16 – Conclusion
So here endeth a collection of four years of musings, discussions, researches, analyses and distillations. Literary impressionism, maybe, painting a host of images and reflections in trying to get to the heart and soul of this core element of modern living. And finding, of course, that a broad array of seemingly unrelated areas are drawn into these pictures and that the sum is far greater than the parts except, and this is the essential point, there IS the one precipitating factor.
Professor Paul Shattock, when I talked with him after one of his lectures ten years ago, reacted strongly to my objection to the defence of the MMR campaign. I’d said “But the MMR cannot be treated as a single entity. It is not the MMR that causes autism – it is Vaccination. MMR is often the final precipitator but that is because it is one of the later jabs. Much of the damage has already been done – as collateral damage to earlier inoculations, like DPT, Meningitis and so on”.
Paul said “No, you cannot say that. They would laugh you out of court. Any individual prescription has listed its possible side effects. Different chemicals thus have different side effects and cannot be considered together”.
Of course I objected strongly. There are so many analogies one can use to describe the accruement of damage on a single system by a range of different forces. Erosion of a cliff by wind, waves, frost and rain for example but, in this screed, the story of blood sugar is a good exemplar. A whole range of modern foodstuffs raise blood glucose levels – not just “sugar” but, for example, as we saw, wheat grains raise levels even faster and are so profoundly obesogenic.
But he would not move. All jabs must be considered as separate factors and not as contributors to the greater physiology of the recipient. Such shallow and wholly indefensible thinking. Maybe not Paul’s, maybe “industry standard”, maybe “the academic norm” but where was the joined up thinking, where was the systems approach? I felt he, a pharmacologist, was uneasy but had to hold the line. He, as the father of an autistic child, I felt totally supported me- but this man was muzzled, despite his brave work in pushing the case of this obviously increasing sector of society, of which his son is one.
The name “Autism” itself is, anyway, a catch all and includes a range of altered parameters. The range, and so the diagnosis, varies over countries and moreso between countries. Here, in the UK, vaccine damage has long been spoken of, from sudden death precipitation through to a wide range of lesser, generally chronic outcomes. Read the medicaments’ leaflets – they list them all as “rare outcomes” and contraindications. Autism, although first described as a condition in the 1940s, did not come into the picture. Certainly, anyway, it was a very rare condition.
In the 1970s there was a long public outcry due to collateral damage arising from the Whooping Cough vaccine and numbers of takers dropped radically. Eventually this was played down, calmed down, pasted over etc and fell from the news Then the 1980s saw rising numbers of those described and diagnosed as Autistic. Conditions such as asthma, allergies, excema, hyperactivity or ADHD, colics and a number of others were also increasing but autism, as a clearly chronicled series of regressions, where the young children had sudden declines from previously obtained abilities, the milestones of childhood, came to grab the headlines. Time and time again parents recounted how these declines were immediately preceded by the latest of their childhood jabs. More often than not, but absolutely not exclusively, this later jab was the MMR, hence the link between MMR and Autism was easily made.
As we have also seen, this link is so readily disproved by large population studies:
- Because all jabs have physiological impact including generic collateral damage.
- Autism is an essentially vague in definition, including a range of disabilities, and is an ongoing progression, over a period of several years.
It is clear to me, and hopefully to you by now, that the unspoken shutdown on any discussion of the efficacy or the downsides of vaccines, leaves vast amounts of research unstarted. When the size of the vaccine pharmaceutical industry is looked at, and the weight of their product development and publicity budgets are examined this shutdown is clearly not due to a lack of interest. It is due to corporate, integrated strictures.
Strictures make structures and the whole industry is predicated against any question of the efficacy of the process. It is deemed that in being able to demonstrate within the bloodstream of a vaccine recipient that a protein created by the body has been triggered which reacts with the applied antigenic material is a demonstration of the success of the process. Antibodies are being created to “combat” the antigen ie remove it from the bloodstream. It is NEVER possible to demonstrate such a reaction actually “fighting off infection” – the ASSUMPTION is made that, if and when required, this happens automatically. Anything demonstrated is, of course, in vitro.
Then population studies are used and epidemiologists have to show how, over twenty or thirty years, rates of infection have altered, how mortality has declined. As reviewed and discussed earlier, this is just not possible. Rates of mortality from all the classic childhood illnesses were in free-fall to zero before any of the jabs were introduced.
So it has all been a profoundly damaging, total waste of time