2003 first responder effort. Which makes you wonder just how much more trouble there was with the old smallpox vaccine which had a very long list of known bacterial and other “contaminants” because of its method of production. After the 2003 vaccines, reports of generalized vaccinia, autoinoculation, erythema multiforme, myopericarditis, ocular vaccinia, and postvaccinial encephalitis were reported.

Smallpox was declared eradicated before clear distinctions between different poxviruses were made using DNA analysis. Symptoms alone are what were counted for smallpox during smallpox epidemics. Vaccination was a major source of smallpox outbreaks, and only a small portion of the earth’s entire herd was ever even vaccinated. Considering all of this, how can anyone believe that smallpox was eradicated with a vaccine?
With every vaccine suppressible disease, the general hysteria level usually depends on the availability of a vaccine. Once a vaccine was available, the disease was suddenly made out to be more problematic. Look how dangerous chicken pox became after the vaccine was developed.
Pertussis is now hot news and the unvaccinated interrupting herd immunity is raised over and over, despite the science that shows the vaccinated are by far and away the most affected by whooping cough.

“Our unvaccinated and under-vaccinated population did not appear to contribute significantly to the increased rate of clinical pertussis. Surprisingly, the highest incidence of disease was among previously vaccinated children in the eight to twelve year age group.” 


This is the most recent, but not the first study to demonstrate 86% of cases of proven whooping cough are in the vaccinated. How can getting even 100% vaccination uptake create an immune herd with such vaccines?

Mumps vaccine was known to be ineffective after two major outbreaks in vaccinated populations in the USA. Yet the solution was to double the boosters in children with a vaccine that is now ALLEGED by two former Merck scientists, to have been known to be ineffective by Merck’s executives.

Jenner’s initial promise was “We have a vaccine that will protect you for life with one injection.” But even he was revaccinating his patients yearly, within 5 years of making that statement. And when that doesn’t pan out with whooping cough, measles, mumps and whatever, the authorities say,, “We have a highly effective vaccine if it is given on time with boosters,” then “This is an excellent vaccine when 3 or 4 boosters are given, and adults are revaccinated.” Or in the case of whooping cough, introducing an all-together new vaccine. There is a new nasal vaccine in the pipeline for newborns, which will be given alongside the already ineffective whooping cough vaccine series in childhood. This will no doubt be touted as a wonderful combination.

Eradication target dates are constantly moved forward, and the unvaccinated or the vaccine refusers are blamed for all outbreaks. Or in the case of Pakistan, they are branded TERRORISTS or RELIGIOUS FANATICS for not wanting their children to have 30 oral polio vaccines by age 5. I have outlined in a PREVIOUS BLOG, just what is really going on in India and how her people are being terrorized by WHO and CDC as the rate of paralysis continues to skyrocket.

I believe that when diseases disappear from sight, the disappearance is never solely by virtue of the vaccine. Yet the vaccine always gets the credit, because the blind faith in vaccines is prioritized over the scientific evidence. Evidence to the contrary of the value of vaccination is consistently snuffed out and kept away from the mainstream media, so that the herd never hears a peep of the truth. Instead, they get the “herd immunity” sound bite, which gives undeserved credit to the risk-benefit ratio of vaccination. Inside the web of half-truths and misinformation, the vaccine religion somehow justifies the public display of resentment and fear of the unvaccinated.

DissolvingIllusions_Banner_940x198To read more of Dr Humphries’ writing on vaccines, see her new book “Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History” available through amazon. Website is HERE.


A special thank you to “O” from “INSIDE VACCINES” for assistance in editing this document.

1. Hedrich AW. 1930. The corrected average attack rate of measles among city children. Am. J. Epidemiol. 11 (3): 576-600.
2. Hjuler IM. 1995. Bacterial colonization of the larynx and trachea in healthy children. Acta Paediatr. 1995 May;84(5):566-8. PMID:7633155
3.Caugant DA. 2009. Meningococcal carriage and disease—population biology and evolution. Vaccine. 2009 Jun 24;27 Suppl 2:B64-70. PMID: 19464092
4. Navarini AA et al. 2010. Long-lasting immunity by early infection of maternal-antibody-protected infants. Eur J Immunol. Jan;40(1):113-6. PMID: 19877011
5. ibid. Navarini.
6. Measles Outbreak among Vaccinated High School Students – Illinois. MMWR. June 22, 1984 / 33(24);349-51 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm
7. Papania M. et al. 1999. Increased susceptibility to measles in infants in the United States. Pediatrics. Nov;1045(5):e59 pp 1-6. PMID 19545585.
8. Aaby P. et al. 2002. Low mortality after mild measles infection compared to
uninfected children in rural west Africa. Vaccine. Nov 22;21(1-2):120-6. PMID:12443670
9. ibid Aaby.
11. Langmuir A.1962 .The importance of measles as a health problem. AJPH vol 52 no 2 pp1-4.
12. Ibid Langmuir.
13. Arita and Henderson. 1976. Monkeypox and whitepox viruses in West and Central Africa. Bull World Health Organ. 1976; 53(4): 347–353. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2366520/
14. Weinstein Robert. 2005. Reemergence of Monkeypox: Prevalence, Diagnostics, and Countermeasures. Clin Infect Dis. 41 (12): 1765-1771.
15.US FDA. Vaccines, blood and biologics. Smallpox. http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/QuestionsaboutVaccines/ucm070429.htm
16. Human anti-mouse antibodies (HAMA) are a common cause of false positive ELIZA. A person can develop HAMA for different reasons. The clinical use of monoclonal mouse antibodies (e.g., for radioimaging, in the treatment of some cancers) often produces HAMA. HAMA may also arise because of incidental or occupational exposure to foreign proteins (e.g. veterinarians, farm workers, food preparers) or due to the presence of domestic animals in the home environment. Blood transfusion and dialysis are among other sources of heterophilic antibodies.
17. http://ci.vbi.vt.edu/pathinfo/pathogens/MPV.html
18. Is monkeypox a reservoir of smallpox? December 25, 1972. JAMA. 1972;222(13):1645-1646. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=346137
19. Monkeypox. 2009. Center for food security and public health. Iowa state university. Pg 1-9. http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/Factsheets/pdfs/monkeypox.pdf
20. CDC Fact Sheet. Smallpox vaccine and monkeypox. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/monkeypox/smallpoxvaccine_mpox.htm.
21. US CDC. MMWR. July 11, 2003 / 52(27);642-646. Update: Multistate Outbreak of Monkeypox — Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, 2003. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5227a5.htm
22. Fenner et al. 1989. Smallpox and its eradication. Page 1306.ISBN-10: 9241561106
23. Arita and Gromyko. Surveillance of orthopoxvirus infections, and associated research, in the period after smallpox. Bull World Health Organ. 1982; 60(3): 367–375. PMCID: PMC2536002eradication.http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC2536002/reload=0 jsessionid=82AeN4PIBbsmMueiZeZp.4
23A. Lancet Review. Jan 2004. Monkeypox. vol 4. pp 21-25.
24. Loveless BM. 2009. Differentiation of Variola major and Variola minor variants by MGB-Eclipse probe melt curves and genotyping analysis. Mol Cell Probes. 2009 Jun-Aug;23(3-4):166-70. Epub 2009 Apr 5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345728
25. US CDC Emergency preparedness and response. CDC Interim Guidance for Revaccination of Eligible Persons who Participated in the US Civilian Smallpox Preparedness and Response Program. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/revaxmemo.asp
26. US CDC. Emergency preparedness and response. Questions and Answers About Post-event SmallpoxVaccination http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/faq/post_event.asp
27. Durbach, Nadja. 2004. Bodily Matters: The Anti-Vaccination Movement in England, 1853–1907. ISBN-10: 0822334127
28. Witt M et al. 2012. Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak. Clin Infect Dis. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Jun;54(12):1730-5. PMID:22423127

Vaccine blogpost about Dr Salk (polio)

Vaccines are a really controversial thing, and they are discussed more and more now, make sure that you get information not just from Big Pharma, so I wanted to share some articles, blogposts and videos now and then – this is a blogpost from Marco Cáceres di Iorio…



History is a powerful thing. If you accurately tell the story of an event that occurred, you get one picture, one understanding of it. Leave one tiny little detail out, however, and the whole picture changes. You can get thousands of details right, but get one wrong, or simply omit telling it, and an historical event can become so distorted that it becomes a lie. Take the story of the Salk inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). During the first half of the 1950s, Jonas Salk, MD developed the first injectable vaccine against polio containing inactivated, or “killed”, strains of the poliovirus.

As a dead, rather than live, virus vaccine, Dr. Salk’s IPV supposedly carried no risk of giving recipients “vaccine-associated polio paralysis.”1 According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “IPV is produced from wild-type poliovirus strains of each serotype that have been inactivated (killed) with formalin.”2

Here’s that little detail, though. The poliovirus that Dr. Salk killed with formalin, or formaldehyde, were not always killed; they sometimes only appeared to be killed.

Live poliovirus, which was put in an injectable vaccine, would appear to be inactivated right after it was made, but sometimes it would ‘resurrect’ in the vial… In essence, the formaldehyde did not kill off all the polioviruses in these vaccines, which led to live polio viruses being injected. As a result, more people developed paralysis from the vaccine in 1955 than would have developed it from a wild, normal natural poliovirus.3


Field trials for the Salk vaccine were conducted on more than 1,800,000 children in the United States in 1954.4 Sponsored by the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP), now known as the March of Dimes, “623,972 schoolchildren were injected with vaccine or placebo, and more than a million others participated as ‘observed’ controls.’5

On April 12, 1955, Thomas Francis Jr., MD, director of the Poliomyelitis Vaccine Evaluation Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, announced to the world that the Salk vaccine was “safe, effective, and potent,”—that it was “up to 90%” effective in preventing paralytic polio. Dr. Francis had been one of Dr. Salk’s professors at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health Department of Epidemiology where Salk did his postgraduate training.4

During mid-April of 1955, about 400,000 people—mostly schoolchildren—in the U.S. were vaccinated with the Salk vaccine manufactured by Cutter Laboratories.6 It turns out that more than 200,000 of these children, living in five western and midwestern states (Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada and New Mexico7), were injected with vaccines “in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective.” The Cutter-produced vaccines ended up causing 40,000 cases of polio. It severely paralyzed 200 children and killed 10.8

The first of these cases to be reported was that of a young girl named Susan Pierce, who had received the vaccine on April 18, 1955.7

Five days later, she developed fever and neck stiffness. Six days later, her left arm was paralyzed. Seven days later, she was placed in an iron lung, and nine days later, she was dead.7

In his book The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis, Paul Offit, MD writes, “Seventy-five percent of Cutter’s victims were paralyzed for the rest of their lives.” A team led by epidemiologisit Alexander Langmuir of the Communicable Diseases Center (now the CDC) in Atlanta, GA determined that “the disease caused by Cutter’s vaccine was worse than the disease caused by natural polio virus,” adds Dr. Offit.7

Children given Cutter’s vaccine were more likely to be paralyzed in their arms, more likely to suffer severe and permanent paralysis, more likely to require breathing assistance in iron lungs, and more likely to die than children naturally infected with polio.7

The so-called “Cutter Incident” led to the recall of the Cutter vaccine and the eventual replacement of the Salk IPV with the attenuated (weakened) live oral polio vaccine (OPV) developed by Albert Sabin, MD and introduced in 1963. (A modified inactivated Salk vaccine was re-introduced in the 1990s after the only cases of polio occurring in the U.S. were vaccine strain polio cases because live OPV can cause vaccine strain polio in the recipient or a close contact of a recently vaccinated person shedding live vaccine strain polio virus in body fluids.)8

But the fact that some improperly inactivated lots of the original polio vaccine paralyzed and killed American children was concealed from the public for a long time.

In their book Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History, Suzanne Humphries, MD and Roman Bystrianyk write, “You may be wondering how this information was concealed from the public for nearly fifty years. Congressman Percy Priest ordered and chaired a full investigation of the vaccine controversy.”)9 According to them, Congressman Priest, who represented the 6th District of Tennessee, admitted in 1956 that,

… in the previous year (1955) many responsible persons had felt that the public should be spared the ordeal of ‘knowledge about controversy.’ If word ever got out that the Public Health Service had actually done something damaging to the health of the American people, the consequences would b terrible… We felt that no lasting good could come to science or the public if the Public Health Services were discredited.”9

Two key points to note here. First, the problem with the Cutter-produced vaccine should have come as a surprise to the scientists and public health officials who were familiar with the development of the Salk IPV. According to Dr. Humphries and Bystrianyk:

The Salk invention was an injectable, supposedly formaldehyde-inactivated version of poliovirus vaccine. There were serious problems with the viral inactivation process that were known by insiders from the outset of the vaccine’s development.9

Unfortunately, whenever scientists involved in the vaccine’s development raised concerns that poliovirus had not been fully killed, they were “rapidly subdued.”9

As a result of ignoring the warnings by highly qualified scientists who repeatedly and publicly explained why and how the inactivation process was flawed from the beginning, the vaccine virus needlessly infected, paralyzed, and killed children and their household contacts.9

Secondly, Cutter Laboratories was not the only manufacturer of the the Salk IPV. Wyeth Laboratories also produced a defective Salk vaccine that caused paralysis. Other pharmaceutical companies are believed to have done so, as well. But only Cutter’s vaccine was recalled. This means that, potentially, tens of millions of doses of improperly inactivated “live” Salk vaccine were sold and injected into children in the U.S. and around the world until the “inactivated” Salk vaccine was replaced by the live oral Sabin vaccine in the early-1960s.

This may help explain, at least partially, why the cases of polio in the U.S. increased by 50% from 1957 to 1958, and by 80% between 1958 and 1959.10 According to Bernard Greenberg, PhD, head of the Department of Biostatistics at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health:

In five New England states cases of polio roughly doubled after polio vaccine was introduced. Nevertheless in the midst of the polio panic of the 1950s, with pressure to find a magic bullet, statistics were manipulated by health authorities to give the quite the opposite impression.10

Keep in mind that these dramatic increases in polio following the introduction of the Salk IPV occurred shortly after the U.S. government had already significantly relaxed its guidelines for diagnosing polio. In 1954, the government redefined polio. I wrote about this other little detail of history that has been widely overlooked in my article “Polio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was Redefined.”11 Dr. Greenberg explained this classic example of government sleight of hand…

In order to qualify for classification as paralytic poliomyelitis, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days after the onset of the disease. Prior to 1954, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for only 24 hours. Laboratory confirmation and the presence of residual paralysis were not required. After 1954, residual paralysis was determined 10 to 20 days and again 50 to 70 days after the onset of the disease. This change in definition meant that in 1955 we started reporting a new disease, namely, paralytic poliomyelitis with a longer lasting paralysis.12

We can only imagine how much worse the official number of polio cases would have been during the second half of the 1950s had the same diagnosis standard continued to be followed, rather than arbitrarily changed in midstream. By any measure, the early Salk polio vaccine campaigns cannot be termed an unqualified “success.” Yet, since the story has been so repeatedly, utterly inaccurately told, our understanding of the history of the polio vaccine “miracle” is that it is one of the greatest scientific achievements of all time. And, as we have seen with the Sabin live oral polio vaccine that continues to cause vaccine strain polio cases around the world, there are big questions about how high the price has been—and will continue to be—for using that polio vaccine as well.

History is indeed a powerful thing. If you teach it wrong for more than half a century, it is hard to unteach, because a particular version of a story can become so ingrained in the public’s collective memory that few can accept that what we’ve come to believe to be an unquestioned scientific truth is, in fact, a myth.

And if that sacred cow is an illusion, then what else may we have gotten wrong along the way? Suddenly, mainstream vaccine science doesn’t feel so certain, so… scientific.


1 Polio Global Eradication Initiative. Inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). polioeradication.org.
2 World Health Organization. Inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). WHO.int
3 Mercola J. The Forgotten History of Vaccinations You Need to Be Aware Of. Mercola.com Jan. 18, 2015.
4 University of Michigan School of Public Health. 1955 Polio Vaccine Trial Announcement. sph.umich.edu.
5 Meldrum M. “A calculated risk”: the Salk polio vaccine field trials of 1954BMJ Oct. 31, 1998; 317(7167): 1233–1236.
6 Nathanson N, Langmuir AD. The Cutter Incident: Poliomyelitis Following Formaldehyde-Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccination in the United States During the Spring of 1955Am J Epidemiol Mar. 12, 1963.
7 Offit P. The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine Crisis. 2005, p 84.
8 Fitzpatrick M. The Cutter Incident: How America’s First Polio Vaccine Led to the Growing Vaccine CrisisJ R Soc Med March 2006; 99(3): 156.
9 Humphries S, Bystrianyk R. Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and The Forgotten History. July 27, 2013.
10 Chaitow L. Vaccination and Immunisation: Dangers, Delusions and Alternatives. 1998, p. 55.
11 Cáceres M. Polio Wasn’t Vanquished, It Was RedefinedThe Vaccine Reaction July 9, 2015.
12 James W. Immunization The Reality Behind the Myth. 1995, p. 36.

SVT:s Plus vilseleder tittarna om kosttillskott

Här är ett inlägg till i kalabaliken om hälsokostaffärer, gurkmeja, kokosolja osv…


SVT:s Plus vilseleder tittarna om kosttillskott

SVT:s konsumentprogram Plus påstår felaktigt att kosttillskott som innehåller B6-vitamin i doser som överstiger EFSA:s rekommenderade gränsvärde är olagliga.

En dom i Falu förvaltningsrätt fastställde nyligen att kosttillskott som innehåller doser i den storlek som programmet hänvisar till är säkra, och att det inte finns någon svensk lag som styr halten av vitaminer eller mineraler i kosttillskott. Det är tillverkarens och leverantörens ansvar att se till att produkterna är säkra, inte kommunens miljö- och hälsoinspektörer.

Dessutom särskiljer varken Plus eller övriga media mellan kosttillskott och andra hälsokostprodukter. Det är exempelvis felaktigt att påstå att de pulverprodukter där man hittat amfetaminliknande ämnen är kosttillskott. Pulverprodukter som tas i större dosräknas som livsmedel, inte kosttillskott.

Publicerad 23 oktober, 2016 av Helene Sandström

Och nedan skrivet av Pekka Nylund, det är ok att dela

“Just nu rasar en medial tvekamp mellan oss inom komplementär/alternativmedicinen och representanter för konventionen (skolmedicinen och den multinationella läkemedelsindustrin). Ett dilemma för oss är att den multinationella läkemedelsindustrin (förkortat MNLI) dominerar dominerar det som numera kallas för gammelmedia, tack vare sina enorma finansiella resurser. Däremot verkar det som att vi har ett starkare fotfäste i sociala medier. På senare tid har media dominerats av olika attacker mot aktörer i alternativmedicinen. Jag är helt övertygad om att detta sker p.g.a att den MNLI:s frontaktörer (Livsmedelsverket, Läkemedelsverket och kommunernas kontrollinstanset) har lidit ett antal svidande nederlag i en rad juridiska instanser. Men vi måste vara på vår vakt. Alla vi som anser att vi måste försvara våra grundläggande mänskliga fri- och rättigheter (rätten till egenvård) måste engagera sig i frågan. Gör allt vad ni kan. Skriv till berörda myndigheter. Skriv till media. Om inte annat så dela så mycket ni kan i sociala medier. Låt dom få veta att vi är många som vill värna rätten till fri egenvård!”

Du ädla ros och förgyllande skrin!
Du hör väl på våra förbryllande skrin
som tolkar vår skräck för all örtmedicin?

Vårbacken är full av förrädiska gifter!
Örtläkarnas böcker är hädiska skrifter!
När våren, den giftigt bedrövliga, blommar
utfärdar vi därför behövliga domar.

En enhällig styrelses ärliga önskan
att göra oss kvitt den förfärliga grönskan
är mycket stark för att den hotas av texter
om folk som bevisligen botas av växter.

Med motvilja ser de bestörta vårdarna
på folk som blir friska i örtagårdarna
För om man blir frisk när man käkar våren
så tar man ju jobbet från läkarkåren…

Lås in i din köksträdgårds krukhus fröerna
och gå och ställ in dej i sjukhusköerna
Du ädla ros! Se hur majsolen skiner
på våra centralstyrda sjukhusrutiner!
Det är för naturligt med örtmediciner!
(Tage Danielsson om Socialstyrelsen)

Ett par blogginlägg av Sven-Erik Nordin, angående t ex cancer, gurkmeja, kokosolja osv

Det har ju varit kalabalik på diverse sociala medier och SVT ett tag nu, efter “avslöjandet” att hälsokostaffärer säljer gurkmeja och kokosolja, som SVT uttryckte det, “under olagliga förespeglingar” osv…
Här är ett par blogginlägg av Sven-Erik Nordin som ger lite nyans till debatten…


En förfärande brottslighet!

Den fullkomligt sanslösa debatten om hälsokostprodukter fortsatte i kväll (24/10) i Aktuellt. Självklart skall personal i hälsokostbutiker ge korrekt information om sina produkter. Strängt taget borde också våra läkare ha samma krav på sig, när de skriver ut mediciner eller t.ex. föreslår kirurgiska ingrepp. Nu spelade man åter upp de ”olagligheter” man filmat med dold kamera, då personal i flera hälsokostbutiker sagt att kokosolja och gurkmeja skulle kunna vara bra mot Alzheimer. Föregående kväll hade man bjudit in professor Lennart Minthon som ”expert” – och han visade sig totalt okunnig åtminstone om gurkmeja. Nu hade man bjudit in enhetschef Susanne Zakrisson från Läkemedelsverket, och hon tycktes inte veta mer om ämnet.

Men nu gällde det uppenbarligen inte frågan om huruvida dessa produkter var effektiva mot Alzheimer eller inte – utan i stället att personal i hälsokostbutikerna hade påstått det, och därigenom begått ett lagbrott. Man skulle annars kunna tänka sig, att det åtminstone vore en förmildrande omständighet, om gurkmeja och kokosolja nu faktiskt påverkade hälsan i positiv riktning – vilket dessa produkter bevisligen gör, även om det än kanske saknas riktigt hållbara bevis för att de kan bota Alzheimer.

Men ingen försökte ens visa, att någon som köpt och konsumerat kokosolja eller gurkmeja skulle ha skadats på något sätt, eller att någon som köpt produkterna därmed skulle ha undandragit sig effektiv läkarvård (som i detta fall inte finns). Det kanske mest uppseendeväckande var det klipp från föregående kvälls inslag, där professor Lennart Minthon påstod att den Alzheimerpatient som använder gurkmeja ”dör fortare”! Jag skulle vilja se de bevis han kan åberopa för detta fullständigt sanslösa påstående! Jag tror inte man kan hitta någon enda person som skadats av gurkmeja eller kokosolja. Däremot dör människor dagligen i andra sammanhang av de ”godkända läkemedel” som läkarna skriver ut recept på!

Nu är säkert många okunniga svenskar upprörda över detta ”fusk” inom hälsovårdsbranschen. Men innan man blir alltför upprörd borde man begrunda följande:

Kan läkarna bota Alzheimer? Svar: Nej!

Kan gurkmeja bota Alzheimer? Vi vet inte – men modern forskning visar att det mycket väl kan vara så.

Har läkarnas bromsmediciner mot Alzheimer några biverkningar? Ja, många och delvis svåra!

Har gurkmeja och kokosolja några biverkningar? Nej, inte mer än att alltför stort intag av båda möjligen kan innebära att man blir en smula ”lös i magen”!

Är läkarnas Alzheimermediciner dyra? Ja, tusentals kronor i månaden! Den totala kostnaden för landets ca 160 000 demenssjuka beräknades här om året till drygt 60 miljarder kronor (d.v.s. ca 400 000 kr per person och år), varav medicinerna utgör en betydande del.

Är gurkmeja och kokosolja dyra produkter? Nej – och patienten betalar själv, varför kostnaden för kommuner och landsting blir 0 kr!

Till saken hör sedan också, att bristen på läkare som bekant är minst sagt betydande, och varför man då nödvändigtvis skall belasta läkarkåren ytterligare genom att slussa alla Alzheimerpatienter via läkare – som dessutom inte kan erbjuda någon bot – borde för de flesta anses helt obegripligt!

Nu talade man om hur viktigt det var med INFORMATION! Javisst! Men då skall det vara korrekt och saklig information, som berättar att läkarna än inte har något botemedel mot Alzheimer, att bromsmedicinerna är svindyra och har avsevärda och plågsamma biverkningar – samt att gurkmeja och kokosolja är generellt hälsobefrämjande, sannolikt lindrar verkningarna av de flesta neurodegenerativa sjukdomar som t.ex. Alzheimer och inte har några allvarliga biverkningar!

När får vi höra den informationen?

Och här är ett till blogginlägg:

“På förekommen anledning lägger jag ut denna långa text:

Varför förebyggs och botas inte cancer?

Som de flesta vet har förekomsten av cancer ökat dramatiskt de senaste decennierna – trots att ett oändligt antal miljarder under denna tid satsats på cancerforskning. Förutom att cancer är en enorm inkomstkälla för de stora läkemedelsbolagen, varför deras intresse av att ”lösa cancerns gåta” är obefintligt, så kan man också identifiera några andra orsaker till misslyckandet.

För det första satsas nästan inte något på att förhindra cancerns uppkomst – utom möjligen att man försöker minska rökning, att man lyckats avskaffa hanteringen av asbest och några andra klart cancerframkallande produkter. Men direkt inom den medicinska professionen har inte mycket hänt. Där tycks man enbart vara inställd på att försöka BOTA (hittills med klent resultat) och inte alls ägna sig åt att FÖREBYGGA. Detta gäller för övrigt inte bara cancer, utan också andra allvarliga sjukdomar.

För det andra tycks man i hög grad vara inställda på att hitta GENETISKA lösningar på cancer. Detta måste anses vara mycket märkligt, eftersom våra gener är desamma nu som de var innan förekomsten av cancer började öka! Dessutom har ju disciplinen epigenetik på senare tid dramatiskt ändrat kunskapen om våra geners betydelse och visat att miljöfaktorer i hög grad kan förändra våra geners konkreta uttryck. Med tanke på att vår livsmiljö och vår kost under den aktuella tidsrymden däremot förändrats drastiskt, så hade en inriktning av forskningen mot sådana orsaker varit den självklara. Några föregångsmän finns det dock. Så har t.ex. den amerikanske läkaren Thomas Seyfried i sin forskning klart visat, att den genetiska mutationen vid cancer inte är den initiala orsaken, utan kommer i efterhand. Men hans resultat verkar inte beaktas!

För det tredje tycks dagens läkare mer eller mindre omedvetna om upptäckten som gjorde att den tyske professorn Otto Warburg fick Nobelpriset i medicin 1931. Han visade i sin forskning, att cancerceller har en avvikande metabolism, jämfört med vanliga celler. Förenklat kan man beskriva det som att deras mitokondrier (de små enheter i cellerna, där energi skapas) är defekta och använder sig av ineffektiv fermentering (jäsning) av glukos i stället för förbränning med hjälp av syre. Detta innebär bl.a. att de behöver 20 – 30 ggr mer glukos (socker) än vanliga celler. Dessutom kan de ENDAST använda glukos för sin energiförsörjning, medan de flesta av kroppens övriga celler kan använda det alternativa bränslet ketoner (förenklat en nedbrytningsprodukt av fett). Denna fatala kunskapsbrist hos läkarna gör, att de ofta bidrar till att optimera möjligheterna för cancerceller att utvecklas – genom att t.ex. uppmana cancerpatienter att äta en kolhydratrik föda! Upprörande!

För övrigt tycks Warburg under senare delen av sitt liv blivit övertygad om, att orsaken till att celler övergick till att bli cancerceller var förgiftning – av t.ex. giftiga kemikalier eller olika former av strålning. Ingen kan förneka, att vi i dag i hög grad utsätts för just dessa faktorer i vår livsmiljö!

För det fjärde verkar de flesta läkare helt omedvetna om, att det finns naturliga produkter som effektivt och skonsamt motverkar cancer (t.ex. gurkmeja, ingefära, aroniabär, kolloidalt silver), samt att cancerpatienter nästan alltid har brist på viktiga mineraler som jod, magnesium, selen och zink, samt vitaminer som C- och D-vitamin och några fler.
För det femte tycks läkarna vara helt främmande för tanken att vårt immunförsvar, om det fungerar optimalt, också skyddar oss mot cancer – precis som det skyddar oss mot bakterier, virus och andra skadliga mikrober. En kost som innehåller alla nödvändiga vitaminer, mineraler och spårämnen för att vår kropp (inkl. immunförsvaret) skall fungera på bästa sätt torde vara en av de effektivaste metoderna för att förhindra uppkomsten av cancer.

Detta verkar inte läkarna ha förstått, och man kan t.o.m. få höra, att ”kosten inte har någon betydelse för cancer”. Kosten är tvärt om en avgörande faktor för vår hälsa – vilket redan Hippokrates för omkring 2400 år sedan påpekade. I dag tycks läkekonsten ha tappat den självklara insikten!”

Videos with Dr Doris Rapp, about allergies in children and adults

Laddades upp den 15 dec. 2007

Dr. Rapp is dedicated to sharing important information about harmful environmental factors that can affect how children and adults feel, think and act in our high-tech, high-stress, high-profit world. The “progress at any cost” mentality is rapidly overwhelming our bodies as we attempt to cope with our increasingly polluted environment.

Dr. Rapp is committed to educate both the public and health professionals about the ominous physical and behavioral changes frequently evident in children and adults. The more we know, the more we can protect ourselves and our loved ones by taking some often easy and inexpensive precautions. We simply have to be more informed so we can make better choices.

In her breakthrough book, “Is This Your Child’s World?” – Dr. Rapp identifies the major symptoms of potentially unrecognized allergies in children and adults, suggesting possible sensitivities to dust, mold, pollen, foods or chemicals. Allergies are much more than high fever, asthma and itchy skin. It is possible to identify allergies by simply looking at someone. At times it is surprisingly easy to find and eliminate the cause.

The typical clues of allergies and environmental illness can include any combination of the following: Rubbing Nose Upwards, Eye Wrinkles, Dark Eye Circles, Sudden Aggression, Scarlet Earlobes, A Spacey Look, Extreme Activity Changes, Wiggly Legs, Red Cheeks, A Mottled Tongue

Publicerades den 1 apr. 2012

Families sharing successes with their children, but only after “horror stories”. It’s a must see for parents of difficult children, or persons themselves, with allergies…in some cases NOT knowing they have them. This program’s design is to show the facts, giving hope, as there is lots of help available! ☺ Go to DrRapp.com OR Google & type in Dr. Doris Rapp MD. Then go to her website & there’s the help.

Laddades upp den 22 feb. 2008

Many children with bi-polar and ADHD symptoms can be helped without the use of dangerous off-label drugs. There are fast, easy and inexpensive answers available. Dr. Doris Rapp has dedicated her life to identifying and providing simple solutions to these and other behavior problems. Visit http://www.drrapp.com for more helpful tips, books and videos.

Publicerades den 25 maj 2013

Could allergies from food and the environment be the cause of so many sick people and children. Dr. Doris Rapp, M.D.H has treated thousands of children with behavior problems, learning disabilities, depression and suicidal thoughts by finding out what is causing the problem and getting rid of it or desensitizing an allergy.

Laddades upp den 7 nov. 2011

Boy- “If I can ever find a knife, I’ll kill myself.”

My name is Dr. Doris Rapp. I’m a pediatric allergist and environmental medical specialist. And I’d like to show you why some people become very angry. It can affect children and adults, and much to my amazement, this is frequently precipitated by molds.

Exposure to a moldy house, a moldy room, on damp rainy days. And this particular 8 year old boy had difficulty on moldy, damp, wet days. His whole personality would change, and his teachers complained at school.

Now let me show you how we did what’s called Provocation/Neutralization allergy testing. You can check my website (www.drrapp.com) for more information about it. But basically we put one drop of mold in his arm. Now this is how he looked before we put the drops in. Notice that he is happy and wonderful.

Then we put one drop of allergy extract in his arm, and look at what happens. He gets angry. He gives you the body language that tells you ‘leave me alone!’

Dr. Rapp in the video-“And as is typical of many children they will bite whatever is nearby, and if nothing is nearby they will bite themselves. You can see the teeth marks there and there.”

And then we gave him one drop of the right dilution of a mold solution, a mold allergy extract, and look at what happens. All of a sudden, he’s happy again! Do you have a child that acts this way. You don’t have a bad child. You have a child that is sensitive to molds in the air. But it could be that your child reacts this way to dust or pollen or a particular food or a particular chemical. So if you want to know more about this kind of reaction and how you can figure out what is causing it, and what you can do about it, please go to my books. Is This Your Child’s World? discusses this particular answer.

Thank you for watching. My name is Dr. Doris Rapp. Bye for now.

Visit http://www.drrapp.com, and visit the online store for the book, “Is This Your Child’s World?” and more.

Article about the MMR vaccine, Japan

Check out the movie VaxXed – this is the vaccine they are talking about in the movie

Japanese Government Continues to Ban the MMR Vaccine

Japanese Government Continues to Ban the MMR Vaccine

For many years, controversy has surrounded the three-in-one vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella. Most notably, the MMR vaccine is infamous for its disputed connection to autism, and despite the fact that it has been blamed in vaccine courts for causing autism, vaccine supporters still deny its fault in skyrocketing rates of autism spectrum disorder, which is at least one in 68 children, with even higher rates of diagnosis among boys. [1, 2]

However, the vaccine has other serious risks in addition to the relationship it has with unmanageable numbers of autism in children, which has led to a ban of this vaccine in one industrialized nation.

The Japanese government banned the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine from its vaccination program in 1993, after a record number of children developed adverse reactions, including meningitis, loss of limbs, and death. [3]

The MMR Vaccine’s Tragic History in Japan

The MMR vaccine was introduced in Japan in April 1989, and parents who refused the compulsory vaccine were fined. After three months of analysis, officials realized that one in 900 children developed adverse reactions to the vaccine, a rate that was 2,000 times higher than the expected rate.

Officials had hoped to resolve the problem by switching to another version of the vaccine, but the excessive amount of adverse reactions persisted, with one in 1,755 children affected. Testing of 125 children’s spinal fluid determined that the vaccines had entered one child’s nervous system, with two additional suspected cases.

Four years later, in 1993, the government removed the MMR mandate against measles and rubella. A doctor from Japan’s Ministry of Health and Welfare admitted that the separate, individual doses of measles and rubella cost twice as much to administer, and he defended the decision, stating, “but we believe it is worth it.” Furthermore, a member of the health ministry also stated that the ban has not caused an increase in deaths from measles. [4]

Japanese officials were also concerned about the MMR vaccine causing additional cases of mumps, citing numerous studies in The Lancet. [5]

Mumps and hepatitis B vaccines are not part of the national immunization program in Japan. [6]

What Many Parents Don’t Know About the MMR Vaccine

The list of adverse reactions to the MMR vaccine, straight from Merck’s vaccine package inserts, is long and alarming. A shortened version of the vaccine damage associated with the MMR vaccine includes vomiting, diarrhea, anaphylaxis, ear pain, nerve deafness, diabetes, arthritis, myalgia, encephalitis, febrile seizures, pneumonia, and death. [7, 8]

A search of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database shows the following statistics from the United States: over 75,000 adverse events have been reported from any combination of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines, including, most notably:

  • 78 deaths
  • 85 cases of deafness
  • 48 cases of decreased eye contact
  • 92 cases of developmental delay
  • 855 reported cases of autism
  • 116 cases of intellectual disability
  • 401 reports of speech disorders
  • 276 reports of loss of consciousness
  • 143 cases of encephalitis
  • 74 cases of meningitis
  • 111 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome
  • 692 cases of gait disturbance (not being able to walk normally)
  • 748 cases of hypokinesia (partial or complete loss of muscle movement)
  • 653 reports of hypotonia (poor muscle tone)
  • 4874 reports of seizures, including febrile convulsions and tonic clonic seizures
  • 1576 cases of cellulitis (a potentially serious skin infection)

And finally, in some cases, the vaccine has caused the very diseases it is supposed to prevent, with the following data reported to VAERS:

  • 147 cases of measles
  • 384 cases of mumps
  • 29 cases of rubella [9]

The number of adverse events following vaccination are vastly underreported, as acknowledged by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The National Vaccine Information Center estimates that less than one to ten percent of adverse reactions to vaccines are reported. Many of the numbers reported above could therefore be multiplied by one hundred to determine a more accurate amount of adverse reactions. [10, 11]

Japan Takes a Protective Stance Against Other Vaccines, Too

The flu vaccine has also been the subject of controversy in Japan, after 100 deaths occurred from the vaccine by the end of 2009. Japan’s health ministry has been criticized for for its cautious stance against vaccines, but so far, government officials have wisely defended their position, citing public safety as the paramount concern.

Finally, the Japanese government has also taken a protective stance against vaccines on behalf of its young girls, suspending the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine in 2013 after numerous cases of serious adverse events were reported, with one report citing as many as 1,968 adverse events, 358 of which were classified as serious.

Japanese officials were concerned about the well-being of their young citizens, despite having invested $187 million in the program. Damage payments to only a fraction of the victims who have suffered adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine have reached $6 million. [12]

Additionally, since 2011, at least 38 infants have been reported to have died after they had been vaccinated against haemophilus influenza B and streptococcus pneumonia, according to records compiled by the health ministry in Japan.

Japanese Officials Speak Out

Japan has been criticized for being behind the times when it comes to vaccination. Vaccine advocates claim that Japan has not kept pace with other developed countries regarding the use of vaccines. Despite listing 110 infectious diseases in a government registry, Japan offers vaccines for only 22 of those.

Some Japanese health experts disagree, however. Hiroko Mori, a vaccine researcher, is one of those experts. He was the former head of the infectious disease division at Japan’s National Institute of Public Health.

He has noted that Japan has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world and has advocated for fewer vaccines, stating that the country’s excellent sanitation and nutrition has boosted children’s health.

He observed,

“Medicine is supposed to be about healing, but babies who cannot speak are being given unnecessary shots because parents are scared. Children are losing their ability to heal naturally.

There are so many people who have suffered side effects. All we are asking is to establish the right to say ‘no.’ The right to choose should be recognized as a fundamental human right.”

Tetsuo Nakayama, Dean of Kitasato University’s Graduate School of Infection Control Sciences, is an expert who supports vaccines, but he, too, acknowledges the risks of vaccination, stating that:

“There is no guarantee that your child will not be that one out of 1,000. You have to compare the risks between the side effects and what will happen if you are infected with the disease naturally. 

Under the existing law, the decision to vaccinate your child or not is basically left up to the parents, but there is not enough information out there for them to make an informed decision.”

Masako Koga, a former representative of the Consumers Union of Japan, has shared his concerns about the ulterior motives behind mass vaccination programs:

“Vaccines should only be given to those who need them but that is not happening. The global industry is being driven by a strategy that promotes VPD [vaccine preventable diseases]

We must put a stop to it. Vaccines have close ties to money. From development to circulation to research on side effects, there are a lot of vested interests involved.”

He also summarized what motivates many parents’ decisions not to vaccinate their children:

“There is no knowing who will suffer side effects as a result of vaccination.

[Proponents of vaccination] say the chance of suffering a side effect is 1 in a million. For parents, however, that one is everything.”


Japanese officials have made decisions that value the health and safety of their citizens when they have removed vaccines with dangerous side effects from their national vaccination program.

Japan boasts a low infant mortality rate, despite — or perhaps because of  — mandating only a fraction of the vaccines required by other developed countries, including the United States.

If you wish to learn more about the harmful ingredients in vaccines or the potential adverse reactions, we have compiled an easy-to-navigate list of vaccine package inserts from the manufacturers that you can view or download here.

Has your child suffered an adverse reaction to the MMR vaccine or the HPV vaccine, both of which have been removed from Japan’s national vaccination program? If so, please share your story in our comment section below.



  1. http://www.naturalnews.com/041897_MMR_vaccines_autism…
  2. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html
  3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-17509/Why-Japan…
  4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1808316.stm
  5. http://www.healthy.net/Health/Article/UPDATES/7591
  6. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2014/10/04/lifestyle/vaccination…
  7. http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf
  8. http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars…pdf
  9. https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/data
  10. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt21-surv-adverse…
  11. http://www.nvic.org/faqs/vaccine-reactions.aspx
  12. http://www.tokyotimes.com/side-effects-in-young-girls…


Gunnar Lindgren – info om varför man inte ska äta margarin

Det finns mycket man kan säga om det där med varför man inte ska äta margarin, Gunnar Lindgren har forskat mycket om ämnet, här är en lista med vad man kan hitta för information – det går tyvärr inte att klicka direkt härifrån för att komma in till länkarna, men klicka på Gunnar Lindgrens länk här nedan, så kommer ni åt all information.


Matfett och margarin

Ny omvälvande syn på intag av fett

  1. 031111 Myten om fett och hjärtsjukdom  PDF
  2. Ny omvälvande syn på matfett och hälsa PDF
  3. Omvälvande artikel om kost och hälsa i tidningen Science PDF
  4. Mättade fetter är bra  PDF
  5. Prof Lars Werkö om kolesterol och hälsa  Klicka
  6. “Evolutionsmedicin” ur Medikament nr 5/01 PDF
  7. Ännu en omvälvande artikel om kost och hälsa i tidningen New York Times PDF021004
  8. Kolesterolmyten på väg att haverera  PDF 
  9. Mjölkfett gör oss friskare del 1 PDF
  10. Mjölkfett gör oss friskare del 2 PDF

Margarin tillverkas med kemikalier

  1. Bensin i “Milda” och “Nytta/Becel” 1  Klicka
  2. Aceton i margarin PDF
  3. Hur du startar en margarinindustri
  4. Vilka frågor du ska ställa till margarintillverkaren PDF
  5. Margarin bidrar till skövlingen av regnskog  PDF
  6. Frakt av margarinfetter i tankar för lösningsmedel – bojkott av margarin PDF
  7. Margarin – historia, tillverkning och redlighet PDF
  8. Livsmedelsverket beskriver margarintillverkning  Klicka PDF
  9. Margarinfett är omestrat – ett kemiskt konstgjort fett PDF
  10. Margarin borde inte få färgas smörgult. Strid om detta i Canada.  PDF


  1. Expertis hos Livsmedelsverket avlönas av margarinindustrin PDF
  2. Expertis hos Livsmedelsverket avlönas av margarinindustrin 2  PDF
  3. Kritik av Livsmedelsverkets kostråd PDF021004

Fettsnål kost orsakar övervikt och skadar hälsan

  1. 040114 Överläkare och medicinsk rådgivare kritiserar den fettsnåla/kolhydratrika kosten  PDF
  2. 030202 Det är felaktiga kostråd som gör oss överviktiga och sjuka PDF
  3. 021219 Fettsnål kost gör oss sjukare – övervikt, typ-2 diabets m m PDF
  4. 030227 Fettsnål/kolhydratrik kost kan försämra minnet  PDF
  5. 030214 En ny stor undersökning som visar hur ett högre fettintag har samband med lägre risk för hjärt och kärlsjukdom.  PDF
  6. 030214 Mer om den fettsnåla kostens skadeverkningar  PDF
  7. 030217 Professor vid institutionen för kvinnors och barns hälsa i Göteborg ifrågasätter margariner och den fettsnåla/kolhydratrika kosten.  PDF
  8. 030217 Kokerskor och dietister överger margariner och den fettsnåla/kolhydratrika kosten. PDF
  9. 021129 Diabetes typ-2 och samband med fettsnål kost PDF
  10. 021129 Brev till folkhälsoministern om samband mellen diabetes typ-2 och fettsnål kost Klicka
  11. Fettsnål/kolhydratrik kost, missfall och sterilitet PDF
  12. 021004 Samband mellan diabetes och den fettsnåla kosten 1 PDF
  13. 040125 Att en hel generation näringsexperter dör ut  PDF
  14. 050319 “Maten vi borde äta, som håller oss normalviktiga och vid god hälsa hela långa livet” av överläkare Jenny Reimers PDF

Härdade fetter “transfetter” är hälsofarliga

  1. 030321 Härdade fetter (transfetter) måste tas bort från livsmedel – Danmark visar vägen  PDF
  2. 030401 Det danska Ernaeringsrådets utmärkta sammanställning av transfetternas hälsorisker PDF
  3. 030401 Artikel i tidningen Berlingske Tidende om transfetter PDF
  4. 030401 Register över livsmedel som innehåller härdade fetter upprättas  PDF
  5. 030402 Gravida varnas – Transfetter påverkar graviditetens längd och kan skada nyfödda. PDF
  6. 040124 Sammanfattning av transfetternas hälsorisker  PDF

Margarin och hälsorisker

  1. 031111 Konsumentorganisation varnar för cancerframkallande ämne i Becel pro.activ Klicka
  2. Bensin i “Milda” och “Nytta/Becel” 2 PDF
  3. 030401 Livsmedelsverket varnar gravida, ammande kvinnor och äldre för margarin med fytosteroler PDF
  4. Matfett och cancer  PDF
  5. Matfett och diabetes PDF
  6. 030401 Livsmedelsverket varnar för allergiframkallande ämnen i margarin  PDF
  7. Becel och Benecol  PDF
  8. Matfett och allergi PDF


  1. Övervikt, kost och att gå ned i vikt PDF 021004
  2. 021204 Fettsnål kost ger björnar fetma på hösten PDF
  3. Fettsnål diet kan orsaka fetmaexplosion PDF 021004
  4. 030227 Recension av boken “Jag äter och förblir smal” (Michael Montignac) i läkartidningen Medikament  PDF


  1. 030213 Olivolja  PDF
  2. 031219 Nyttiga antioxidanter i vanliga livsmedel , (av Göran Petersson Chalmers)!  PDF

Läs om livsmedelsverkets beskrivning av margarinframställning
Yttrande som svar på skrivelse PDF den 8 sept. 2000 (dnr 1:287/00)

Vid framställning av margariner behandlas fetterna med:

Extraktionsbensin (hexan) Fosforsyra
Lut Blekmedel
Nickelkatalysator (vid härdning) Natriummetylat (vid omestring)
Aceton vid fraktionering

Föroreningar som får förekomma i margariner

Extraktionsbensin (hexan) Nickelrester (vid härdning)
Metanol Kemikalier från båttankar

Amerikanarna överger den fettsnåla kosten
Klicka läs mera I USA har insikten om att den fettsnåla kosten inte ger oss bättre hälsa, lett till snabba förändringar när det gäller val av livsmedel. De fettsnåla alternativen och “light”-hysterin är lyckligtvis på snabb reträtt. Men till detta bidrar också det faktum att många av dessa ofta syntetiska produkter är smaklösa och väcker motvilja.
Inflytelserika forskares ekonomiska bindningar till näringslivet
Eskil Richardson, en privatperson i Växjö som intresserat sig för matfetter och hälsa, har skrivit följande brev till Livsmedelsverket:PDF


Article: Acupuncture doubles chance of having a baby

I’ve heard several success stories about people that have been treated with Jin Shin Jyutsu, that have been able to get pregnant, here’s an article with the same theme, about acupuncture – it doesn’t matter if “they” think it is placebo or not, as long as you get a good result… 


Acupuncture could dramatically boost the chances of IVF treatment working, a study suggests.

A British study found that rates of success were twice as high among those having the alternative therapy. Fertility experts said the findings were interesting and statistically significant.

However, they warned that it was unclear whether the apparent benefit stemmed from the traditional Chinese practice – or from a placebo effect, because the women became more relaxed after time was invested in them.

The study by Homerton University Hospital in London, involved 160 couples suffering from fertility problems. Half were assigned to have four sessions of acupuncture during their IVF cycle.

Fertility treatment is stressful and it can be quite helpful to have a therapy which relaxes themDr Adam Balen

One year on, those who underwent the ancient practice, involving fine needles, had achieved pregnancy rates of 46.2 per cent. Among those who had not, pregnancy rates were just 21.7 per cent.

Dr Adam Balen, chairman of the British Fertility Society described the findings as “very interesting”.

He said: “There is no doubt that when people are given acupuncture it can feel like an extra dimension of support. Fertility treatment is stressful and it can be quite helpful to have a therapy which relaxes them.”

He said there was no evidence that the controversial practice – dismissed by critics as “mumbo jumbo” – does any harm to those trying to start a family.

But he said some of the herbs associated with traditional Chinese medicine could be dangerous, and cautioned against their use.

Stuart Lavery, consultant gynaecologist at Hammersmith Hospital, said many women suffering fertility treatment were interested in alternative therapies.

“There is a patient demand and a patient interest in the field of acupuncture and probably in the area of traditional Chinese medicine overall, but the area is sadly lacking in rigorous prospective randomised assessment,” he said.

“This study is interesting in that it does seem to show a statistically significant difference.”

He said it was not clear whether acupuncture had a physiological effect on the body, or whether who underwent the sessions became more relaxed because therapists spent time listening to their problems.

“The weakness of this study is that you can’t control for the placebo effect,” he said.

“Patients are often looking for someone who can give them time and listen to what’s going on in their lives,” he said. “And that may have some therapeutic benefit.”


Artikel av Margareta Lundström: DN sprider medicinmyter som Big Pharma vill att du ska gå på

Amina Manzoor skrev en artikel åt DN – “Nio medicinska myter du inte ska gå på”, jag kommer tyvärr inte åt artikeln, man måste betala för att komma åt den, men det finns en massa fel i artikeln, och det bemöttes av Margareta Lundström, den artikeln kan jag dela i alla fall, så man kan förstå vad AM har gjort för tankevurpor (förmodligen väldigt medvetna såna)…


DEBATT. Reaktionerna på Amina Manzoors artikel ”Nio medicinska myter du inte skall gå på” fortsätter att komma in efter semesterns slut.  Skribenten Margareta Lundström är en raden. Hon skickade ett brev till DN:s chefred Peter Wolodarski om DN i allmänhet och Manzoors artikel i synnerhet. NewsVoice publicerar brevet i debattartikelformat. 

Text och foto: Margareta Lundström | Originaladressen för DN:s artikel: ”Nio medicinska myter du inte ska gå på” | Samma artikel på Web Archive

Margareta LundströmI artikeln om nio påstådda medicinska myter pådyvlade Manzoor läsarna det som hon ansåg vara vanföreställningar, vilka hon sedan resolut tillbakavisade som myter. Texten är så enfaldig att jag tror att den enklaste veckotidning skulle ha hållit sig för god att publicera ett den, men Manzoor är säkert inte enfaldig. Hon vet vad hon gör.

Hon hade ett uppdrag för Läkemedelsindustrin på den förment neutrala nättidningen LäkemedelsVärlden och hon fullföljer tydligen det uppdraget på DN. Manzoor anställning på DN var en del av, men inte hela anledningen till att jag sade upp min prenumeration.

Artikeln är gratisreklam för en korrupt mångmiljardindustri och pretentiöst placerad under rubriken ”Vetenskap”.

Tyvärr är artikeln förenlig med DN:s förvandling till ett propagandaorgan för politiska och ekonomiska intressen. Då krävs det både desinformation och undanhållande av information.

Men underskatta inte läsarnas förståndsgåvor eller vår möjlighet att skaffa oss information på annat håll. Bli inte förvånade över att vi överger er.

Kopplingen vaccin och autism

Amina Manzoor påstår att hon vet att kombinationsvaccinet mot mässling, påssjuka och röda hund inte orsakar autism och att vår villfarelse om detta samband kan skyllas på den ”forskningsfuskande britten Andrew Wakefield”.

Amina Manzoor: Nio medicinska myter, DN

Som referenser anger Manzoor sin kollega på tidningen, Karin Bojs. Karin Bojs källa i sin tur tycks vara Rupert Murdochs tabloidpress. Så här skriver Karin Bojs 2011:

“Han (Wakefield) har ljugit, plågat barn, skrämt upp föräldrar, kanske bidragit till att ovaccinerade barn dör av mässling och själv tjänat miljoner.”

För att ytterligare stärka sitt påståenderefererar Manzoor till vaccinindustrins och medias absoluta favoritstudie som alltid framhålls som bevis för att samband mellan vaccin och autism saknas. En studie som även Karin Bojs helt okritiskt slukat med hull och hår.

Studien har beslagits med att presentera motsägelsefulla fakta och med att utesluta viktiga data. Manzoor underlåter att berätta att ansvarig för studien är bland andra den famöse dr Poul Thorsen. Thorsen är förvunnen med forskningspengar och efterlyst av polis.

Tre övriga i forskningsteamet är Mads Melbye MD, Anders Hviid, MSc och Jan Wohlfahrt M. Sc. , samtliga anställda på Statens Seruminstitut i Danmark och involverade i tillverkning och distribution av vaccin. I samma team ingick också Diana Schendel, Ph.D, som vid tiden för studien var anställd av Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC). Studien finansierades av CDC, som har ett ekonomiskt intresse av att öka användning av MPR-vaccin.

CDC, köper vaccinet från Merck och säljer det vidare till de enskilda delstaternas hälsomyndigheter. På samma sätt är vårt statliga Läkemedelsverk finansiellt beroende av läkemedelsindustrin.

Nyligen har 12 av de av media och myndigheter mest citerade studierna som fritar vaccinet från att orsaka autism granskats. Granskningen har gjorts av Brian Hooker, PhD, PE för Alliance for Natural Health (ANH-USA) De visar efter granskning att de inte bevisar någonting. Samtliga är finansierade av dem som har ett finansiellt intresse av ett resultat som avvisar samband.

Andrew Wakefield

Dr Andrew Wakefield är en högt meriterad gastroenterologist med många vetenskapliga studier bakom sig varav tre har utförts tillsammans med svenska forskare. Professor Anders Ekbom på Karolinska var en av dem som ingick i samma forskningsteam som Wakefield.

Studier av dr Wakefield och studier som stöder hans forskning

Dr Wakefield spåddes en lysande akademisk framtid. Men han blev ett hot mot en mångmiljardindustri genom att vid en liten fallstudie uppmärksamma ett tänkbart samband mellan tarmproblem, autism och ett vaccin. Men då slog läkemedelsindustrin och dess hantlangare media till.

NewsVoice dokumentärfilm om Andrew Wakefield (YouTube)

DN underlåter att berätta för läsarna att denne läkare som blivit fråntagen sin legitimation, fått löpa gatlopp i pressen och tvingats flytta från sitt hemland England, nu reser världen runt och hyllas som en hjälte. När han föreläser får han stående ovationer Hans samproducerade film VAXXED from Cover up to Catastrophe, drar som en prärieeld med fulla hus över USA. Kan streamas på nätet inom kort.

William ThompsonDN underlåter att delge läsarna att en högt uppsatt forskare på CDC dr William Thompson 2014 offentligt erkände att både Merck och CDC under 15 år känt till och dolt det faktum att vaccin mot mässling, påssjuka och röda hund orsakar autism framför allt hos afroamerikanska pojkar.

DN undanhåller oss också att ett antal av före detta anställda inom läkemedel-/vaccinsindustrin gått ut offentligt och tagit avstånd från vaccinindustrins verksamhet och deklarerar att de inte vaccinerar sina barn.

Vi vaccineras från vaggan till graven, ändå anser DN att frågor som detta inte är av allmänintresse och värda att ta upp.

Vaccin räddar liv – miljoner liv enligt Manzoor! Men statistiken och historien säger något helt annat om man orkar ta reda på det. Det verkar vara väldigt svårt för DN:s vetenskapsjournalister att ta reda på fakta själva. Det är naturligtvis enklare att upprepa vad andra säger och referera till den av den medicinindustriella kartellen styrda WHO.

Vacciner är säkra påstår Manzoor. Hur vet hon det? Säkerheten har ju aldrig har prövats? Vaccinindustrin medger själv att det finns risker med vaccin och var och en av oss kan ju läsa på vaccinets bipacksedel.

Vacciner är effektiva påstår hon. Hur förklarar hon återkommande mässlings- eller påssjukautbrott hos fullt vaccinerade personer?

Men faktum är att vi har en autismepidemi som och om trenden fortsätter då beräknas att vartannat barn är autistiskt i USA år 2025 . Faktum är också att amerikanska barn har fått 69 vaccinationsdoser innan det fyllt 18 år. Faktum är också att amerikanska barn är de mest drabbade av kroniska sjukdomar i världen. Faktum är också att spädbarnsdödligheten ligger på 34.de plats i USA jämfört med motsvarande utvecklade länder. Sverige ligger på andra plats efter Singapore. Tillfällighet? Samband? Har Manzoor funderat över detta?


Manzoor påstår också att det inte är insektsmedel som orsakar microcefali i Brasilien och att det råder vetenskaplig konsensus om att orsaken är zikaviruset.

När media använder begreppet vetenskaplig konsensus är det ett sätt att manipulera oss. Ingen vill ju göra sig dum och gå emot vetenskaplig konsensus. Så får man slut på diskussionen och kan driva sin tes utan inblandning av stolliga konspirationsteoretiker, som kanske skulle påstå att det är en ”man made” sjukdom.

Men hur förklarar den vetenskapliga konsensus att det inträffar 25 000 fall av microcefali årligen i USA? Eller att i epicentrum för tragedin i Brasilien hittar man bara zikavirus hos 10 % av de drabbade? Eller alla barn som föds med normala hjärnor av mödrar som bär på antikroppar mot zikaviruset?


Manzoor påstår också att det inte finns några kända risker för Aspartam.

NewsVoice svar sukralos DNFDA har vägrat godkänna Aspartam vid fyra ansökningstillfällen. Redan 1975 konstaterades att Asparatam var ett nervgift. Alla tänkbara knep togs till för att genomdriva ett godkännande. Oresonabla medlemmar i den granskande kommitteen byttes ut. Tillverkaren presenterade en studie (The Bresslel Report) som visade sig vara så manipulerad att det faktiskt ledde till åtal.

Men trägen vinner. När Ronald Reagan blev president var en av hans allierade miljardären Donald Rumpsfeld, som var VD för GD Searle Company som tillverkar Aspartam.

Det var så Aspartam blev ofarligt och utgör nu en jätteindustri tillsammans med tillverkare av liknande konstgjorda sötningsmedel.

”Man faller inte ner död efter en lightläsk, men det är det långsiktiga skadorna som är allvarliga”, säger professor emeritus Göran Petersson, Miljö Kemi på Chalmers.

Upptäckaren av en huskur så betecknar Manzoor Linus Pauling, tvåfaldig nobelpristagare. Ett rekord i understatement. Manzoor följer en tradition hos det medicinindustriella komplexet att förringa Linus Pauling och hans forskning på C-vitaminet.

Pauling var biokemist och han skulle enligt det medicinska skrået inte blanda sig i deras monopol med dess lönande kontakter med läkemedelsindustrin.

Dr Paulings huskur används i tysthet vid cancerbehandling för att förstärka effekten av cytostatika.

Kardiologen Thomas E. Levy var i Stockholm i våras och föreläste om C-vitaminets stora betydelse för hjärt- och kärlhälsa? Han är inte ensam om att föra Linus Paulings arv vidare. Var var då DN: medicinjournalist?

Manzoor har synpunkter på cancer och kost. Det är rätt som Manzoor skriver, att cancer är en mycket komplex sjukdom och har många orsaker. Just därför tycker jag att Manzoor skall avstå från att ta upp detta ångestladdade ämne i detta ytliga sammanhang.

Manzoor är proaktiv och bemötte redan i artikeln konspirationsteoretiker. Om jag har förmågan att se sammanhang utnyttja tidigare erfarenheter och se bakom det som synes ske. Kunna göra analogier och jämförelser och ställa frågan, vem tjänar? Då är jag stolt över att kallas konspirationsteoretiker.

Jag betraktar mig också som dissident i förhållande till DN:s världsbild.

Manzoor försvar för läkemedelsindustrin är generande naivt. En industri vars produkter är orsak till den tredje vanligaste dödsorsaken.

Så här skriver professor Peter C. Gøtzsche, chef för det oberoende Chochrane Institutet i Köpenhamn och författare till boken Dödliga mediciner och organiserad brottslighet, hur läkemedelsindustrin har korrumperat sjuk-och hälsovården. 

Hans bok fick första pris i kategorin ”Medicinska grundvalar” av British Medical Association Book Awards 2014.

Dödliga mediciner och organiserad brottslighet av Peter C Gøtzsche”År 2012 fick jag veta att de tio största läkemedelsföretagen i världen begår upprepade och allvarliga brott till en sådan grad att de uppfyller kriterierna för organiserad brottslighet enligt amerikansk lag. Jag hittade också hur stora konsekvenserna av dessa brott är. Detta innebär kolossala stölder av offentliga medel och de bidrar i hög grad till att våra läkemedel är den tredje vanligaste dödsorsaken efter hjärtsjukdomar och cancer.”

Dr Richard Horton som är chefredaktör för en av världens mest erkända medicinska tidskrifter, the Lancet, varnar för att hälften av alla medicinska studier baseras på pseudovetenskap. Konsekvensen blir att många vacciner och läkemedel är exempel på kvacksalveri.

Marcia Angell f.d., chefredaktör för New England Journal of Medicine”: skriver

Marcia Angell - Wikimedia“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”

Why Most Published Research Findings are False” är det mest nedladdade dokument genom tiderna på PLoS, Public Library of Medicines peer-reviewed, open access-tidskriftJohn P. A Ioannidis förklarar i detalj hur:

”Det kan bevisas att de flesta påstådda forskningsresultaten är falska.” Och att ”för många av dagens vetenskapliga områden och påstådda forskningsresultat handlar det helt enkelt oftast om att de exakt speglar rådande förställningar.”

Jag tycker i grunden att papperstidningen [DN] är en fantastisk produkt.

Jag har en enorm respekt för ärlig och god journalistik. Det går inte att nog betona vilken viktig uppgift journalistiken har – för att granska makten för att driva en debatt och förklara komplicerade sammanhang. Därför är det så sorgligt när man förfelar sitt uppdrag, stryper debatten och går maktens ärenden.

Dagligen upplever jag hur mainstream media förtiger viktiga nyheter och information och vi matas vi med nonsens och propaganda. 

Saknar jag DN? Ja! Jag saknar Richard Swartz och Nathan Shachar med sin bildning djup och bredd och respekt för läsarna. Jag saknar Bard och jag saknar korsorden och Kulturbilagan.

Text: Margareta Lundström



German article about energy channels and meridians


I can’t copy and paste, so you’ll have to click on the link – and maybe use the translation function in your browser as well, if you don’t know German… but it is an interesting article!

Previous Older Entries

August 2017
« Jul