Barcelona presentation 2016: Examining Immunity

Dr Vasquez doesn't really care about the vaccine issue but notes that the "supportive dogma" is quite fragile and that most groups and individuals supporting vaccines have severe conflicts of interest, mostly via the receipt of payments by the drug industry; whether we call this "paid endorsement" or "bribery" is a matter of choice and courage. The main points of this presentation are: 

  1. Vaccines cannot be discussed as a group because they each have different ingredients and different levels of risk and effectiveness. By extension, no intelligent conversation can take place without first considering the ingredients of each vaccine and the cumulative immunological and metabolic effects.

    • Rather than regurgitating dogma, look at the facts: The ingredients such as mercury, aluminum, allergenic antibiotics, and culture media from eggs, animals such as monkeys, and aborted human cellsThe current list of ingredients of the most common vaccines is provided by the CDC's "pink book" available from the CDC.GOV and also archived here

  2. Adverse (mostly immune-mediated) effects of vaccines are mediated by inflammatory responses, not toxicological responses; therefore the "dose makes the poison" argument does not apply. 

    • Rather than regurgitating dogma, look at the facts:The fact that many people have devastating allergic and anaphylactic reactions to minute doses of allergens/immunogens and that vaccine ingredients include many common allergens/immunogens ranging from antibiotics to toxic metals such as aluminum and mercury to chemical such as formaldehyde to cellular proteins from animal and human sources​​

  3. The idea that an antibody response to a vaccine is proof of clinical immunity is completely absurd because we know that people with chronic infections (such as herpes, viral hepatitis and HIV) and immune defects (inability to clear an ongoing infection) produce antibodies virtually all of the time, and these antibodies fail to provide protection from the infections. 

    • Rather than regurgitating dogma, look at the facts: Antibody responses do not equate to effective clinical immunity.

  4. Some vaccine responses produce either immune defects and/or tolerance rather than the goal of effective immunity. Note that in the 2016 malaria trial, the long-term result was an increase in malaria infections among vaccinated persons. 

    • Rather than regurgitating dogma, look at the facts from a recent malaria vaccine trial (that used the rabies vaccine as the "control"): ​""The investigators now report that during the fifth through seventh years of surveillance, there was an apparent negative rebound in vaccine efficacy, which is attributable to negative values for efficacy among children with higher-than-average exposure to malaria."  N Engl J Med 2016; 374:2596-2597June 30, 2016 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1606007.  See video describing "negative vaccine efficacy" from NEJM.

Dr Vasquez discusses aspects of pharmaceutically-acquired immunity

 New publication 2016:  Inflammation Mastery 4th Edition


ICHNFM Courses, Books, Membership, Newsletter

Samples and excerpts:

Click on PDF (larger PDF with photos) to see inside