A refrain we often hear in the vaccine safety community - and that I have certainly in the past uttered myself - is: "I'm not anti-vaccine. I just want safe vaccines."

This premise, then, necessarily implies that the prospect of a "safe vaccine" is something that is both possible and desirable.

But is it?

If you're in a hurry, I can save you some time with the more concise version of this article - "no" - but if you've got a few more minutes to invest, please do read on...

It is important to be aware that the concept of vaccination has been ruled by the supreme court in the USA as "unavoidably unsafe" - that the nature of the intervention is by its very definition unsafe, and that cannot be changed. Of course, it can be made safer, in the same way that heroin addicts can be supported to make their injecting safer, by making sure their drug isn't cut with anything particularly nasty and so on - but by the very nature of the practice, it cannot be made safe. The only safe option - for heroin addicts and vaccine advocates alike - is to stop.

But, possible side effects aside, where it comes to vaccination, isn't stopping also unsafe, because it leaves us vulnerable to dangerous diseases?

In answering this question, we have to bear in mind that the concept of vaccination is based on ancient, almost medieval science. Edward Jenner, the much-feted father of vaccination, was practicing in the 1700s - the same timeframe doctors still routinely used bloodletting leeches to treat patients.

Science and immunology have advanced by several lightyears since then, and yet the - frankly, barbarous - original notion of vaccination - draining pus from an infected sore of a cow and injecting it into human arms (the word vaccine comes from the Latin 'vacca', cow) - is still hailed as some sort of ground-breaking ultra-modern medical miracle.

Well... much like other "miracle cures" of the time, such as drilling holes in the head to treat a variety of ailments... it's not. In reality, "vaccination" is a blunt, dangerous instrument devised at a time where modern standards of evidence-based medicine and reproducibility in science simply did not exist. Were the concept invented today, it would never be approved as a valid or evidence-based treatment, simply because - it isn't. The myths, superstitions, and soundbites surrounding vaccination - that the interventions have "saved millions of lives" and so on - are just that - myths. Vaccination is a mythology (now almost a religion), rather than a science, and I will now explain why that is so...

The fundamental premise that vaccination is based on - that provoking antibody titres in the blood (that is how a vaccine is measured to be 'effective') equates to immunity from disease - is, quite simply, false. You can have a lot of antibody titres and still develop the disease. You can have a low level and never contract it. There really isn't a consistent relationship, and furthermore, the same test given to a patient to determine if they're "immune" to a disease (e.g., if they have measurable antibody titres in their blood) is the same test given to determine if they HAVE the disease.

This is absolutely true, and this fact alone shows how faulty, doddery, and, frankly, ridiculous conventional, mainstream notions of "vaccination" and "immunity" are. The reality is that the presence of antibody titres in the blood tells you absolutely nothing about a person's current health status. It doesn't tell you either that they're sick or that they're immune. All it tells you is that they have, at some point, been exposed to the antigen (e.g., a foreign subject that induces a immune response in the body, such as the measles antigen) in question. Could have been today. Could have been 30 years ago. So-called "science" really has no idea.

For a personal illustrative example of just how silly this "miraculous medical marvel" really is, consider this... when I was at university in the USA ten years ago, I was one day dramatically summoned to the medical centre (with an ALL CAPS EMAIL) because, so they claimed, I had not received "enough" measles vaccinations. I had only had one, whereas they felt I ought to have had two. If I did not submit to further needling, I would, they ominously informed me, instantly be expelled - which would invalidate my student visa and therefore deport me also.

I informed them that I would not be having an additional measles vaccination, for several reasons. One, a "measles vaccination" no longer exists, only the trivalent MMR does, which is associated with a very wide range of severe side effects, including death. Two, measles isn't a serious illness for otherwise healthy people and I do not fear acquiring it. And three, the fact that I had not hitherto done so might in fact imply that actually the first vaccination worked and I was therefore "immune" (or what passes for it in conventional medicine) already. So, I insisted on a blood test to measure my so-called "immunity" (antibody titre) levels.

The medical centre were very reluctant to do this, informing me that "it would be easier just to get the vaccine" (for whom?!), which would have been free, whereas the blood test, I had to pay for myself. But I stood my ground and insisted on the test, which came back positive - I already had antibody titres for the measles antigen, so the medical centre agreed (in a very clearly aggrieved manner) that I did not require further injections.

However, had I taken the vaccine (which is known to be fully capable of both causing and shedding measles), and then presented at the same centre three weeks later with a spotty rash and a fever, they would have given me the exact same test, and used the exact same result to determine, not that I was "immune" to measles, but that I now HAD measles. This is literally how stupid and insane the whole thing is - not least because HAVING measles wouldn't have been used as an excuse to expel me, only not having had the vaccine would.

"Is the point that I'm immune to the disease?" I asked the medical centre (rather pointedly, it must be said). "Or that I've had the vaccination?"

They declined to reply.

So what I'm trying to illustrate here is that the whole premise of what vaccination does - that it makes you "immune to a disease" - is false, because the definition vaccinology uses of "immunity" - antibody titres is the blood - is not actually immunity, and they use the exact same standard to determine if you HAVE a disease, that they do to decide whether you're immune to it. So, fundamentally and from the offset, the idea that vaccines equate to immunity is false, and that's not how they're measured for "efficacy" in the vaccine industry.

To understand further that the concept of a "safe vaccine" is neither possible nor desirable, one also has to understand that the whole "science" suggesting a need for vaccinations is wrong - that it's based on extraordinarily outdated and inaccurate understandings of human biology and immunology. The vaccine model depends on a flawed understanding of what disease symptoms actually are, e.g., the idea that they result from invaders that attack you from outside (the war model, or 'germ theory'), rather than their being the result of toxicity and imbalances in you (otherwise known as the terrain theory).

When the pseudo-science of vaccination was being developed and becoming widespread, there were, at the time, two competing theories regarding disease, the germ model (e.g., invaders from outside that attack to make you ill, which is necessary to support the premise of vaccination in the first place) and the terrain model (e.g., that ill health is a result of what is going on inside of, and not outside of, a body, which would render the entire premise of vaccination defunct). "We do not 'catch' diseases," said Antoine Bechamp, purveyor of terrain theory. "We build them."

The germ model, of course, was far, far more profitable, as it provided the foundation for lucrative vaccinations to "prevent" diseases, as well as other expensive pharmaceutical products to "treat" them - so this is what ruthless and greedy social engineers - who had already begun to co-opt medicine - adopted as a theory, smearing and dismissing terrain theory and the natural medicine human beings had successfully used for thousands of years, as "quackery" - which, of course, is a message they still vigorously promote today.

However, the plain reality is that germ theory doesn't stand up to the slightest bit of elementary scrutiny - and some very rudimentary experiments have proven it as false. Researchers have taken volunteers with a cold, and swabbed the insides of their noses and mouths, putting these samples straight into the mouths of healthy volunteers. Do all these people catch cold as a result? Nope. In fact, hardly any of them do. Sometimes when such experiments have been done, none have.

This is because you cannot "catch" a cold any more than you can catch a hangover. If you and your friends all go out to the pub and drink ten pints each, the next day you will have symptoms of illness - a sore head, a dry mouth, nausea. You have the same symptoms as your friends, not because you "caught" them from one another, but because you were exposed to the same toxin at the same time, and are therefore detoxifying at the same time and displaying many of the same detoxification symptoms.

What we calls "colds" and "flus" are really just detoxification regimes, much like a hangover is. We are constantly exposed to toxins in our food and drink, the air we breathe, from emotional stress and traumatic experiences, and so, a couple of times a year, the body gears up for a big clear-out to expunge these toxins. You get a fever to kill off pathogens with heat, you cough and sneeze to expel debris from the body, you feel fatigued and stay in bed so your body can use all its energy for the detoxification. These symptoms are not the result of evil outside invaders trying to sabotage you: on the contrary, they are your body's natural, healthy, very clever detoxification processes to get rid of evil outside invaders (such as toxins in food and drink), clearing you out and, ultimately, keeping you well.

Your family and colleagues may get ill around the same time, because your environments - and therefore the toxins you are exposed to - are similar. But if you were to walk past a complete stranger on the street and accidentally sneeze on them (bless you), they aren't going to "catch" anything from you. It's just not possible (another reason why masks are so utterly, risibly ridiculous). If human bodies were that weak and vulnerable - that a stranger could make you seriously ill by breathing on you - we'd all constantly be ill to the extent the entire species would never have made it out of the primordial ooze for long enough to invent things like "germ theory" in the first place (as they say, if germ theory were true, no-one would be alive to believe it).

So to sum, when you have symptoms of disease, that's because of what's going on inside you, not because of the health choices someone else made. Believing you can 'catch' bad health is really just as (il)logical as believing you can catch good health. If someone else eating a salad and going to the gym doesn't make you slim and fit, then them sneezing on you isn't going to prompt severe illness, either. Your health status is primarily defined by what you put into your body, not by what someone else has in theirs.

Now, I know the objection to this school of thought is always, "but what about chicken pox parties?", and other examples where there does seem to be clear evidence of "contagion".

To that, I would say, what about menstrual synchronising - the phenomenon whereby, when women live together, their periods fall into sync? What about "contagious" pregnancy - where often, when one woman in a group of friends fall pregnant, the others promptly do, too? And what about the well known example of "contagious" fertility, whereby previously infertile couples adopt a baby, and within months of caring for that baby, have miraculously become pregnant themselves?

I'm sure nobody believes that women "catch" periods or pregnancy from one another, or that couples can "catch" a baby by caring for another, so how do we explain this? It's pretty easy, really: our bodies communicate with and influence each other, in ways that conventional science can't understand and medicate, so it dismisses. Bodies send complex messages to each other all the time (this is the explanation for 'the spark' - why you feel such a strong, often instant sense of connection with some people, and not others), and therefore it is quite rational to believe that if a body can send a message to another saying, "now is a good time to ovulate" or "now is a good time to have a baby" (which bodies clearly can and do do), they can also communicate "now is a good time to have a detox".

So one detoxing body may very well communicate the message to nearby bodies they are in sync with, "let's have a clear-out", thus they both display symptoms of illness (detoxing) at the same time - that doesn't mean either "caught" anything from the other, any more than it means cohabiting women whose menstrual cycles synchronise "caught" periods from one another.

In essence, communication is not contagion. And another body prompting yours to have a clear-out, isn't actually a bad thing.

This doesn't just apply to colds and 'flus, but to the once-normal childhood illnesses of chicken pox, measles, mumps, and so on. These do not typically represent a threat to otherwise healthy children and attempting to halt them from occurring is not necessarily desirable, because they too appear to be detoxification regimes, enabling the child to throw off any toxic loads inherited from their parents (all children inherit such a load to a greater or lesser extent). This theory is clearly backed up by the fact that a history of childhood illnesses such as chicken pox correlates with a lower likelihood of toxicity-related illnesses like cancer later on.

The threat of these generally benign childhood illnesses has been trumped up to sell vaccines, and unvaccinated children who pass through them naturally are NOT unhealthier, nor do they die more often. In fact, the exact opposite is true: unvaccinated children are not just less likely to die, they are also dramatically less likely to suffer all the modern, chronic childhood ailments, such as repeat ear infections, asthma, allergies, dyslexia, dyspraxia, digestive problems, and, yes, autism. All of the aforementioned are known and well documented possible consequences of vaccination.

So if unvaccinated children and adults are not more likely to die (and they are not), and are at a lower risk for a whole host of chronic ailments (and they are), we can conclude that vaccination has not only not "saved millions of lives", it has in fact dramatically undermined the health profile of the Western world, and the more childhood vaccinations that are given, the more we see childhood health decline. Children in the USA, the most heavily vaccinated nation on Earth, are the sickest in all of history, with 54% of them having at least one chronic health problem.

This is because the whole prospect of vaccination is - effectively - a scam, based on junk science, medieval superstition, and quackery. The ruling classes have always known this, of course, and do not use vaccines for themselves (or allopathy in general - they stick to real safe and effective medicine, such as homeopathy, which the Queen was a known great enthusiast of).

What vaccination really is (and always was), is nothing more than crowd control for the masses. Containing known neurotoxins, it can reduce IQ. Laced with sterilants, it can hamper fertility. And contributing to all sorts of long-term health problems as detailed earlier, it creates lifelong customers for the pharmaceutical industry.

Knowing what we know about the ruling classes and their feelings about the rest of humanity, if vaccines really were extraordinary breakthrough medicine that could protect and prolong life, they would be scarce and expensive - just like everything else that is genuinely good for you is - not given away in bucketloads for free by the state (replete with ominous threats and ultimatums to coerce compliance, because nothing screams "safe and effective" like a bit of terrorising that "your kids will die if you don't". Kids actually do die from a lack of sufficient food and warm houses, but see how much your government cares about that).

All I have described above - that vaccines are, and always were, a useless scam designed only to do harm - is simply (and understandably) too much for most people to bear - not because they have any solid, credible, reproducible scientific evidence to the contrary, but because the mythology of vaccination is just too strong. People, all people, are profoundly shaped and influenced by myths: they provide the foundational cornerstones for whole cultures, religions, and ideologies. Western society sees itself as super-advanced and evolved, and one primary reason it does is because of the myth it has "saved millions of lives with vaccination".

But what if it hasn't? What if vaccines are nothing but injectable poisons which have absolutely no benefits for human health and only risks and harms?

I can tell you that all the real evidence supports that conclusion and none of it supports the notion that they are, were, or ever could be, "safe and effective". If you study epidemiology closely, you will clearly see vaccines were only introduced AFTER death rates from the diseases they claim to prevent had already dramatically declined. Reductions in childhood mortality were really a result of improved nutrition, hygiene and sanitation. Slum clearance and an end to overcrowding; clean water, healthier diets and indoor plumbing - these legitimately did "save millions of lives" - not glorified injected cow pus.

So not only are vaccines not "safe and effective", they're in fact dangerous and unnecessary. Always have been, always will be (by design). There are myths around myths (e.g., the mythology around polio and the false notion that a magical vaccine stopped it), but if you really delve deeply into the facts and the evidence, and dispense with the mythology and religious elements (the whole concept of vaccination has become very baptismal in nature - blessed needles driving out dirty diseases having effectively replaced holy water cleansing original sin), the stark reality is clear to see - vaccines are a scam (one of the most elaborate of all time), based on nothing but quackery, pseudo-science, and fraud (see what passes for "a placebo" in the vaccine industry): a scam it suited the ruling classes to adopt because it's profitable, and because it gave them an excuse to inject the masses with substances that would make them more docile and controllable.

Obviously, nobody prior to the invention of "vaccination" would have let anyone, even a doctor, stick 30-something needles containing God knows what into their perfectly healthy infants - but now they do, so bewitched are they by the mythology of vaccination.

Most vaccine advocates would be hard pressed to name even one ingredient in vaccines, let alone the toxic witches brew that constitutes most. If a doctor explicitly told the average parent he wanted to inject their baby with dog kidney and bits of monkey, detergents, sterilants and carcinogens, aborted baby cow and even - yes, this is true, and not a "conspiracy theory" - aborted baby humans (babies intentionally born alive so their organs can be harvested for vaccination) - there is not a single sane soul on this Earth who would permit it.

Yet slap the label of "vaccination" on these repulsive concoctions, and the true horror of what they really are and what they really do, is concealed - as if by a form of magic - which is what it is. It's nothing more than spell-casting with magic words (that's why they call word formation "spelling").

So, to return to the original question this article sought to address: is it possible to have a "safe vaccine"? No, it's not. It's neither possible, necessary, nor desirable.

The only safe vaccine is one that is never made.

EDITED TO ADD: Something else occurred to me whilst I was writing this article, as my stomach started to become itchy, because I couldn't find my nickel-free belt yesterday morning and had to use a normal one. I have an acute allergy to nickel, and can't wear anything containing it (even belts, which don't directly touch the skin). I was not born with this allergy, but rather developed it, when I was "injected", aged 12, with cheap nickel ear studs, when my friends and I had sneaked off to the Birmingham Bull Ring for the day to get our ears pierced...

When you inject a human body with a foreign substance, whether that injection comes via a needle or an ear-stud gun, the result can be an acute sensitising - otherwise known as an allergy - meaning that when the body encounters that substance again, an exaggerated immune response takes place - an allergic reaction. Hence why I immediately come out in a bumpy red rash if I encounter nickel, and why peanut allergies are now so ubiquitous - because many children have been injected with peanut oil, as this has historically been used in vaccination.

So rather than "immunising" us against antigens (foreign subjects that induce an immune response in the body), does vaccination simply make us allergic to them?

Thanks for reading! This site is 100% reader funded, with no advertisements or paywalls. If you would like to make a contribution, please do so through Patreon, BuyMeACoffee or bank transfer to: Nat West, a/c 30835984, s/c 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA. Your support is really appreciated. Thank you.