A Phil-for-an-ill Blog

October 31, 2009

Vaccines, Cure or Cause?

Variolae Vaccinae – the birth of the fraudIn May 1796, Edward Jenner, acting upon ‘a superstition among the dairymaids of Gloucestershire that a person who had suffered from cowpox would never have smallpox,’ 1 inoculated one James Phillips with lymph from a cowpox vesicle on the hand of a dairymaid: in June he inoculated the boy with smallpox.

‘…it was on the strength of this solitary experiment that Jenner had launched his discovery upon the world, claiming that cowpox was a prophylactic against smallpox, while to give some sort of scientific colour to the claim he labelled cowpox with the name “Variolae Vaccinae” (smallpox of the cow)…the picture of the whole of the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons swallowing the theory of an unqualified country apothecary, based on one totally unreliable experiment, seems scarcely credible.’ 2

However, there was a very good reason for the medics’ rush to embrace the groundless myth and to lavish praise, credit and cash – £30,000 at late 18th century value, i.e. a large fortune – on the enterprising Jenner. Earlier, the Royal College of Physicians had declared, in an attempt to protect their inoculation from foreign criticism: ‘it is now held by the English in greater esteem and practised among them more extensively than ever it was before…the college thinks it to be highly salutary to the human race.’ whale.to/vaccine/rattigan2.html

The working hypothesis touted by the vaccine industry as justified is:

The more people are vaccinated, the less people come down with the infectious illness targeted by that vaccine and that therefore less people die from that illness. Or, stated more formally, there should be a negative correlation between the variables of, on the one hand. vaccination percentage, i.e. number of vaccinated people per some population number, versus, on the other hand, disease rate or disease death rate, i.e. the number of people coming down (and dying) with the illness per that same population number.

It is a logical requirement that causation implies correlation: If A causes B then A and B must correlate. Therefore, if a negative correlation is absent between vaccination percentage and illness death rate, then it can be rightfully inferred that in turn, vaccines do not cause reduction of the targeted illness and therefore it would be unwarranted and, given the risks of taking them, indeed unethical to use them as a means of preventing illness. Moreover, if there would be a positive correlation then this would be a compelling reason for not taking vaccines.

Stated in simple terms: there’s no point in taking a vaccine that doesn’t work (zero correlation). Moreover, if they make you sick instead (positive correlation) then this would precisely be a reason for not taking them.

This is only basic “common sense” logic, right?

Calculation of Correlation on the basis of Historical Data

Let’s analyze some historical data on the use of vaccines and see if vaccine percentage really correlates negatively with illness death rates, as the vaccine proponents would like to have us believe. Because of its readily availability I used data from a book called LEICESTER: SANITATION versus VACCINATION by J.T. BIGGS J.P. (1912)

The method I used was adopted from elementary statistics. A data point consists of two dimensions or variables: Vaccination Percentage and Death Rate. For any set of data points, I have computed the regression number, r, and a simple linear fit, RC (slope). The stronger the vaccination percentage and the death rate are positively correlated, the closer r will approach 1 from below. If the correlation is negative, r will approach -1 from above. By definition of r, its absolute value never exceeds 1, a situation in which both variables have a perfect linear relationship.

If vaccines are really meritorious one would expect negative regression numbers where the linear fits would have negative slopes.

Here are my findings:

TABLE 1. See Graph A.
“[…] showing for the BOROUGH OF LEICESTER, for each of the periods 1874-77, 1878-81, 1882-85, 1886-89, 1890-93, 1894-97, 1898-1901, 1902-05, and 1906-09, the average annual death-rate from erysipelas, of children under one year of age per 10,000 births, of children under five years of age per 100,000 living at that age, and at all ages per 100,000 of the population; with the average annual percentage of Vaccinations to births* during each period.” Source: whale.to/a/biggs_graph_a.html
“[…] showing, for ENGLAND AND WALES, the death-rate per million births from Syphilis; from the total of nine inoculable diseases (including Syphilis) ; from all other causes; the percentage of vaccinations to births; and the conditions as to vaccination prevailing during the several groups of years.” Source: whale.to/a/biggs_graph_d.html
Table 42 & Graph (Diagram) G
“[…] showing, for the BOROUGH OF LEICESTER, for each of the years 1838-1910, the number of deaths from each of the seven principal zymotic diseases per million living, with, for each of the years 1849-1910, the percentage of registered vaccinations to births. (See Diagram G for smallpox).” Source: whale.to/a/biggs_graph_g.html

As is plainly evident from these graphs, with respect to the evidence reviewed at least, vaccines do not give the protection they should. In fact, with the exception of one (Diphteria), vaccination percentage is positively correlated with death rate. In other words, more people die when more people receive vaccines. As such this finding lends validity to the idea that vaccines cause rather than cure disease.

Further credence to the notion that vaccines cause disease is given by the following statistics (the online sources for the first two graphs can be found here, the third graph can be accessed here):

Extracts from “LEICESTER: Sanitation versus Vaccination” By J.T. Biggs J.P.

Extracts from “LEICESTER: Sanitation versus Vaccination” By J.T. Biggs J.P.

"It will be seen from the foregoing table that 75,310 cases of diphtheria were treated with anti­toxin, with an average fatality-rate of 13.28 per cent. ; and that 13,135 cases not so treated yielded an average fatality-rate of only 5.65 per cent.—a relative difference of nearly 58 per cent, in favour of the latter, and hence damaging to the claims made by the advocates of anti-toxin. But this is not all. From foot-notes to the tables in the reports, we find that of the 742 deaths in cases not treated, no fewer than 137 were moribund, and recovery hopeless on their admission to the hospitals, while there were at least 92 deaths from diseases other than diphtheria. This proves that low as was the average fatality-rate of the cases not treated with anti-toxin, it is also unfairly saddled with all the worst and absolutely hopeless cases. In addition, a number of deaths from other causes which ought in common fair­ness to have been excluded are actually included in the non-treated class, the elimination of which would have led to a further reduction of the non-treated fatality-rate." “LEICESTER: Sanitation versus Vaccination” By J.T. Biggs J.P.


While from 1960-1980 flu deaths were well on their way to oblivion, the introduction of the flu vaccine visibly reversed this trend.

The Redundancy of Vaccines

Indeed, for the sake of arguing for the redundancy of vaccines, here are some graphs that show the vanishing of some diseases without the intervention of vaccines:

USA Compared to UK Typhoid Mortality 1901 to 1965 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

USA Compared to UK Scarlet Fever Mortality 1901 to 1965 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

Australia Typhoid Mortality Rates 1880 to 1970

Australia Scarlet Fever Mortality Rates 1880 to 1970

To further demonstrate the redundancy of vaccines, here are some graphs that clearly show that some diseases were well on their vanishing way before the intervention of vaccines:

USA Disease Mortality 1900 to 1965 Measles, Typhoid, Pertussis (Whooping Cough), Diphtheria, Scarlet Fever – Published: Roman Bystrianyk


UK Whooping Couch (Pertussis) Mortality 1838 to 1978 – Published: Roman Bystrianyk

Australia Diphtheria Mortality Rates 1880 to 1970

To answer the title question: Vaccines, Cure or Cause?

At least based on the reviewed historical and recent evidence, it is clear that not only do vaccines not cure the disease, they precisely cause the disease.

Indeed, as Dr. Arlan Cage points out, the merit of vaccines is rather weak compared to its risks:


Vaccinations do not impart permanent immunity from the diseases they vaccinate against. Most modern studies show that a high percentage of people who were vaccinated as children have no stored immunity by the time they reach adulthood in their late teens or early twenties. When exposed to the diseases at this later age, they usually have a much more serious case of these illnesses, which can be fatal more often than when the diseases are acquired naturally as children.


Most epidemic-level outbreaks of the various diseases our society is vaccinating against are taking place among fully-vaccinated children. Even in the short-term, where vaccinations have been effective at reducing disease incidence, the immune effects are not universal and more and more children are getting sick anyway. In other words, children are being exposed to the risks of vaccination without the benefits of either short-term or long-term immunity. In roughly the last 30 years, for example, every case polio in the U.S. has been among previously vaccinated individuals.


the risks of side effects from vaccinations now appear to be higher than the risks of serious side effects from the naturally acquired childhood diseases. There still needs to be additional epidemiological research done in this area, but the preliminary findings are pointing in this direction. This will be especially true when the actual long-term side effects of an altered, hypo-functioning or dysfunctioning immune system are included. This will include conditions such as auto-immune diseases and cancer, all of which are now at epidemic levels in the U.S. and elsewhere where vaccinations are widespread.


the entire philosophy of vaccinations overlooks the crucial importance of actually catching the various childhood diseases as part of the normal development and training of our immune systems. Without ever being properly trained and allowed to exercise itself, we can never be fully certain that our immune system will be able to do its job throughout our lifetimes.southbaytotalhealth.com

What Does Cause Reduction in Disease Incidence?

Since infectious diseases have vanished independent from the intervention of vaccines, it should then be asked what the real causes are for their disappearance.

Dr Andrew Weil sums it up:

From his book ‘Health and Healing’ Dr Andrew Weil best answers it with this statement;

“Scientific medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunisations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, etc, were in decline before vaccines for them became available – the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water.”vaclib.org

Over the years, infectious diseases came with poor hygiene and sanitation and went with proper hygiene and sanitation:

Today, we know that sanitation makes a tremendous contribution to preventing disease and keeping people healthy.But is wasn’t always that way. Throughout most of our history, sanitation practices were practically nonexistent. Yet the history of sanitation dates back at least 7.000 years, to the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans.


The Babylonians discovered that contaminated water could cause disease. They brought in fresh water every day.


The physician Hippocrates discovered that cleansing could prevent infection.


Made great progress in the area of sanitation. Built aqueducts to bring in fresh water, and built sewer systems and public baths. However, with the fall of the Roman Empire, much of the knowledge the Romans developed was lost, and was not passed on.


Were truly the Dark Ages as far as sanitation was concerned. Towns were dirty and crowded, and disease and epidemics spread unchecked because of the lack of sanitation.
Water was contaminated, and personal hygiene was virtually unknown.
Tuberculosis, cholera, diphtheria, smallpox, yellow fever, all were rampant.
As many children died as lived, and the average life span was under 30 years. The worst epidemic during this period was the Black Death, from 1438-1441, which spread to such proportions that 60 million people died, which at the time was one-fourth the population of the world.


In New York City, living conditions were as nearly as filthy as in the middle ages, and yearly epidemics swept through populations, killing many. The average life span was less than age 40.

But during the mid 1800’s, it was discovered between germs and disease was proven. Soaps, disinfectants, and pharmaceuticals began to be developed, and it was first recognized that disease could be controlled.

This began the Sanitation Revolution, and public health practices such as garbage collection, water treatment, public health departments and regulations, as well as personal bathing, became part of the culture.

The death rate in children dropped, and the average life span increased over the years, to age 74.

Here are a couple of graphs together with the comments by the author, a vaccine advocate, who admits there are quite a few infectious diseases that have significantly diminished due to improvements in hygiene, nutrition, sanitation etc., prior to the arrival of vaccinations specific for those diseases.

Polio in the US and the UK

In the 1950s, there were 20,000 cases of polio annually causing more than 1,000 deaths(4); many more thousand victims were left in iron lungs. This was caused because of the predilection of the polio virus for the anterior horn cells of the spinal cord and consequent paralysis of the respiratory muscles. But, what is less known, and this is quite disconcerting to me, is that between 1923-1953, before the Salk (dead virus) vaccine was discovered in 1955, the polio death rate in the U.S. and England declined on its own by 47 percent and 55 percent, respectively.(5) This is not reported or discussed by the public health establishment but, it seems, only by independent researchers (see figure 1); neither is the fact that European countries, which didn’t systematically immunize their citizens, also experienced a precipitous decline in their polio morbidity and mortality statistics.And yet, between 1951-1954, before immunization, there were still more than 16,000 cases of polio and nearly 1,900 deaths. It was not until 1991 that polio was virtually eradicated from the U.S. and other nations of the Western Hemisphere. There is no question that in this case better hygiene and sanitation and better living conditions were bringing down the number of cases of polio, but the vaccine itself, finally, was probably responsible for dispatching the final blows to the disease. medicalvoices.org

Diphteria and Pertussis in the US and the UK

Between 1900-1930 before the diphtheria vaccine, greater than a 90 percent decline was noted in this disease by practicing physicians due to better diet, living conditions, and sanitation,(5) and yet there is no question the diphtheria toxoid played a significant role in conquering the last 10 percent of fatal cases of this disease. In 1998, there was only one case in the U.S.Similar cases can be made for tetanus and pertussis, the two other diseases targeted by the DPT (Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus) immunizing agent mixture of precipitated toxoids.The average annual number of pertussis (whooping cough) cases between 1922-1925 (the 4 years before vaccine development) was 147,271. By 1998, this figure had fallen so that there were 6,279 cases in the U.S.And yet, the incidence and severity of pertussis had been declining before the pertussis vaccine was introduced. From 1900-1935, in the United States and England, before the vaccine program for whooping cough had been implemented (in the 1940s), the death rate from this disease had already declined by 79 percent and 82 percent, respectively (see figure 2).(5)Unfortunately, despite the great advances in Western nations, as many as 9,000 people, particularly children, still die annually from whopping cough mostly in Third World countries.The same may be said for lock jaw (tetanus). The estimated average annual number of cases between 1922-1926 was 1,314. By 1998, U.S. tetanus cases had dropped dramatically to 34. Yet, this disease is still with us in undeveloped nations because of poor living conditions.(Figure 2. Pertussis death rate from 1900 to 1935. The graph shows the pertussis death rate had decreased by more than 75 percent before the vaccine was introduced. This graph is adopted from Neil Z. Miller’s monograph, Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective?[5]) medicalvoices.org

Measles in the US and the UK

[…] a significant decline in measles took place before vaccination was introduced in the United States and England. And, in fact, before the inception of the measles vaccine (1963), from 1915-1958, a 95 percent decline took place in measles death rate (see figure 3). That is, the measles death rate dropped from approximately 13.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 1900 to 0.03 deaths per 100,000 in 1955. Moreover, post-vaccination death rates for measles in the mid-1970s are similar to those of the pre-vaccination years in the early 1960s.(5)Public health and the press have nothing but praise for vaccination programs, even mandatory immunization. For example, a recent (but typical) newspaper article reports: “Many Americans have either forgotten or never lived through the periods when children used to die from outbreaks of diseases such as measles or polio.”(7) In this instance, the reporter quotes Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the CDC’s National Immunization Program, who noted that in a regional epidemic of measles in Los Angeles peaking as late as 1990, 4,549 cases of measles were reported with 12 deaths. The point being that the disease is still there and dangerous. Yet, Barbara Fisher, president of the Vienna, Virginia-based National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), countered that during this measles outbreak (1989-1990), “a whole group of young mothers who had been vaccinated against measles, and therefore only had temporary, artificial immunity were not able to give their babies the protection unvaccinated mothers had given them. We saw a lot of measles in very young babies where they did not naturally occur before.”(8) In other words, active immunization did not provide mothers with the long lasting immunity that is provided by acquiring the disease naturally.In some of these infants, she speculated, the mother wasn’t able to pass her immunity to them as babies because they had not contracted and overcome the natural measles virus during their childhood and therefore couldn’t pass this immunity on to their babies which would otherwise have protected them for 12-15 months after birth. medicalvoices.org

So what does one do to mitigate the severity of infectious diseases? Dr Cage proposes:

The serious epidemics and infectious illnesses which prompted the move to develop vaccinations were caused by poor sanitation and nutrition, in other words, by living in un-natural manners. It was a return to clean natural living and hygiene which were the most significant factors for the eradication of these illnesses and not the introduction of un-natural vaccines.
If you choose to not vaccinate your children it is important to be sure they eat a healthy diet with all the Essential Nutrients and avoid immune suppressing food items like white sugar, candy, sweetened breakfast cereals, sodas and french fries or other junk food cooked in bad fats. Most parents will want to do this anyway when they learn just how un-healthy these over-processed foods really are.

He further recommends:

If you choose not to vaccinate your children, you may be wondering what options you have to protect your child. The best protection is of course a healthy immune system. You may, however, want to do more or to reduce the severity of childhood illnesses when they do occur. Basically, the major options for a more natural approach to immunity and prevention can be summarized as follows:

Strong Nutrition and Immune System, Allow Child to Catch Diseases Naturally.

If you or other children in your family have shown strong vitality and most of your child’s illnesses are short and relatively benign, he or she is probably an excellent candidate for this option. In this case, treat the illnesses when they arise with homeopathy, herbal medicines or other natural means which support the natural immune process.

Treat Prophylactically with Homeopathy During Known Outbreaks of Infectious Diseases.

Even as far back as the time of Hahnemann, homeopathy has been used as a preventive measure during known epidemics and has been shown to reduce both the incidence of diseases and the severity in people who do catch the illness.

Treat Prophylactically with Homeopathy According to a Schedule.

This in essence is similar to the vaccination process, but without the side effects of the vaccinations. It is important to note that homeopathic forms of the vaccines will not impart immunity as measured by blood anti-bodies. Nevertheless, in statistics compiled by an Australian Homeopath, Isaac Golden, this process still results in a reduction in disease incidence and severity. Golden’s work needs to be replicated and expanded, but this may be a better option if your child tends to be more sickly, or more strongly afflicted by illnesses.

Closing Comment

In all fairness, does that mean that all vaccines are necessarily bad? No, it doesn’t. For all I know, it may very well be possible that there are vaccines out there that really do work, i.e. prevent or cure rather than cause disease. I haven’t come across evidence of them yet but that doesn’t mean they are not there, now or in the future. The CDC, for one, claims there are some. I preserve an open mind so I’m open to new claims. However, I can tell you that I regard any and all substances that need to be injected into my body, and thereby bypassing any natural immunological responses, with extreme prejudice.

History and common sense cannot help but disapprove of the use of vaccines.

It’s a sad fact of life that a great number of people have lost faith in the ability of their own immune systems to stave off infectious diseases. The underlying rationale is based on insecurity and fear. And that’s a shame really because the human immune system, if working properly, is incredibly strong and effective in dealing with pathogens. It is much more natural to work on strengthening your immune system, through quality nutrition, proper hygiene etc., than to seek refuge to unnatural artificial means that precisely burden and undermine your immune system and only give temporary relief and protection, at best.


  3. http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html
  4. http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/
  5. http://vactruth.com/health-sentinel-graphs/
  6. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm
  7. http://www.southbaytotalhealth.com/Vaccinations.htm

Video Reference:

  1. Vaccines -The Hidden Truth

Appendix – Computing Regression and Correlation with Mathematica

As an example I take TABLE 35 from Biggs:

Period Death rate 1 Death rate 2 Death rate 3 Vacc. %
1847-53 564 58,997 97,469 62.5
1854-67 1,207 67,912 84,734 73.4
1868-98 1,705 79,336 68,783 78.3
1899-1908 1,269 73,563 64,082 71.5
1909-10 1,185 54,124 52,961 59.6

I assume that the table has been imported in simple but proper format (each period covers one line, spaces between numbers, no letters, just numbers) into a file called biggs.dat, stored in the directory c:\\temp.

First import biggs.dat into Mathematica:

T = Import[“c:\\temp\\biggs.dat”, “Table”]
and calculate its transpose:
TT = Transpose[T]
and the vaccination percentages in vector form:
Perc = TT[[5]]

Then execute the following sequence of commands:

  1. A = Table[{T[[n, 5]], T[[n, 2]]}, {n, 1, 5}]
    extracts numbers from the 5th column and the 2nd column from the table and turns them into a set of coordinates or points where x = vaccination percentage, y = death rate 1
  2. line = Fit[A, {1, x}, x]
    make a linear fit (least squares) to the set of coordinates
  3. Dis1 = TT[[2]]
  4. regression = Correlation[Perc, Dis1]
    this is the r talked about in this blog
  5. ListPlot[A, PlotStyle -> Red, PlotRange -> {{50, 80}, {500, 1800}}]
    plot the points, you will have to tweak the plot range for each plot
  6. Plot[line, {x, 50, 80}, PlotLabel -> “Syphilis ( r = regression RC = line_slope)”, AxesLabel -> {“% Vacc.”, Death Rate}, PlotRange -> {{50, 80}, {500, 1800}}]
    plot the line, you will have to tweak the plot range for each plot
  7. Show[%, ListPlot[A, PlotStyle -> Red, PlotRange -> {{50, 80}, {500, 1800}}]]
    show the points and the line together

Repeat the above procedure with

A2 = Table[{T[[n, 5]], T[[n, 3]]}, {n, 1, 5}]


My H1N1 Swine Flu blogs:
Proof that European H1N1 Vaccines Contain Mercury, Squalene and TWEEN 80
Is the Disease Really Worse than the Cure?
Vaccines, Cure or Cause?

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.