Click here or on the image to download the editorial in PDF (Italian language)
Click here to download the editorial in PDF (English language)
Click here to download the editorial in PDF (French language)
Click here to download the editorial in PDF (German language)
On November 1, 2019, in fact, an article to say the least explosive was published 1, which, however, strangely, has gone underground: nobody is talking about it, at least publicly. Perhaps because the impact of its contents is significant. However, rumors tell us that the World Health Organization would be somewhat concerned about these black-on-white admissions that unequivocally certify those problems reported for a long time - on the one hand by doctors, epidemiologists and researchers - on the other, by a large portion of the population that raises doubts about the massification of today's vaccination practice.
First of all, the weight of these considerations is considerable because of the author: we are not talking about any university professor or any immunologist in the world, but about Stanley A. Plotkin, considered in all respects as "The father of world vaccinology" - author of the book "Vaccines" 2 which is the reference text with regard to vaccinations in general.
Plotkin has recently made a series of extremely important public admissions. He was summoned as an expert witness in favor of forced vaccination in a legal dispute between parents split over whether to vaccinate their daughter or not. Aaron Siri, the mother's attorney who opposed her daughter being vaccinated, questioned the doctor under oath in New Hope, Pennsylvania on January 11, 2018. The deposition footage is readily available on youtube. 3
Subsequently, just last November, Plotkin himself published this article, entitled: "Is there a related protection for the measles vaccine?", which aims to restore the effectiveness (which means reviewing current beliefs about effectiveness) of measles vaccinations in light of the latest "epidemics" found or reported in Europe and the USA. The article contains information and inferences which demonstrate the bad faith of the whole propaganda system concerning the world vaccination programs. In practice, many of the doubts parents raise when they critically evaluate the appropriateness of giving vaccines to their children are proven to be well founded. The vat of vaccinology certifies black and white the same problems that parents against the vaccination obligation ask for. There are many concepts exposed, let's go by points. It follows that:
- It is not possible to rely on the antibody titre so far considered suitable to confer immunity. More precisely, "The level of complete protection of neutralizing antibodies is unknown"
So how do we determine the effectiveness of the vaccine?
- It is not possible to say with certainty that the measles vaccine confers permanent immunity (for life) as natural disease does - and this is contrary to what has hitherto been touted regarding vaccinations: “The vaccine generates an attenuated infection, and it does not happen that the antibodies remain permanently elevated in the vaccinated. This situation is responsible for re-evaluating the long-term effectiveness of the measles vaccine. "
So what should we do? Vaccinate life-natural-during with live virus vaccines without even knowing when and to what extent you will be protected? And what consequences could this have on the immune system?
- We do not have a precise idea of exactly how antibody protection works, what the role of antibodies is, nor what of the cells themselves in conferring protection at various levels against infections.
It goes without saying that if we are not sure how these immune processes work, it will be impossible to speak with certainty about the efficacy of vaccines ... If we do not know these mechanisms, how can we support a priori the opportunity to vaccinate everyone and pretend that there is no doubt about?
- As if that were not enough, it is finally admitted that the circulation of new genotypes of the measles virus (as well as of mumps) make vaccination campaigns ineffective, since the vaccinated are not immune to the new viruses currently circulating (!!!)
Have these new genotypes always existed or are they perhaps "children" of the massive vaccination campaigns against genotype A? The answer already exists: it is well known how viruses have the ability to mutate, especially under conditions of selective pressure (ie exactly what we are exercising with vaccination campaigns), and it is for this reason that talking about eradication of "measles" is one colossal mockery. Why are we vaccinating billions of people against a genotype that is probably no longer responsible for epidemics? But above all: why do not we proceed with genotyping on all subjects diagnosed with the disease? Is the purpose immunization and health protection, or is it vaccinating everyone regardless of the need or effectiveness of this intervention?
- Finally, it is admitted that the vaccinated can spread the virus !!! This admission is epochal. For years it has been denied (without evidence) that this could happen, snubbing research that demonstrated the presence of the vaccine virus in the oropharynx and urine of the vaccinated, relegating the exanthematic manifestations in the vaccinated to "measles-non-contagious" (and continuing to indicate as unters only those who do not get vaccinated) while now, hear-hear, it turns out that it is - and always has been - a real and plausible risk of contagion due to the subjects just vaccinated! Plotkin writes: “The possibility that a subclinical or a few symptoms infection with measles virus occurs among vaccinated people should be taken into consideration. Although I am not aware of any evidence on the excretion of viruses from vaccinated with some but not all symptoms of measles, isolation of the virus from these patients should be attempted. "
So are mass vaccinations causing epidemics? It is plausible and logical to deduce it from what is reported ... as well as easily conceivable.
Plotkin's conclusion is also interesting: “The measles outbreaks that are taking place in Europe and the United States could be useful if samples were obtained from those who expose themselves to contact before it is or is not infected. The scientific community should take advantage of the current situation brought about by vaccine resistance and vaccine ignorance to better define the correlates of measles immunity. ” I think it means more or less: we have no idea how the situation is changing, we have no idea if vaccinations are effective, we have no idea how a vaccinated's immune system reacts to that of a non-vaccinated, so we should take advantage of unvaccinated subjects and current epidemics in progress to find out.
The real news, therefore, is that we are subjecting the world population to mass experimentation, also by means of laws on vaccination obligations, without having the slightest idea of the consequences that this will bring and will bring on public health.
And now perhaps the most important question: how will the "scientific community" react to these considerations? Will he remain silent? Will you pretend nothing? Will it invoke even more stringent and even more massive vaccination programs?
What will WHO say about these admissions? Note one thing: here we are not talking about "new discoveries" or a single newly published study; simply, these data have been available to everyone for years, the pure evidence, only that now they have been put together and declared in writing by a subject that the "scientific community" can neither scoff at nor accuse of propagating "fake news"; at most the great strategists will be able to decide to ignore everything, as is usually done with uncomfortable issues that are difficult to believably deny ...
This article basically shows that those who spread false news and those who work on easy terrorism, those who ignore scientific evidence are not the no-vaxes, those who pretend to have certain data and certainties, those who play on people's lives are not parents who are concerned about health of their children, but the authorities, the scientific community, the international bodies that pass off these vaccines as "safe and effective" without having the slightest scientific proof of what they say.
Attention therefore to the next moves from above: the health organizations will be grappling from now on with new problems, not related to vaccinations, but probably CAUSED BY VACCINATIONS.
Two words to explain the difference between the vaccine (which generally requires only one administration or periodic administrations, such as every XNUMX years (as with the hepatitis B vaccine) and the antiviral drug (such as the cocktail for HIV-positive patients, who ingest molecules through daily pills that attack parts of the virus, to directly destroy it). The vaccine consists of the administration of molecules that mimick parts of the virus without being infectious, so that our immune system can develop a memory to recognize those parts (that particular type of antigen) when the virus comes back on the doorstep...this memory in some cases lasts all the life, in other cases (like hepatitis B) a decade or so. Once this immune memory has been developed in our body, the pathogen will have to deal with an extremely powerful arsenal of anti-viral mechanisms (orchestrated by our immune cells) that will kill it in no time (in fact, after we get vaccinated, if we get the flu, we get rid of it without even realizing it...our (memory) immune cells know what to do at that point). Another way to develop this memory is by letting ourselves to be infected — as we've done with lots of infections, with low mortality and low morbidity. The antiviral drug is a molecule that acts against the pathogen too, but it does so on its own — the basic problem of an antiviral is that it doesn't last forever, because everything we eat (the pills) is excreted from our body, in a few hours or few days — but there are also molecules that can float, once you put them into the circle, for quite a few days ...(or techniques that modern pharmacology has been studying for a decade or so, aimed to transform molecules with the objective of extending their permanence in the tissues after being administered, see above: nanotechnology therapy). Bibliography