In order to know what vaccines do, and how the body responds to them, you have to understand the immune system in the first place, right?. All parents believe that doctors and immunologists understand the immune system. They wouldn't introduce vaccines if they didn't, right?. You can't possible evaluate "reactions" and problems in the immune system after vaccination unless you understand the immune system, right? And when "evidence based" medicine is the gold standard, they wouldn't do something without "evidence" that a vaccine doesn't "harm" the immune system, right?
Wrong actually.
In a 2011 article called "The Bodyguard" The esteemed Stanford University tells us this (full pdf) :
“If a patient were to ask me, ‘How’s my immune system doing today?’ I would have no idea how to answer that, and I’m an immunologist. None of us can answer that. Right now we’re still doing the same tests I did when I was a medical student in the late 1960s,” he says.
.... "In the last few decades a huge amount has been learned about the basic mechanisms of immune response — a super-smart system of sensors, cells and secretions that has evolved to guard us from invasion by pathogens or betrayal by our own tumor-prone tissues. It’s staggeringly complex, comprising at least 15 different interacting cell types that spew dozens of different molecules into the blood to communicate with one another and to do battle. Within each of those cells sit tens of thousands of genes whose activity can be altered by age, exercise, infection, vaccination status, diet, stress, you name it."
Which - as we said in "Why we would consider "Mandatory Vaccination" a criminal act" - are never taken into account in vaccine trials, or published data on deaths from diseases.
“That’s an awful lot of moving parts. And we don’t really know what the vast majority of them do, or should be doing,” says Davis, the Bert and Marion Avery Family Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology. “We can’t even be sure how to tell when the immune system’s not working right, let alone why not, because we don’t have good metrics of what a healthy human immune system looks like.” Despite billions spent on immune stimulants in supermarkets and drugstores last year, we don’t know what — if anything — those really do, or what “immune stimulant” even means.
In other words, as they admit, they are setting up a system to try to find a needle in a haystack in a system they have no idea how it's working, or what it looks like... , and their method for finding out about it is... get this... "hitting it with something". Read on....
“Suppose you’ve got a very complicated system, with a lot of moving parts,” Davis says. “You don’t know how those parts talk to one another. You don’t even know where to start. So instead, you keep your eye on the whole thing, and you watch what happens to the parts when you hit it with a hammer. Some of the parts move together. Some move one after another. Then, you hit it with something else — a bucket of ice water, maybe — and see what moves this time, and when, and how much."
“We can perturb the immune system all kinds of different ways, measure the levels of hundreds or thousands of different things in response to that, and figure out which ones go up or down with different states of health or non-health,” Davis says. “Anything that might affect the system — a vaccine, a disease, a drug — can tell you something.”
(But what will it tell you?.....)
"To get answers, Stanford has created the Human Immune Monitoring Center, consisting of a couple of clusters of world-class instruments and expertise. The HIMC operates according to a principle Davis only half-jokingly refers to as “ignorance-driven research.” The more formal name is systems biology, an information-technology-rich approach to unraveling complex systems of intensely interacting components."
I have a problem with this. Just as torturing a human will get "information"... what sort of information will hitting the immune system actually tell you? A readable map of exactly how an immune system works?
Yet, these are the very people who tell parents that they know what there is to know about vaccines, they research them to the enth degree; they are safe, effective and do no harm - yet have NO IDEA how to work out exactly what vaccines actually do in the immune system other than make antibodies in most people, which they presume will protect against disease.
You may argue that scientists wouldn't have introduced vaccines in the 60's until they knew how they worked. Not so. In 2000, Eurekalert made this astonishing admission:
"Vaccines work simply by producing antibodies, right? Well, probably not. And this misconception coupled with basic ignorance of how they do work is stalling the urgent quest for an AIDS vaccine, claim leading HIV researchers. They say no one has bothered to find out how highly successful vaccines like polio, measles and hepatitis B actually protect people from disease.
"I'm amazed by the amount of basic science we don't know," Philippe Kourilsky, director of the Paris-based Pasteur Institute, told the meeting: "We've had many successful vaccines over the past decades but we've missed a chance to see how these vaccines work. Each time a vaccine works the scientific community wanders off and leaves it to the public health workers to use it-and fails to invest in the research. If we had done that we would have been in a much better position to tackle the AIDS vaccine problem."
In order to temper the admission of ignorance, they have to make out that vaccines are, none-the-less, the most wonderful invention, and without question worth using, so the press release contains much self-congratulatory rhetoric to make the public stop asking fundamental questions. After all, they must know what they are doing!!! Ahem. And the scientific reality is you can't "miss a chance" to see how these vaccines work, if you have no idea how the immune system works as a whole, therefore it's impossible to see how the immune system deals with a vaccine!!! Furthmore, how do you define the word "works"? That a vaccine produces what you think are correlates of immunity? And then... on that assumption - you "presume" it works?
Part Three....
