Even Green Vaccines Belong in the Trash

The controversy of vaccinations has led to a whole industry of advocacy groups – some protesting for "green" vaccines, some for the removal of mercury, others for vaccine choice and even pro-life groups speaking against the use of aborted fetuses in vaccine production.  With all of these issues, and fingers pointed at so many potential problems in vaccines, it is easy to miss one of the most important issues of all:  Are vaccines even effective or useful to begin with?

This is a premise that is assumed to be true in most cases… but what if it's not?  Would there be any need to try to produce vaccines without mercury, without retrovirus contamination, or without infected, aborted fetal tissue? 

Based on my understanding of the whole theory of vaccination, even if I was offered the "greenest" vaccine, free from the usual heavy metals, contaminants and carcinogens, I would still refuse it, even in the midst of an outbreak.   This may seem absurd and even totally extreme to some readers but my position is based on not only science but logic.

It is believed that vaccines prevent disease because they can cause the body to produce antibodies. This theory is only important if you accept the premise that antibodies in the blood create immunity to disease.  The antibody theory of immunity was built from the understanding of the immune system that was accepted in the early 1900's when vaccines were invented.  In actuality, the antibody theory was disproven over 50 years ago, meaning that modern science has PROVEN that antibodies do not equate immunity.  This fact has been demonstrated in several different ways.  First, it has been shown time and again that individuals with high levels of antibodies can contract the very disease for which they are supposedly protected.  In fact, after researching all the outbreaks in the last several years, to my knowledge in every single case, a large majority of infected people are always fully vaccinated.  A great example was the mumps outbreak in Brooklyn in February 2010, which was named the worst outbreak since 2006 by The New York Times.  In this instance, over 75% of the infected people had been fully vaccinated.  Further evidence mounts against the antibody theory of immunity with the fact that research has shown that individuals with low or zero antibody levels exhibit immunity.  In a diphtheria lab in Great Britain during an outbreak, no correlation between antibody level and immunity could be found.   Furthermore, some people suffer with a condition called agammaglobulinaemia.  In simple terms, this means their body cannot produce antibodies.  If the theory that substantiates vaccines were true, people with this condition would be absolutely doomed.  They would never be able to obtain immunity for any disease.  However, in real life, these individuals not only recover from disease incidence almost as rapidly as their peers, but in addition, exhibit good immunity to further exposures.  To make this case for vaccines even weaker, vaccines are not even highly effective at raising antibodies to begin with.  For this reason, booster shots to revaccinate children are added to the vaccine schedule almost yearly.  But the #1 reason that I would refuse any and every vaccine is because of the true effect they have on the immune system.  Rather than causing immunity, vaccines paralyze the immune system, leaving it disabled.  If you don't know how vaccinations shift the body toward allergy and autoimmunity, watch for my next blog post. 

31 Comments

  1. great job once again Dr Tocco

  2. Daryl Cobranchi

    “In this instance, over 75% of the infected people had been fully vaccinated.”
    This is a meaningless bit of data unless you also provide the overall rate of vaccination. For instance, if 99% of the population were fully vaccinated but they represent only 75% of the cases, while the 1% of the population which was not vaccinated represented 25% of the cases, that’d make a very strong case in favor of the effectiveness of the vaccine.
    Of course, I’m a real scientist who understands statistics, so I’m probably not your target audience.

  3. That would be a good point IF it was plausable that an extrememly high rate (like your proposed 99%) of people are fully vaccinated. Overall vaccination stats were not released for this particular outbreak but national averages show that near 80% of people are fully vaccinated…

  4. Ashley Davis

    With all due respect, “real scientist” anyone can use statistics in their favor to prove a point. So as a “real scientist” please explain to me why anyone would support vaccination. I’m serious, how can you justify injecting people-esp children-with toxic substances? I have never seen proof that vaccines are effective. The only proof I have gathered is doctors and health officials making claims that they are. Where are the QUALITY studies to back up these claims? I know that this is a hot debate- an all out war. But if I am to be convinced that it is safe to vaccinate my child, I want real proof. To me the real proof is in experience. When I see children hospitalized, damaged for life or even die from a vaccine reaction that is proof that they are not safe. I’m not a fan of utilatarian ethics. “It’s ok if a few die for the protection of the many.” Each and every one of those few is a real life…someones child…someone loved. People who are against vaccines aren’t necessarily unscientific. They are people who truly care about others and have their best interest in mind.

  5. Daryl Cobranchi

    So, you have NO DATA to show that the 75% is a meaningful number. I believe Mark Twain said something about lies, damned lies, and statistics.

  6. Daryl Cobranchi

    “So as a “real scientist” please explain to me why anyone would support vaccination.”
    Are you asking if vaccines are effective? Or are you asking if the risk associated with the vaccine is worth it? Because those are two different questions that would be answered in two very different ways.
    For example, Let’s say in Tocco’s meaningless Brooklyn example that 99% of the general population is vaccinated and 1% is not (my theoretical, above). That the 1% represent 25% of the cases would indicate that the vaccine is VERY effective. That, in effect, you have a 25 times greater chance of being infected if you are not vaccinated. Or, conversely, the vaccine is 96% effective (100% – 1/25 expressed as a percent). That addresses the first question but not the second. For that, you would need to know the side effects of the vaccine and the severity and the relative ease of transmission of the illness it’s meant to protect against. Those are much more difficult to quantitate.
    But the science of the effectiveness of vaccines in general is without doubt. It’s the first day of Basic Statistics 101.

  7. Daryl, your entire example would only mean anything if an overall 99% fully vaccinated rate was even plausable, in any community, ever. The point is that vaccines do not guarantee protection.

  8. Dr. Tocco,
    Great article, Dr. Tocco! There is no right answer to the wrong question, absolutely right! If it is based off of a flawed theory, then basic logic tell us that it invalidates the rest. However, the common sense here is not so common.
    People don’t NEED vaccines; Pharmaceutical companies NEED PEOPLE who “think” they need vaccines. True science, that is natural, like gravity, does not take anything to prove it. Things that are good, just are- No proof needed. A theory, itself, means that there are unknowns and it is speculation. If we hold a theory, we can usually proceed with what “we” think something is. The artificial immunity theory is one that produces and creates a lot of money for a lot of people.
    In basic biology in learning about the immune system- it already does what vaccine manufacturers claim that vaccines do. Vaccines are NOT immunity. The human body was not designed to be injected with vaccines.
    Thank you, again, Dr. Tocco for all of your great work.
    Innate Motherhood
    “Supporting Parents who do their own research.”
    http://www.InnateMotherhood.com

  9. Daryl Cobranchi

    “Daryl, your entire example would only mean anything if an overall 99% fully vaccinated rate was even plausable, in any community, ever.”
    Nonsense! The math works no matter what the vaccination rate. Plug in an 80% vaccination rate for your 75% scenario and you get a vaccine that’s 25% effective.
    “The point is that vaccines do not guarantee protection.”
    That’s NOT the point you made in your opening ‘graf. You wrote “Are vaccines even effective or useful to begin with?” You’re moving the goalposts. First you imply that they’re utterly useless. Now you’re demanding that they be 100% effective.

  10. Daryl Cobranchi

    Correction: Plug in an 80% vaccination rate for your 75% scenario and you get a vaccine that’s 20% effective.

  11. Nance Confer

    My favorite off-the-wall comment here:
    “I have never seen proof that vaccines are effective. The only proof I have gathered is doctors and health officials making claims that they are.”
    And, really, what would health officials and doctors know about any of this?
    Please just keep your kids away from mine.
    Nance

  12. WONDERFUL! Congratulations! Dr. Tocco should win an award for humanitarian marketing and asserting this paradigm-shifting fact: ALL VACCINES SHOULD BE TRASHED exclusively in the bloodstreams of BigPharma execs–PharmaWhores like Lloyd Blankfein, Rupert Murdoch, Thomas Glocer, and David Rockefeller. That is the only legitimate use for these biochemical weapons of mass intoxication for population reduction.

  13. Cory Thiele

    Nance,
    You might actually be suprised at what little your doctor knows about topics like these. Of course they tow the party line, which is established by “research” done by companies that are selling billions of dollars of dangerous products. This becomes the standard of practice that M.D.s follow…or else. Do you think that research performed by someone who has a financial motivation to have a positive outcome might be slightly biased? Don’t worry about anyone else’s child, worry about your own walking cesspool of toxins and disease. By the way did you hear McDonald’s uses choleserol free cooking oil for their french fries? Got to be good for your kid then right?

  14. Nance Confer

    We’re not big customers of McD’s. And we go to the doctor regularly. See how those things work together?
    I do worry about other peoples’ children because that’s how immunization works.
    I run a private/umbrella school for homeschoolers. One of the options, by law, is for them to opt out of vaccinations. There seem to be more people using that option. I’m not convinced some of it isn’t because they don’t have doctors — although they could get a doctor for the kids here even if the parents don’t have insurance — but we do have a lot of religious types here and I think, between your sort of misinformation and their churches, they are getting all sorts of support for not doing the right things for their children.
    And for mine.

  15. Anthony E

    Ms. Cofner,
    Why the concern for your kids? Or, more correctly, why the unnecessary or over concern for your children’s health? What I mean is, if your children’s vaccination work aren’t they protected from my unvaccinated children?
    Also, could you explain exactly what a “religious type” is? Just curious.
    Thanks

  16. Did anyone who read this post click through to the link about the original report? There are also links within that at the bottom (more information on mumps from the CDC) Keep clicking on mumps outbreaks and there is an update to this story.
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5905a1.htm
    When they broke the numbers down, the majority of infected people were boys older than age 7 (the average age was somewhere between 15-17 years), 88% had received at least 1 dose (the 75% figure had received the 2 doses). No deaths were reported out of the 1512 cases.
    I found the following information from this report interesting:
    Certain jurisdictions have encouraged providers to offer a second dose of MMR vaccine to children aged 1–4 years; however, this strategy has not been a focus of the public health response because of the small proportion (4.9%) of cases reported in this age group.
    Beginning on January 19, 2010, in Orange County, New York, public health officials began offering a third dose of MMR vaccine in three schools where, despite documentation of a high level of 2-dose coverage among students, transmission had continued for >2 months. This intervention is being carried out under an Institutional Review Board–approved protocol that provides for an evaluation of the impact of the intervention.
    Public health officials began offering a third dose of vaccine to students in certain schools in Orange County, New York, because mumps transmission had continued among students, despite their high rate of 2-dose coverage. Although a previous study indicated that a third dose of MMR vaccine for seronegative college students resulted in rapid seroconversion with a low rate of IgM response, which is indicative of an anamnestic immune response (7), ACIP has not recommended a third dose, and no data exist on the effectiveness of a third dose in either reducing the risk for mumps or altering the course of an outbreak. Data obtained from use of the third dose of MMR vaccine in Orange County might be used to guide future options for mumps outbreak control in settings with high 2-dose coverage.
    This outbreak emphasizes that mumps outbreaks can occur in highly vaccinated populations.
    Then it went on to say that the outbreaks are controlled by high vaccination rates. I know that someone will come along and make more arguments about herd immunity, but it really didn’t make sense as in this outbreak most of the cases were in vaccinated people in close contact with each other (school).
    I am not trying to win any arguments in such a heated debate, but after reading this it does support the original post of Dr. Tocco.

  17. To me, the question in relation to mumps (which is a subcategory of the argument) is why vaccinate children? Mumps is almost always mild in children and nastier in teens and adults. So why not have mumps during childhood and avoid it when you are older?
    If the vaccine provided long-lasting immunity then it might make sense, but it doesn’t.
    http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2010/02/16/just-because-you-need-a-third-dose-doesnt-mean-the-two-dose-schedule-is-failing-or-anything/
    on the need for a mumps vaccine during childhood:
    http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2010/02/22/vaccine-myths-3-1-the-scourge-of-childhood/
    Personally, I think some vaccines do actually work and some even provide herd immunity. My beef is that the benefits are inflated and the dangers are minimized. How can anyone do a proper risk benefit analysis when the stats are screwy to begin with?

  18. Nance Confer

    Also, could you explain exactly what a “religious type” is? Just curious.
    ***By this I mean wackos who believe in sky fairies and follow laws supposedly handed down telling them not to take their children to the doctor, including not vaccinating. You don’t have this sort of nut in your area?

  19. “Why the concern for your kids? Or, more correctly, why the unnecessary or over concern for your children’s health? What I mean is, if your children’s vaccination work aren’t they protected from my unvaccinated children?”
    I’m not Nance but I can’t resist taking these on. Why do we care about our kids’ health? Oh, I don’t know. Maybe because we’re responsible for them and love them and don’t want them to get sick.
    There are lots of reasons why a parent might not want their kids to come in contact with the kids of anti-vaxxers. Maybe the kids are immunosuppressed and can’t be vaccinated. Or maybe they’re too young. Or maybe we just don’t want to run the risk that the vaccine wasn’t 100% effective.

  20. Nance Confer

    “Or maybe we just don’t want to run the risk that the vaccine wasn’t 100% effective.”
    Yes, that was my first thought.
    Another concept that has not made it here, apparently — herd immunity.
    I’m pretty sure I also have a prejudice against my children spending a whole lot of time with people who have such a great disdain for science.

  21. Vaccine is the foremost medicine needed to be injected to a new born baby. Each day new disease spread accordingly vaccines are also being discovered as there is no way to escape from diseases .

  22. Dr. Renee,
    do you have the article that disproved the antibody theory that you were talking about? i would love a copy. thanks for all you do. “you don’t inject health into your body, health comes from within.” blessings,
    Dr. Wall

  23. I searched for anamnestic and I found your blog. I really like it. Keep going – well done!

  24. Excellent write-up, continue the good work!

  25. Randy Hermann

    All I know is that the one year I got the flu vaccine was the year I was very ill all winter long. One illness after another. The pharmecuetical companies sell the vaccine and then sell the medications to combat the symptoms of the illness they produced the vaccine for. Sounds like the fox watching the henhouse to me!

Leave a Reply