Stockholm Syndrome

OK, this is simply an extract and raw for future upgrading


Stockholm syndrome refers to a group of psychological symptoms that occur in some persons in a captive or hostage situation. It has received considerable media publicity in recent years because it has been used to explain the behaviour of such well known kidnapping victims as Patti Hearst (1974) and Elizabeth Smart (2002). The term takes its name from a bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden, in August 1973. The robber took four employees from the bank (three women and one man) into the vault with him and kept them hostage for 131 hours.

After the employees were finally released they appeared to have formed a paradoxical emotional bond with their captor – they told reporters that they saw the police as their enemy, rather than the bank robber, and that they had positive feelings towards the criminal. The syndrome was first named by Nils Bejerot (1921-1988) a medical professor who specialised in addiction research and served as a psychiatric consultant during the standoff at the bank. Stockholm syndrome is known as Survival Identification Syndrome.


Stockholm Syndrome is considered a complex reaction to a frightening situation, and experts do not agree completely on all its characteristic features or on the factors that make someone more susceptible  than others to developing it. One reason for the disagreement is that it would be unethical to test theories about the syndrome by experimenting on human beings.The data for understanding the syndrome are derived from actual hostage situations since 1973 that differ considerably from one another in terms of location, number of people involved and time frame.

Another source of disagreement concerns the extent to which the syndrome can be used  to explain other historical phenomena or more commonplace types of abusive relationships. Many researchers believe the Stockholm Syndrome helps to explain certain behaviours of survivors of WW2 concentration camps, members of religious cults, battered wives, incest survivors, and physically or emotionally abused children as well as people taken hostage by criminals or terrorists.

Most experts agree, however, that Stockholm Syndrome has three central characteristics.

  1. The hostages have negative feelings about the police or other authorities
  2. The hostages have positive feelings towards their captor(s).
  3. The captors develop positive feelings towards their hostage(s).


Causes and symptoms

Stockholm syndrome does not affect all hostages (or persons in comparable situations); in fact, a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) study of over 1200 hostage-taking incidents found that 92% of the hostages did not develop Stockholm syndrome. FBI researchers then interviewed flight attendants who had been taken hostage during airplane hijackings, and concluded that three factors are necessary for the syndrome to develop:

  • The crisis situation lasts for several days or longer.
  • The hostage takers remain in contact with the hostages; that is, the hostages are not placed in a separate room.
  • The hostage takers show some kindness toward the hostages or at least refrain from harming them. Hostagesabused by captors typically feel anger toward them and do not usually develop the syndrome.

In addition, people who often feel helpless in other stressful life situations or are willing to do anything in order to surviveseem to be more susceptible to developing Stockholm syndrome if they are taken hostage.

People with Stockholm syndrome report the same symptoms as those diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder(PTSD): insomnia, nightmares, general irritability, difficulty concentrating, being easily startled, feelings of unreality orconfusion, inability to enjoy previously pleasurable experiences, increased distrust of others, and flashbacks.


Stockholm syndrome is a descriptive term for a pattern of coping with a traumatic situation rather than a diagnosticcategory. Most psychiatrists would use the diagnostic criteria for acute stress disorder or posttraumatic stress disorderwhen evaluating a person with Stockholm syndrome.


Treatment of Stockholm syndrome is the same as for PTSD, most commonly a combination of medications for short-term sleep disturbances and psychotherapy for the longer-term symptoms.

Key terms

Coping — In psychology, a term that refers to a person’s patterns of response to stress. Some patterns of coping maylower a person’s risk of developing Stockholm syndrome in a hostage situation.

Flashback —

The remergence of a traumatic memory as a vivid recollection of sounds, images, and sensationsassociated with the trauma. The person having the flashback typically feels as if they are reliving the event. Flashbackswere first described by doctors treating combat veterans of World War I (1914–1918).

Identification with an aggressor — In psychology, an unconscious process in which a person adopts the perspectiveor behavior patterns of a captor or abuser. Some researchers consider it a partial explanation of Stockholm syndrome.

Regression — In psychology, a return to earlier, usually childish or infantile, patterns of thought or behavior.

Syndrome — A set of symptoms that occur together.


The prognosis for recovery from Stockholm syndrome is generally good, but the length of treatment needed depends onseveral variables. These include the nature of the hostage situation; the length of time the crisis lasted, and theindividual patient’s general coping style and previous experience(s) of trauma.


Prevention of Stockholm syndrome at the level of the larger society includes further development of crisis interventionskills on the part of law enforcement as well as strategies to prevent kidnapping or hostage-taking incidents in the firstplace. Prevention at the individual level is difficult as of the early 2000s because researchers have not been able toidentify all the factors that may place some persons at greater risk than others; in addition, they disagree on the specificpsychological mechanisms involved in Stockholm syndrome. Some regard the syndrome as a form of regression (returnto childish patterns of thought or action) while others explain it in terms of emotional paralysis (“frozen fright”) oridentification with the aggressor.



American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision.Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2000.

Graham, Dee L. R., with Edna I. Rawlings and Roberta K. Rigsby. Loving to Survive, Chapter 1, “Love Thine Enemy:Hostages and Classic Stockholm Syndrome.” New York and London: New York University Press, 1994.

Herman, Judith, MD. Trauma and Recovery, 2nd ed., revised. New York: Basic Books, 1997. Chapter 4, “Captivity,” isparticularly helpful in understanding Stockholm syndrome.


Bejerot, Nils. “The Six-Day War in Stockholm.” New Scientist 61 (1974): 486-487.

Fuselier, G. Dwayne, PhD. “Placing the Stockholm Syndrome in Perspective.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (July1999): 23-26.

Grady, Denise. “Experts Look to Stockholm Syndrome on Why Girl Stayed.” International Herald Tribune, 17 March2003. A newspaper article about the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Herd it all before, now hear it again from Andy (and me – I’ll not let such an opportunity go by without my input, too!)

In an Informed Parent discussion somebody put up Andy’s piece, below, on herd immunity, that much loved and wholly misused term in the armory of such luminaries of the Vaccinologista in their Voodoo temples as Paul Offit and Ben goldacre. This is the discussion whence it came, followed by the article itself [with me butting in thushow]:

Notes on Herd Immunity from Andrew Wakefield

“Herd Immunity is a term that is bandied around in defence of mass and mandatory vaccination. What is it and why is it important?
Let’s set out a working definition of what Herd Immunity is at a functional level in the population: Herd Immunity is the presence of adequate immunity within a population against a specific infection that operates to protect those at high risk of serious infection and consequently, reduce morbidity and mortality from that infection.

[I reckon this is a medics slant and for a real understanding we have to use an ecological definition, whereby familiarity of endemic bacterial populations within the group of animals, and the young in particular, is constantly topped up by interpersonal contacts – such as the mother suckling her young.]
Now let’s separate out Herd Immunity, comparing what it meant in the pre-vaccine era compared with what it means in the vaccine era, using specific infections as examples.
Measles: Herd Immunity in the pre-vaccine era

  • When measles first enters a population that has not been exposed to measles before, Herd Immunity is zero and there is, initially, a very high morbidity (illness) and mortality.

[I would strongly demur at this, too. We have no information of such events ever having happened. Yes, conjectures about, for example, plague in Europe or Aztec ague in early, post Spanish invasion Mexico, can be countered by a range of nutritional, lifestyle and, indeed, happiness criteria. (The Aztec CANNOT  have been happy at all!]

  • This occurs in large part as a consequence of high dose exposure. [?]
    • High dose exposure occurs because, in the absence of viral immunity, viral replication is unimpeded in the multiple susceptible human reservoirs in which it thrives. High doses of measles virus are transmitted from one person to the next. [???]

Added to this, socioeconomic circumstances contribute to high dose exposure. This includes high population density (easy transmission) and poor antiviral defences (e.g. low vitamins A, D, and C). An example is the ravage of measles in Confederate soldiers amassed in barracks and hospitals in the American Civil War. [Yeah, back to standard reasons for infectious success here!]

  • Over time, as measles becomes endemic (constantly circulating) in a population with typical 2-yearly epidemics, Herd Immunity increases rapidly. Natural exposure leads to long term immunity. Immunity limits viral transmission [Means there is none……] and opportunities for viral replication. Concomitantly, developed countries have experienced an improvement in nutritional status and consequently antiviral immunity. Dose of exposure falls and a dramatic reduction in morbidity and mortality is observed.
  • As a consequence of natural Herd Immunity, in the developed world measles mortality had fallen by 99.6% before measles vaccines were introduced. [Nothing to do with “Herd Immunity” – simply a far more healthy population] A fall in morbidity will have paralleled the fall in mortality (mortality is the extreme of morbidity).

Let us look at an example of how natural Herd Immunity operated to provide age-appropriate immunity.

  • Infants less than one year of age have a limited ability to generate adequate immunity and are susceptible to serious measles infection.
  • In the pre-vaccine era mothers conferred good passive immunity on their infants by transplacental [Well, maybe……] and breast milk transfer. [Most certainly.]
  • This passive immunity protected infants through a period of vulnerability until they were better able to cope with measles through the generation of their own active immunity.

The vaccine era
Measles vaccine has destroyed natural Herd Immunity and replaced it with a temporary and inadequate quasi Herd Immunity that necessitates a dependence on vaccination along with an increased risk of severe adverse outcomes. Here are some examples of how natural Herd Immunity has been destroyed.

  • The increasing Herd Immunity associated with natural measles and the accompanying decrease in morbidity and mortality, has been interrupted by vaccination. This makes it difficult to predict how vaccinated populations might respond to, say, a new strain of measles virus that has escaped the ‘protection’ conferred by measles vaccine (escape mutant). Because that population is not immune to the escape mutant we risk high morbidity and mortality from measles once again.
  • Vaccinated mothers do not confer adequate passive immunity upon their infants (< 1 year of age). Infants are unable to generate an adequate immune response to measles vaccine and in the absence of passive maternal immunity, are unprotected during the first year, putting them at risk of serious measles infection. [This has long seemed to me to be a seriously crucial situation. As does the Czeck Canadian.]
  • Unlike natural measles, measles vaccine does not provide lasting immunity and a substantial proportion of measles cases are reported in those who have been vaccinated against measles. [Indeed!]
  • Boosting of immunity using repeated doses of measles vaccine is not sustained and falls off rapidly. The only answer to this diminishing return that is offered by the regulators and manufacturers is to give more and more vaccines. The vaccine is highly profitable in terms of volume of sales, precisely because it is inadequately effective. [And what does any blood titre of immunoglobin actually demonstrate, eh?]

Mumps and Herd Immunity
Mumps is acknowledged to be a trivial disease in children

 [Ask my two whether they found it trivial – it was awful, as far as I could tell! But it was all over in two weeks]

; many do not even know they have had mumps the symptoms are so mild. Mumps is not a trivial disease in post-pubertal males where it can cause testicular inflammation and sterility.
Mumps vaccine does not work. Protection is way below the 96% claimed by Merck and mumps epidemics are occurring worldwide in highly vaccinated populations. Merck is accused of fraudulently misrepresenting the efficacy of their mumps vaccine in order to protect their US monopoly on the MMR vaccine. I would suggest that everyone who has suffered mumps and particularly its complications despite mumps vaccination, has a valid legal claim against Merck.
Mumps vaccine failure is associated with inadequate immunity following vaccination (primary failure) and rapidly waning immunity after vaccination (secondary failure). These factors mean that populations are at greater risk as they grow older. Since severe side effects are more common in mature males, mumps vaccine has made mumps a more dangerous disease.
Natural Herd Immunity, that is, lifelong immunity following exposure of children to mumps in the pre-vaccine era, has been destroyed by mumps vaccination.

[And where do the new outbreaks come from? There was the great 2003 outbreak in all the primary schools of North West Wales (at least NWW – I have not heard about adjacent or other regions of the country for that year). In Ysgol Carmel School the outbreak arose within the vaccinated kids – post at least one dose of MMR. Two of my three kids in the school caught Mumps, the third and youngest, did not. At all. Or ever since – she is now 20. So, whence came these mumps viruses?]
Chickenpox and Herd Immunity
The chickenpox virus (varicella zoster) causes a mild self-limiting disease in healthy children. The virus frequently establishes latent infection in the cell bodies of sensory nerve roots where it has the potential to episodically reactivate and cause shingles, a very painful and debilitating condition. Shingles can cause blindness. Historically, shingles was an uncommon disease occurring in, for example, people with immune deficiency due to cancer or immunosuppressive drug therapy.
Reactivation of zoster is inhibited by an adequate level of immunity to this virus which, in turn, is maintained by boosting of immunity in parents and grandparents by re-exposure via children with chickenpox. Natural epidemics of chickenpox maintained Herd Immunity by ‘wild-type boosting’ (referring to the natural virus) of adults which prevented shingles in otherwise healthy individuals. [Think this is speculative, Andy…..] This is no longer the case.
Widespread chickenpox vaccination has removed natural Herd Immunity by preventing epidemics, eliminating ‘wild-type’ boosting, and allowing immunity to fall in individuals to the point where shingles is now much more common, occurring in young, apparently healthy people. Vaccination has created a new epidemic to which Merck’s response is, ‘we’ve created a market; now let’s make a vaccine to prevent shingles.’ [Quite!]
-Andrew Wakefield

Thanks all. We have to develop a very clear set of common responses to the nefarious concepts offered up by the establishment of Voodoo rationalisers. I am not being pedantic as I seek to clarify the points made in Andy’s origninal piece. Au contraire, I am seeking to thrash out an absolute and purely objective truth. Hmm, yeah, TRUTH if one is allowed to use such a concept in today’s murky international conversation………..

-Chris Hemmings

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Oh dear: “Inoculate vaccination commission from fake science”.

This is my minimalist approach, as I only want to illustrate a single, particular detail here – so bare with me!

We have the new US President proposing to appoint a Kennedy to chair a Commission into the collateral damage from vaccines. Well, he is clearly a maverick, a libertarian and one who has personally witnessed these problems so, to President Trump this needs sorting.

Which triggers the rearguard action, the institutional defence and as much heavy artillery as they can muster. Here is an article which typifies such – written in snooty, weknowbest professionalist manner and saying practically nothing other than to repeat many meaningless Offitisms.

However, after scanning/skimming through the article as writ, then look through the authors’ biogs, at the end of the piece. Ouch, another example of one who is so deeply in denial that he will not see the truth about his own kids……..

Article in “The Hill”, By Dr Ashley Darcy-Mahony and Dr Kevin Pelphrey – 01/30/17

After years of pushing back against scientifically discredited claims that vaccinations cause autism, health professionals and researchers are seeing results: vaccination rates are finally back on the rise in the U.S.

Yet just recently, a guest column by Dr. Daniel Neides, Chief Operating Officer of the prestigious Cleveland Clinic’s Wellness Institute and Robert Kennedy Jr.’s claim that then President-elect Donald Trump asked him to “chair a commission on vaccination safety and scientific integrity” have once again put the anti-vaccination cause back in the spotlight. President Trump’s team has since disavowed Mr. Kennedy’s claim concerning his selection to lead the committee.

These developments have the potential to derail longtime efforts to mitigate the negative effects of news around vaccines and autism. Despite the numerous, extensive and reproducible tests that prove that vaccinations do not cause autism, some public figures continue to feed conspiracy theories about vaccine safety. Using taxpayer dollars for an inquiry that may perpetuate harmful doubts, spread misinformation and possibly even lead to new immunization policies that are unsupported by science could have grave consequences for American families.

Nevertheless, if there is to be such a commission, health care experts and scientists have a responsibility to fully participate. This is the only way to ensure that the commission’s conclusions are not one-sided, but rather the result of a rigorous and open discussion that addresses the concerns of parents, eliminates myths and creates broad consensus on how to protect our nation’s children from devastating infectious diseases.

As researchers, nurses and doctors, the proliferation of discredited theories only makes our job harder and creates dangerous – and unnecessary – hurdles for safeguarding the nation’s public health. In fact, we have already seen the price we all pay for not vaccinating children, with recent outbreaks of measles, mumps and whooping cough across the US all directly related to parents’ refusals to vaccinate.

Because of such alarming stakes, we clearly recognize that we must do more to reassure and educate families while forcefully rebutting unsubstantiated claims. A full and definitive airing of all the scientific evidence by such a commission may present an opportunity to do so. If this presidential commission comes to fruition, these are the issues that should be addressed and settled once and for all:

  • First, the committee should weigh all the possible risks associated with the spacing of vaccinations. This means evaluating the CDCand AAPschedules as well as determining the harm that could be done if we space out or delay the vaccination schedule of children, thereby exposing vulnerable children to potential infection for an unnecessarily longer period of time.
  • Second, the commission should reinforce efforts by the National Institutes of Health to further increase scientific rigor and transparency in research. By leading efforts to verify that study conclusions are truly independent and not compromised by financial incentives, we can reassure families that, regardless of the source, the science is solid.

We must also acknowledge that there is clearly a need to address some outstanding myths that keep the discredited anti-vaccine movement alive within our society. Researchers, doctors, nurses and other experts must stand prepared to be a part of this committee, and we call upon our colleagues to join us in demanding that scientific experts have a seat at the table. Now is the time to fully assume our civic duties. Public health should not be a partisan issue.

As pediatric researchers, our job is to advocate for our patients and we understand that all parents ultimately just want the best for their kids. Making major decisions about a child’s health is a profound challenge – especially when you are unsure of whom to trust or what is simply true or false. If we can address outstanding questions and finally convince skeptical parents that the best way to truly protect their children is to vaccinate them, we will have performed a real public service.

Ashley Darcy-Mahoney is an assistant professor and neonatal nurse practitioner at the George Washington University School of Nursing and the director of infant research at GW’s Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disorders Institute. Dr. Darcy-Mahoney’s research has led to the creation of programs that improve health and developmental outcomes for at-risk and preterm infants. 

Kevin Pelphrey is a neuroscientist who serves as the Carbonell Family Professor and Director of the Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disorders Institute at the George Washington University and as a public member of the United States Government’s Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. Dr. Pelphrey is also the father of a son and a daughter with autism. His research has identified the brain basis of autism spectrum disorders and created new tools for improving evidence-based autism treatments.

Posted in Big Med, Big Pharm, Offit, Vaccine damage denialism | 1 Comment

Complete index of titles todate


Here’s a complete list of all the posts on this blog up to date. Just control/click to get there (except 26, 27 and 29…..):

[It is worth noting that most of these pieces are largely unedited since they were posted and so will contain many subsequently corrected typos and just writing I subsequently deemed to be poor, irrelevant, or perhaps a mite too controversial! ]

1 – The Elephant in this Jungle

2 – Semantic systems biology meets evidence based medicine – a parable.

3 – Ghenghis Clohn

4 – Battlefield Blues

5 – Genetics subverted – by its establishment

6 – Scandals in the works – BSEM meeting, London, Feb2011.

7 – The natural history of infection

8 – Beware Psociety’s Determinista

9 – Just because.

10 – How’s this for Dogmatism?

11 – Uta Frith

12 – Am I a bioterrorist?

13 – Sin-thetic Biology

14 – Why are socialists so in awe of science?

15 – On patents and India

16 – Deepest Congolese Disease

17 – Putting Mars through some Wiking – another Saga.

18 – “Wheat Belly” brings me Full Circle – and the Missing Puzzle Piece

19 – Munchausen Syndrome rebranded. (The “Winscale, oh, sorry, I mean Sellafield” effect.)”

20 – Sieving Acres of Gold?

21 – Weinstein’s Question

22 – It really makes me sick

23 – The Curious Case of Panorama’s Blind Reportage – SSPE, MMR and the limitations of Sarah

24 – One Flu over the Cockoo’s Nest

25 – Missing puzzle pieces?

26 – Medicine Men

27 – What is “Evidence based” information?

28 – I didn’t know this but……..

29 – If Andy Wakefield were a bond trader…..

30 – The Annul Hypothesis

31 – Institute to Investigate the Damaging Physiological Outcomes of Vaccination, IDPOV

32 – One Gene to Rule Them All and in the Darkness Bind Them

33 – So? Annul the Institutionalised Bias!

34 – A Very High Potentiation?

35 – When is an antigen not an antigen? Answer: when it’s an adjuvant!

36 – Andy, this is very difficult for me to write…..

37 – Viral passports?

38 – Aaronovitch – the man who wants to bolt the gates shut on everyone

39 – Wilby, won’t he?

40 – Haw Haw – Psychological Warfare

41 – Is this the White Flag?

42 – John “Turncoat” Humphreys and a little Tees

43 – Jennerism – keeping the 21st century back in the 18th

44 – So how do we contract Typhoid? Enteric bacterial sagas and those cash rich vaccinators

45 – Professor Mark Kendall – I wonder if he’ll get this one to stick?

46 – The Leninist-Stalinist perspective or Animal Farm revisited

47 – Of course there always was an alternative to Vaccination via Needle

48 – The Technician

49 – The Voodoo of Vaccination

50 – I know WHO not to believe

51 – More than my jobsworth, part three

52 – Herd all the noise and the accusations?

53 – The Nature of Institutional Thinking (Sinking…fast?)

54 – I’ll Huff and I’ll Puff and I’ll lie like the best of ‘em -ington Post

55 – Of a Finn, flu jabs and corruption – same ole story, really!

56 – On infant dosed antibiotics and childhood obesity – setting the scene for the adult obesity plague?

58 – On Vitamin C

59 – The Jab Patrol? Tightening the Grip?

60 – Immunobiology – superb science built upon a totally flawed assumption. Part One – I have a dream.

61 – Immunobiology – superb science built upon a totally flawed assumption. Part Two – Jenner in every pore.

62 – Immunobiology – superb science built upon a totally flawed assumption. Part Four – Methinks they do protest too much

63 – Immunobiology – superb science built upon a totally flawed assumption. Part Four – Methinks they do protest too much

64 – Immunobiology – superb science built upon a totally flawed assumption. Part Five – Towards a Bio-Medical Ecology

65 – Bad Science. Very Bad Science.

66 – Compare and contrast Vaccines and Antibiotics – for good or evil!

67 – A proposed mechanism for the acquisition of high levels of allergy in modern human society.

68 – Sometimes you just gotta laugh……….

69 – Nadine’s Cri de Coeur

70 – When did high tech science get grafted into the Vaccine Voodoo?

71 – “So, it’s like a great big conspiracy, is it?”

72 – Jenner’s application for funding from the MRC and the Pearly Gates’ Foundation.

73 – A short note on 2015 Flu provision – note my phrasing!

74 – Wheat Belly Up

75 – The Voodoo Ponzi Scheme.

76 – Akin to a bottle of whisky for an alcoholic the Government’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) and – NHS resolve to give annual flu jabs to all the obese in the UK.

77 – Meningitis B a dead cert Money Maker

78 – Vive la révolution!

79 – Another convert from the medical profession

80 – Patches – we’re dependin’ on you………

81 – Ebola? Not here!

82 – Now hold on a moment

83 – Distemper bad temper……….

84 – Conclusion to book – no really, I am going to stop and publish it now. Just you watch…..

85 – Type 2 Coeliac Disease

86 – The biomedical ecology of three sugars – sucrose, glucose and fructose.

87 – Confessions

88 – A modern voodoo?

89 – Dancing Cats, Silent Canaries

90 – The Artefactual Life of Antibodies


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Artefactual Life of Antibodies

The whole science of Vaccinology and its parent Immunology is based on the need to provide a rational underpinning to the practice of vaccination. To justify Jenner.

Being as Jenner is unjustifiable, nor the practice he bestowed us with, we have to revisit the assumptions of these two sciences, to ascertain which, if any, we can continue to use and in which circumstances.

So “immunoglobins” – “antibodies” – are a case in point. As is the generic title “The Immune System”. They are labelled as having a specific intent, as being an evolutionary outcome. But this labelling is, or has been, made looking backwards, using the justification process. I certainly feel that such labels cannot be so derived but should be of the present or, better, made looking forward.

There would thus be a systems based, holistic examination as to the operational application by one’s physiology of the processes illustrated and described in such painstaking detail by the technocratista in their gleamingly well equipped laboratories.

At present, all of their work, published with oh so impressive and remarkably detailed three dimensional drawings of physical structure and operational functionality, are mere speculation, based on in vitro experimentation, and all predicated upon the assumptions of Jenner.

There is an oft used phrase in modern medical dialogue – they say that “The Science is all in and the case is proven”, or words to that effect. I cringe at such comments and not only because of the appalling use of English. There are objectively observed data which we have to interpret. We have a pretty constant updating of those facts and the data pile is always increasing, but the science is never finished – we will always extend our understandings and see new connections.

Recently, for example, a new element was described in the alimentary canal – the mesentery, a “double fold in the peritoneum”. Now they must clarify its impacts, which seem quite wide ranging, including supposed immune functionality. Clearly this science is very ongoing.  []

There are many other such frontiers such as the new connecting fibres “between cerebral tissue and the immune system”


Much very elaborate description of the host of physiological responses to antigenic challenge, chiefly in vitro, have been made. Elegant textbooks, such as Janesway et al’s “Vaccinology”, are full of multivarious pages of, dare I say, deterministic descriptors, accompanied with multicoloured and three dimentional diagrams. They read like, they look like, an automobile “Hayne’s Manual” I sometimes joke – the pictures are so good and the descriptions of function so clear and without doubt.

Each part certified by the manufacturer – “we will replace if not fully satisfied with performance”. We now have twenty first century immunological accuracy with no room for any hint of a mistake.

Or so you would think reading Janesway……..

Life, as we all should know, and as I described earlier, is not like that. There is no manual, there was no design team, this system has been devised by the accumulation of countless minor changes over well nigh four billion years, accelerating in the last few hundred million. Systems work and are so well integrated with others, within and outside each and every organism. There is call and response, there are echoes of impacts and shimmering messages are transmitted always, in all directions, in all perpetuity.

We label some as “immune physiology”. That’s what we, in the last one hundred years, have termed them. It is a useful terminology and has some reasonable application. But our labels, our observations do not have the subtleties of so many million years. We should stand back a bit and just watch in awe.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Dancing Cats, Silent Canaries

True confessions from conventional doctors are always good to see. Suzanne Humphreys, bless her, is the original and best of this rare group, but here is another who has written a book to tell all of the fatal fallacies of following the Voodoo of Vaccination:

Here’s a review, followed by the Amazon reference….


“The author, David Denton Davis MD, has been forced to also conclude some disease preventing immunizations are actually far more dangerous than anyone may have previously imagined due to adverse event under reporting.

His painful admission that he failed to comply with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) by not reporting illnesses occurring within 28 days of an immunization was followed by a query of his emergency colleagues. He was not surprised to find not a single physician had ever submitted a form to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

It became apparent these reports are systemically being ignored in urgent care centers and emergency departments throughout the United States.

Similar responses from Pediatricians led him to the conclusion only 1% of adverse vaccine events are likely being reported each year, clearly indicating the passive safety net offered by VAERS has been a dismal failure.

The evidence against PVC and the likely magnitude of unreported adverse vaccine events indicate these products can no longer be trusted. Therefore “Dancing Cats, Silent Canaries” asks for the invocation of the Precautionary Principle: a moral and ethical policy that offers a protective warning and requests a temporary ban.

Without cause and effect evidence of a product’s harm this new belief shifts the burden of proof for the safety of PVC and each vaccine to the manufacturers. While parents await the outcome they will be advised to eliminate exposures. Dr Davis has introduced a resolution to the American College of Emergency Physicians asking for reporting help from an estimated 25,000 member physicians staffing more than 6000 hospitals.

Parents of children, who have received a vaccine within 30 days of an illness, must remind nurses and doctors of their legal responsibility to report.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A modern voodoo?

Illness is scary. When she was less than eight months old our first child developed a life threatening bacterial infection. No, not one of the well known “childhood illnesses” this was a urinary tract infection, UTI, and even that took some time to establish. (Pneumonia was diagnosed by a medical team until their consultant pointed out that the “shading on her lungs” was her thymus!)


UTI we could understand and similarly we accepted the urgent need to give her antibiotics to clear out the infecting organisms. She was still wholly breast fed and had shown no sign of unwellness leading up to this sudden infliction. A few days later she was home again, and life went back to our new normal.


Very soon after she had a relapse – post antibiotic, recolonising bacteria. This time the bacteriology lab told us the infection was due to a soil bacterium. We were told she’d have to be on antibiotics for five years – “until she was old enough to resist” which we baulked at. Another consultant told us “They never get UTIs in Tanzania, where I used to work. D’you know why? They don’t wear nappies!”


After that, neither did our daughter. Nor did she relapse again. Nor did she have any antibiotics after the week was up. But it was very scary. She quite soon after had a brother and a sister and we all lived semi feral, rural lives on a smallholding, with chickens, goats, mud and trees. When the eldest was eight she and her sibs caught chicken pox, over four very stressful weeks, with the youngest being worst impacted, even having spots in her mouth. All recovered and were soon laughing about the event.


Two years later, eldest and her brother developed mumps, but the youngest showed no symptoms whatsoever, despite living cheek by jowl, as t’were. At school, most of the other kids also had mumps and the GP practice nurse, taking confirmatory mouth swabs from my two after they’d fully recovered, said the whole of North West Wales had been rife with mumps. Virtually all despite being “fully vaccinated against the illness”.


Ours had not had any jabs whatsoever. We made the policy decision based on my university laboratory immunology research experience, on a general mistrust of “top-down recommendation” systems and a very severe auto-immune reaction, luckily cured by an “Epipen”, in one of their Grannies. The latter, the next day in hospital, said “I feel absolutely fine now but, twenty four hours ago, I could have died”. We read a lot, I went to a London conference of “The Informed Parent” and we continued very happy with our decision, resolving to be ultra aware of all signs of malaise in the kids and deal with anysuch very quickly. To be “good parents”, essentially.


However, just after our third was born, the Wakefield MMR saga broke out. Only then did we start to see the size and force of the industry. It wasn’t just the GP and school nurse involved. It sank in that in due course our kids would have the same pressures placed upon them to have their own kids vaccinated. We could see no benefits and many negative outcomes from the process.


You see, we are in constant contact with bacteria and viral particles, as well as a range of fungal spores and other micro-organisms. Our skin, our breathing and digestive tracts are constantly reacting to all this biology. We “know” countless different examples – intimately. And keep them all in their places – outside our body tissues.


Over the years subsequently, I have studied the topic in as many of its manifestations and impacts as I can find. From the opportunistic dabblings of an eighteenth century rural doctor, Edward Jenner, who introduced the pus derived from “cowpox” scar tissue into gashes he cut into the arms of his clients and said this enabled them to be “immune to smallpox”, through the confusions between DDT poisoning and “polio”, in the US in the early 1950s, up to today’s MMR scandals or the ludicrous outcomes of “2% benefits to the population” from flu jabs, there are countless exemplars of its folly.


It is the developed World’s voodoo, in fact. The needles so often have the same impact, although medicine promises them to be beneficial! And Haitian Voodoo is, amusingly, homeopathic in comparison as the vodouisants (priests) work indirectly on tiny dolls!


Pressure to conform has been tightened as the industry has greatly expanded over the last twenty years. Andy Wakefield published in the Lancet, the prime medical reporting professional periodical, studies linking the MMR jab to both gastro-intestinal problems and also autism in the patients. He was then made a ritual sacrifice to the Church of Vaccinology, his career ruined by the Star Chamber of the General Medical Council only for daring to urge caution in the vaccination process. He never has been “anti-vaccine” yet is still regarded by the Industry – GPs, pharmaceutical companies, the media, and all the support systems – as a leper.


There is no dissent allowed. “The science is in”, they say. “If opposition is entertained, then vaccination rates fall and ‘herd immunity’ is lost”.


We are not a herd and any such subtle passage of bacteriotypes between animals close to each other happens naturally – without needles – and most importantly between mother and new-borns. The process of vaccination seems, as one of the many examples of its collateral damage, to impact very negatively on the materno-foetal and materno-neo-nate transfer of “immune function” – the ability to defend oneself against infection.


You see, my young daughter was four times ill from infection as infant and child. Twice to bacteria that are not on the vaccinologist’s list, one that is not on the UK list and the fourth, of course, to a virus which the given jab, the MMR, gave all her co-students utterly no “protection” at all. Good health is kept naturally with good nutrition, good housing and good lifestyle.



Chris Hemmings

24 11 16








Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment