If there is a lack of food, the immune system is inoperative and vaccination is totally ineffective. So to want to vaccinate undernourished people only destroys them.

la vérité sur Louis Pasteur et son vaccin contre la rage

la vérité sur Louis Pasteur et son vaccin contre la rage 🧐Si c'est pas honteux de faire un blasphème comme ça à la TV 🤬 Notre prophète adoré il déguste la… 😰youtube :

Publiée par L'église de vaccinologie sur Samedi 25 avril 2020
The collapsing myth of immunization

Do you know why in Spanish the vaccine is called vacuna, which means cow, meat? Because those who milked the cows didn’t get smallpox. This undeniably demonstrates that natural vaccination is a permanent process that does not stop and depends precisely on your rate of confrontation with biodiversity. The less you allow your body to update its serological databases, the greater the risk of a serious outbreak, it’s bio-logical.

Translated with (free version)

There are 3 immunities, innate immunity which is partly specific (against a specific pathogen), immunity transmitted by the mother and acquired immunity specific memory. It goes without saying that the two most important are the first two because they ensure the integrity of the body from birth; acquired immunity comes over time through confrontation with pathogens.

Just because specific immunity prevents certain diseases does not mean that vaccination is the only way to prevent a disease.
When the body is confronted with a pathogen not known to the body, it will first involve non-specific immunity (as well as innate immunity), which, if it can overcome the problem, will allow specific immunity memory to retain a memory of the pathogen that caused the illness in order to avoid getting sick again.

When a child develops measles, it is the non-specific immunity which, if it works well, makes it possible to overcome it naturally and to allow the immunity acquired in memory to memorize the serological details of measles as it has done for a very long time: at the beginning of the century, children who had not developed measles were put in contact with those who had not yet done so.
So it’s by working on non-specific immunity that we get rid of diseases, memory specific immunity only allows us not to get sick again when we were infected the first time, nothing more, as long as the food is sufficient to ensure the proper functioning of this system.

AIDS can be eradicated with simple hygienic measures.

So pretending to want to eradicate diseases with vaccination is a joke, because non-specific immunity and innate immunity do most of the work.
Polio is perfectly treatable with vitamin C, which is a problem in reverse. Vitamin C deficiency causes fatal diseases such as scurvy; hence the importance of maintaining a non-specific immune system in good condition to prevent and cure disease.

Of course you have to look in the English literature for scientific proof that vitamin C inactivates polyomelitis.

I ask a very simple question: What is the use of a very specific solution against a living being that continues to mutate like a virus or a bacteria?

In fact, it is a fundamental characteristic of microorganisms to constantly change due to their small size.

When laboratories work on a solution, the microorganism has already changed its characteristics 3 or 4 times, which makes this approach definitely inoperative (cf. the flu vaccine which must now have two versions during the winter period and whose doctors dare to say that the first is useless, knowing that it does not prevent its attraction).

Another very simple question: what is the point of vaccinating at a very early age when many of the vaccinated diseases need to assert themselves in a defined time frame in order to strengthen the immune system which is completed after 1000 days (example of measles)? The only logical result is that a process that should normally take place is completely impaired.

Another very important point is the fact that when you defend yourself naturally against a pathogen, you have first activated the first line alarms which are the contact mucous membranes (skin, lungs…) which will then activate other processes more and more internal but progressively.
When you inject a more or less deactivated virus directly into the bloodstream, you have violated all the biological barriers at once, resulting in an excessive and useless reaction of the organism.
The skin contains (hence the example of cows that immunize against smallpox) all the functions to carry out such an immunization process.

At the beginning of the century, children who had not made their disease were simply presented to those who did, to declare it in due course.

In your humble opinion, why is a baby allowed to put foreign bodies in its mouth? It’s the only way he can build recognition of the immune and nonimmune self, just like breastfeeding: children who have not been breastfed by their mother have more biological problems later because they have not been able to benefit from the mother’s immune input.

What remains obvious is that by not facing anything and bringing to the body what it should and can produce, it only forgets the need to build defense systems. So the best way to be immune is to confront pathogens regularly and get the body working.

Secondly, and this has already been demonstrated in developing countries: improved hygiene conditions are sufficient to significantly reduce the transmission of the main contagious agents.

Vaccines have not made it possible to eradicate diseases because of changing hygienic conditions. Vaccination was applied only after the contamination fell.

This is just a truism: living in extremely dirty places causes great contagion.

The plague was eradicated without vaccines.

We are told that we are not vaccinated: by all good logic, the unvaccinated represent a danger only to themselves, if we assume that vaccination is effective, which proves that it is not!

This Rockefeller Institute scientist explains that the unvaccinated are not a problem for the vaccinated.

What is an undeniable fact is that vaccines account for 70% of the laboratories’ turnover’affaire%20des%20laboratoires&f=false

On the other hand, for those who did not know, Pasteur was a chemist and not a biologist,who never invented vaccination (it is Edourad Jenner 14 May 1796): it is a fabricated myth.

la vérité sur Louis Pasteur et son vaccin contre la rage

la vérité sur Louis Pasteur et son vaccin contre la rage 🧐Si c'est pas honteux de faire un blasphème comme ça à la TV 🤬 Notre prophète adoré il déguste la… 😰youtube :

Publiée par L'église de vaccinologie sur Samedi 25 avril 2020
el mito de la vacuna contra la rabia

« Louis Pasteur was at the heart of the industrial and technological reshaping favoured by the political power during the years 1850-1890: if posterity celebrates the « pure scientist », he worked his whole life for the benefit of national industry and under the supervision of the government. The point here is to show that the identity of the scientist emerges in close correlation with his contribution to nascent industry, and that his enhanced social status is precisely the result of this deliberate negotiation with political power. »

A small example of scientific nonsense, the tetanus vaccine.

The scientific aberration of Gardasil and its danger

There are 40 HPV the vaccine is only effective on HPV 16 AND 18. After investigation it turns out that HPV 16 is not involved in cancer and that the vaccine is only 40% effective against 18… In other words, the vaccine does not protect against anything, but it has very serious side effects.
a pharmacist tells the story of vaccines

Here are some studies on the danger of Gardasil:

In the doctor’s journal: 65% increase in multiple sclerosis after peak of hepatitis B vaccination

We are fortunate to have a vaccine pharmacist who speaks: rather deadly

Finally, on the issue of aluminium adjuvant: the only question is why we went from a calcium adjuvant which was not a problem, knowing that the elites are having vaccines produced without this adjuvant: there is an intention to do harm.

I’ll add a crunchy little detail, which is that some vaccines contain glyphosate.

a laboratory, Microbe Inotech Laboratories Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri (United States), performed these analyses. The results (PDF attached) show that :
the MMR/MR vaccine II (Merck) contains 2.671 parts per billion (ppb) glyphosate;
the DTPa Adacel vaccine (Sanofi Pasteur), 0.123 ppb glyphosate;
Fluvirin influenza vaccine (Novartis), 0.331 ppb glyphosate;
Engerix-B hepatitis B vaccine (GlaxoSmithKline), 0.325 ppb glyphosate;
the Pneumonoccal Vax Polyvalent Pneumovax 23 (Merck), 0.107 ppb glyphosate.

Vaccines are not the solution to diseases because the benefit/risk ratio is too low
the benefit-risk ratio of vaccination is far too low

After this exhaustive presentation, is there any doubt left

This site will put an end to it forever:

You cannot copy content of this page