Mikhail Afanasenkov: "Daughters-mothers", or the choice between two ski weeks in March. BCG vaccination is dangerous

It has been almost eight years since the author of these lines visited for the first time the famous Finnish multi-day skiing event "From Border to Border" (in Finnish - RajaltaRajalleHiihto, hereinafter - RR), and under her impression he decided to create a Russian analogue - the Karelian Ski Week (hereinafter - KLN), which in 2014 was successfully held in Kalevala for the sixth time.

Since KLN was originally created as a “tracing paper”, or, if you like, a “daughter” of RR, they have a lot in common. First of all, the main idea. Both are a non-competitive multi-day ski run classic from point to point (and not in small circles), light (the organizers carry things by transport from overnight to overnight), with overnight stays each time in a new place, along a marked marked track, with regular snack points on the way (no need to take anything with you). The average daily mileage is also close - about 65 km. Meals, accommodation and saunas are fully included. It remains only to ski, the organizers will take care of everything else. Both RR and KLN have a very loyal attitude towards beginner skiers and slow-moving skiers - you can always leave the intermediate point by driving part of the way by bus (snowmobile) or even miss one or several days because of your health - no one points a finger, a regular situation. This, in particular, allows you to take with you your less athletic other half (or a child, or a parent, it is necessary to emphasize) and have a full-fledged family vacation.

Now let's move on to the differences.

1.Price. Since the road to Finland makes a significant contribution, we compare, taking into account the cost of transport, for certainty from Moscow to Moscow, for other cities the numbers will change slightly.

2.Accommodation (overnight stays).

3. Swimming pools, water park. Everything is simple here - there is nothing like this in Karelia at all. On RR in one hotel there is a whole water park with a waterfall and a jacuzzi, and in at least two more there are just pools (combined with saunas).

4. Meals (basic, i.e. at overnight stays, not on the track).

5. Evacuation from the track (or planned partial passage of the route).

6. Other differences.

Thus, the Finnish version provides more comfort, especially for beginners or "family" skiers, but also costs twice as much. And vice versa, if 60 km per day is not difficult and the main thing is skiing, and not the star rating of the hotel, you can save money and choose KLN. Registration for both events is described in detail on the website 100km.ru

In the 1920s, two French scientists - Calmette and Guerin - created an anti-tuberculosis vaccine (hence the name - Bacillum Calmette Guerin, BCG; in Russian - BCG). Currently, in Russia it is done in the first days of life, including in maternity hospitals. It is often called mandatory in popular literature (although this is contrary to current legislation). According to the same literature, it is considered “non-dangerous” and “the main means of preventing tuberculosis.” Gives good income to vaccine manufacturers.

istorico-statistical evidence.

Tuberculosis is primarily a social disease, especially in “dark damp rooms”. Advertising BCG likes to cite as an example the literature of the 19th century, where all the heroes died of consumption together, and the terrible statistics of this mortality, and in the 20th century, mortality fell, allegedly with the advent of vaccinations. However, in such popular agitations they forget to mention that, in addition to vaccinations, over a hundred years there has been a radical improvement in the standard of living, people have left cramped basements, electricity and hot water have appeared, food has improved, medicines (streptomycin) have appeared. Let's see in what proportions a change in the standard of living and mass vaccinations can change mortality and morbidity.

Mortality in England from 1855 to 1947 decreased by 7.7 times, and by 1953 (the beginning of the use of BCG) - by 14.3 times (this is still WITHOUT vaccines).

New York. Mortality per 10,000 cases in 1812 - 700, 1882 - 370 (this is BEFORE the discovery of Koch's wand), after the first sanatoriums - 180, after World War II (but BEFORE vaccines and even BEFORE antibiotics) - 48. Total - 14.6 times .

Poland. BCG has been mandatory since 1955. They vaccinate FOUR times - at 0,7,12 and 18 years. It would seem that tuberculosis should disappear! However, in 1995, the incidence was 42 per 100 thousand, with the WHO epidemic threshold of 50. Compare with the neighboring Czech Republic, where BCG was abandoned in 1986. In the same 1995, the incidence was 18 per 100 thousand, and in Slovakia - less than one case (!).

In the Netherlands and the USA, BCG has never been on the vaccination calendars. At the same time, the incidence of tuberculosis is the lowest in the world. Coincidence?

1989 The USSR is still alive and is at the MINIMUM of its incidence (impoverishment and homeless people are yet to come). BCG is being planned, as in the entire socialist camp, including China, where the coverage of children with BCG is 97% (!). So, let's look at the statistics of tuberculosis mortality per 100,000 people. USSR - 8.15; China - 14.65; Holland - 0.2; Australia - 0.35; Canada and the USA - 0.4. Is it necessary to say that in the last four countries they do not make BCG? Coincidence? Are they not afraid of tuberculosis? They are afraid, even how, they constantly test everyone, plus they examine all immigrants, in Australia they can even officially ban entry at the slightest suspicion of being a carrier. Even AIDS is not on this list, but tuberculosis is.

"Vaccinators" of course argue that BCG is not made in "prosperous" countries owing to the low incidence. I will not insist on the opposite (high mortality DUE TO doing BCG), although such hypotheses are quite scientifically substantiated (with mass vaccinations, a huge amount of live viruses is constantly injected into the population, diagnosis is complicated (the Mantoux test actually does not work), general immunity is weakened, and so on. Yes and practicing phthisiatricians for 30-40 years, in particular Noreiko B.V. and V.P. Sukhanovsky, note significantly more severe forms of the disease in the vaccinated). Let's pay attention to something else - the mortality rate of the BCG camp is 20-70 times higher compared to Holland-Canada (!), i.e. the difference is much larger than the decline in mortality in the same US over 150 years (see above). Is the standard of living in socialist countries so much worse than in the US in the 19th century??? And even if we accept that it is the same, it will mean that the vaccine DOES NOT WORK AT ALL. And if we take it a little better (which is more plausible, after all, the slums of New York in the 19th century and Moscow "khrushchev" and even communal apartments are a huge difference), it turns out that the vaccine works IN MINUS, INCREASING mortality.

In any case, there is not a single example of neighboring countries that are close in terms of living standards, where a country with a mandatory vaccine would noticeably lag behind a country without it in terms of mortality. There are as many reverse examples as you like (the same Poland-Czech Republic).

BCG vaccination is ineffective.

Direct experimental evidence.

Efficiency is usually expressed numerically as a percentage. After a 100% effective vaccine, there is no chance of getting sick. After 99% - the probability of getting sick is a hundred times less than that of an unvaccinated person. After 80% - five times. After 0% - the same as the unvaccinated. Correct measurements involve correctly selecting two health-IDENTICAL groups, one of which receives a vaccine and the other a placebo (eg, saline). The largest "correct" test was made in India, more on that below. In propaganda literature, not direct, but statistical tests are popular - retroactively.

They simply look at the percentage of sick or dead among the vaccinated and unvaccinated of the entire population. This makes some statistical sense only with LOW population coverage and optional vaccinations. With a coverage of 95-97% and universal vaccination in maternity hospitals, only clearly premature, weakened, pathological children remain unvaccinated, whose pathology is so obvious that it allows them to save the weak from the mandatory injection dose immediately in the maternity hospital, with virtually no diagnosis. It is no wonder that the percentage of ANY disease among such children is disproportionately high, and the effectiveness of ANY vaccine by this method reaches 80-90% almost always, even if it is replaced with salted water. But back to the BCG efficacy numbers and a few direct tests.

Direct comparative studies from the London Department of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (Fine P.E.M. et al, 1995) give a figure of "no more than 20%"

Research in the Colombian-American team (Arbelaez M. et al, 2000) - 22-26%

The largest, first and last conducted according to all scientific rules with the participation of WHO, the US Public Health Service and the Medical Research Council of India (India, 1968-1970) - 0%. ZERO effectiveness of the most famous Paris/Pasteur and Denmark/Copenhagen strains. Moreover, among the vaccinated, the incidence of tuberculosis was HIGHER. The urgently created WHO working group did not find ANY methodological errors.

The Moscow group (Aksenova V.A. et al., 1997) conducted a study of 1,200,000 children and adolescents. It was found that the number of complications after BCG (“bezezhites”) was several times higher than the incidence of tuberculosis in the unvaccinated. At the same time, the incidence rates of tuberculosis itself did not differ.

The BCG vaccine is dangerous.

direct complications. Most often - lymphadenitis (1% of all vaccinated, according to Mori T et al, 1996), purulent adenitis - 0.02%, etc. There are also allergic reactions.

Weakened immunity in the post-vaccination period to OTHER diseases, up to the banal flu, the likelihood of catching which for the majority of those reading this page is incomparably higher than meeting with tuberculosis in an open form ...

The aggravation (!) of the course of the disease (Noreiko B.V., 2003), the predominance of cavernous forms, in contrast to the classical "primary" tuberculosis, known 30-50 years ago and quite treatable with modern methods.

Random overlays. Either the vaccine will be infected, or the dose will be mixed up. The city of Pernik (Bulgaria) - out of 280 children vaccinated with an infected vaccine, 111 died, 75 were severe tuberculosis cases. Zhanatas (Kazakhstan, 1997) - 153 were infected, two died (the dose was mixed up). 215 serious lymphadenitis with surgery and many months of chemotherapy (Kazakhstan, 2004) from low-quality cheap vaccine from Serbia... Who's next? Knowing the salaries of our doctors and the qualifications of the medical staff who remained on such salaries, are you sure that they will not confuse anything with your child again and save on nothing?

Indirect dangers of BCG vaccination.

BCG vaccination greatly confuses the interpretation of the Mantoux test. Most of the vaccinated people have a positive reaction, and some even have a super-positive one, as a result, on the one hand, a perfectly healthy child can be subjected to repeated irradiation (fluorography), “prophylactic” chemotherapy with heavy antibiotics, mental stress and stress (tuberculosis is often suspected in school or kindergarten, forming suspicion and hostility, plus unpleasant trips to the TB dispensary), and, on the other hand, on the contrary, makes it difficult to diagnose true tuberculosis if it has not yet developed to a stage sufficient for a super-clear reaction.

The phthisiatricians themselves unanimously complain about the low information content of the Mantoux test, this is no longer a secret for anyone ... From the official statement of the WHO (!): “We still do not have a simple sensitive test that would distinguish ... patients with an active form of tuberculosis ... from individuals previously vaccinated with BCG” (WHO Bulletin, 1990).

And once again about fluorography. Often, for advertising purposes, nominal and effective doses are confused (citing the smaller of them), in addition (according to unofficial data from inspectors), equipment is often configured in such a way that it gives out a much larger dose. Of course, it is still very far from radiation sickness, but the probability of cancer is already obtained, albeit small, but quite comparable with the incidence of the same childhood diseases ... Swap one for another?

Why are we used to other numbers?

Why do doctors say the opposite?

If you are just curious, I will give brief reasons in a short material “wise about vaccinations”.

If you are seriously worried about the health of your baby, current or just planned, I strongly advise you to purchase and read the wonderful book "Merciless Immunization" (Author - A. Kotok).

Most of the references to the works and statistical materials of this page are taken from this book. This is an extensive work with a lot of factual material and extensive references to original works, and not the usual phrases "it is well known that ..." and "it is scientifically proven that ..." that wander from textbook to textbook. You can also visit the website of the author of the book, where many little-known and carefully suppressed works are freely available, as well as a forum.

To vaccinate or not?

You decide.

If you are interested in my opinion - I personally decided for my youngest child unambiguously - he did not receive ANY vaccinations from anything. For almost four years of life, we do not know what a doctor is and what a polyclinic is. In the icy water in Karelia, together with the kayak, we turned over, we eat everything from the adult table, we crack chocolate, strawberries, citrus fruits, canned food, ice cream. Diathesis and allergies are not familiar to us.

In the kindergarten, even when almost everyone is sick, ours walks (healthy). The older four children were sick in childhood in proportion to vaccination. The more complete the vaccination, the more sick. Based on my own experience of raising five children and the experience of personally interviewed acquaintances (including parents of post-vaccination disabled people), I am ready to subscribe to the words of the famous doctor Prafulla Vijaykar “Vaccinations are the greatest killer of children ... A child is born healthy. Vaccinations make him sick. We all saw in our practice how the most serious illnesses begin after vaccinations ... "

(Vijekhar is quoted from the book Merciless Immunization)

DPT is a combination vaccine against diphtheria, whooping cough and tetanus. The vaccine is given four times in the first year of life, usually starting at 3 months. It has a high rate of complications. The most dangerous vaccine.

DTP vaccination is ineffective.
Historical and statistical evidence.

Japan. After 37 babies killed by DTP in 1970-1974, a boycott and unrest began, as a result, vaccination was first completely canceled, and then postponed to two years of age. And Japan, from 17th in child mortality, instantly became the country with the LOWEST child mortality in the WORLD until 1980, when vaccinations began with a new acellular pertussis vaccine at an early age. Over the next 12 years, the incidence of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) increased by 4.7 times.

Whooping cough, England. After reports leaked to the media about children killed and maimed by vaccination, mass refusals of vaccinations began in 1974-1978, the number of vaccinated children dropped sharply (from 80% to 30% on average, in some areas - up to 9%). Bought journalists began to inflate rumors about the epidemic of whooping cough. However, the dry statistics is as follows: in 1970-1971 there were 33,000 cases and 41 deaths, and in 1974-1975 - 25,000 cases and 25 deaths from whooping cough. This is despite the fact that vaccination coverage has decreased by almost three times, and in some areas by nine times.

Whooping cough, Germany. After a series of fatal complications, Hamburg abandoned the pertussis vaccine in 1962. In the 15 years after that, during which no vaccinations were given, hospital visits dropped by almost five times, and the number of complications also decreased (Ehrengut W, 1978). A dramatic improvement in sanitation is unlikely, as during the same time, the mumps grew six times.
Whooping cough, Holland. For many years, children have been vaccinated, the coverage is 96%, more than sufficient for all vaccination standards. Number of whooping cough cases by years - 1995-325, 1996-2778, 1997 (11 months) -3747. Those. vaccinations did NOT save from the growth of the disease.

Diphtheria, Russia, epidemic in the 1990s. Among the diseased, the proportion of those vaccinated is about 70%, which approximately coincides with the vaccination coverage of the population. Those. the vaccine did not protect against the disease ABSOLUTELY (the probability of getting sick is the SAME for vaccinated and unvaccinated!). Since, using the example of this epidemic, only the laziest vaccinators and journalists did not hasten to blame the anti-vaccination articles of G. Chervonskaya for everything (roughly speaking, the scheme is obvious: Chervonskaya's articles - refusals to vaccinate - reduced coverage - epidemic), and using the example of the same epidemic (OFFICIAL data) the inefficiency of the vaccine is clearly visible, I will dwell on it separately in more detail a little lower.

DTP vaccination is ineffective.
Assessment of the mid-1990s epidemic in Russia and post-Soviet countries.

It is this epidemic that is directly blamed on "anti-vaccinators" in general and G. Chervonskaya in particular. Therefore, the data of "anti-vaccine" as supposedly "interested persons" (albeit in terms of "moral justification") may not be trustworthy. In this chapter, I will not use their data. Only official data and conclusions based on them MNIIEM them. Gabrichevsky Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. One of the sources is the epidemic situation of diphtheria in Russia. (hereinafter - ESR). For "morbidity in general" among vaccinated and unvaccinated data have already been given above. She is ONE. Those. statements by doctors and journalists such as "the only reliable way not to get sick is vaccination" - a blatant lie.

But maybe the disease in the vaccinated really proceeded easier? I quote ESR: 1) "Among children who had toxic diphtheria, 88.6% had booster vaccinations, and in most of them (85.1%) the disease occurred early after vaccination (up to 3 years). At the same time, the primary complex in 89.8% of sick children was carried out with DTP vaccine" (we are talking about 1996-1998). Let's remember this figure - about 89%. Let's try to find out the average vaccination coverage of children in these years. In the same work (ESR) we find: "In 1998, one in four children (23.5%) ... were not vaccinated against diphtheria." Yep, 76.5% coverage in 1998! Considering that during these years vaccination coverage only grew, and the largest number of cases was in 1996-1997, the average coverage should be clearly less than 76%. Omitting details and calculations, according to indirect data from the same source, a coverage of about 70% is obtained. And now back to the quote under the number 1). So, with the vaccination coverage of children at 70%, the frequency of vaccinations among seriously ill patients is 89%. Those. if the probability of just getting sick in a vaccinated person is the SAME as in an unvaccinated person, then the probability of getting seriously ill is already about THREE TIMES HIGHER for a vaccinated person (calculation method - see "Reasonably about vaccinations"). So, by vaccinating a child, you THREE TIMES INCREASE his risk of becoming seriously ill even during an epidemic. What is the purpose of vaccination then?

However, most likely, the vaccine itself is not to blame. The mass brainwashing of not only the population, but also the medical staff about the effectiveness of vaccinations is to blame, as a result of which the doctor, in doubtful cases, did not have the idea that the vaccinated person could get sick, which led to incorrect diagnoses, and, accordingly, to belated treatment. It is difficult now to say exactly who was misdiagnosed, however, according to official (!) data, there were many such cases (I quote the ESR again): "The low level of diagnosis is also evidenced by the fact that the initial diagnosis of diphtheria was made only in 31.3-40 3% of children and 37.5-46% of adults who fell ill with toxic diphtheria ... ". Impressive?

The history of tuberculosis is repeating itself, when, due to BCG, early diagnosis is extremely difficult in vaccinated people ... (see my material on BCG)
Deaths remain the last stronghold of vaccine supporters. The vaccinated supposedly cannot die. Let's check? According to the ESR, "In total, over the past 3 years (1996-1998, M.A.), 499 people died of diphtheria in Russia, of which 123 were children. Most of the dead (75%) were not vaccinated against diphtheria. ... 30 children and 95 adults, those who died from diphtheria had "information about vaccinations".. So, FOURTH of the dead were vaccinated. That is, the effectiveness of the vaccine is still noticeably more than zero in terms of mortality - formally, it turns out that vaccination reduces the chances of a fatal event by about EIGHT (see the calculation method here). Is it a lot or a little?

If we remember that a simple improvement in sanitation and hygiene since the end of the 19th century, without any vaccinations, gave tens and sometimes hundreds of times, a simple question arises - has a competent FACTOR ANALYSIS of mortality from diphtheria ever been carried out at all? Since even during the "epidemic" there are relatively few deaths (500 people in the 3 years under consideration, which is hundreds of times less than from burned vodka in the same period), it would not be difficult to analyze, for example, their social composition, living conditions and other factors. After all, it is well known that homeless people and alcoholics have mortality rates that are orders of magnitude higher than other citizens, regardless of vaccinations (Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation 2002: "The main risk group for morbidity and mortality from diphtheria are children from dysfunctional families and children of migrants from neighboring countries , homeless people, as well as people suffering from alcoholism and the disabled., mind you, even the word "unvaccinated" for some reason was forgotten (!). Probably, they were in a hurry, they forgot to show the censor-vaccinator).

With my modest efforts, I was not able to obtain accurate data on precisely these 499 unfortunate people. However, in the process of searching, by chance in an official Moscow document (albeit for 2002, but this is even closer to life), namely the sanitary and epidemiological situation in the city of Moscow, one can read the following: “8 people died of diphtheria, including 2 children. ... the increase in the incidence in Moscow is due to unvaccinated children and adults coming from neighboring countries (Transnistria, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan) and socially maladjusted people who are difficult to get vaccinated.So both children who died of diphtheria were unvaccinated and arrived from Transnistria and Kyrgyzstan, and among the dead adults - two persons without a fixed place of residence. . I had the "happiness" to observe the life of foreign "guest workers" without registering at one of the construction sites. It often differs little from the life of the homeless, in addition, any visit to the doctor immediately reveals the semi-legal position of these people, so it is not surprising that treatment often begins too late. And the fact that all the media emphasize that "another unvaccinated person died" is an extremely immoral manipulation of facts. Yes, he's unvaccinated. But write honestly - "another bum died of diphtheria," or "the deceased lived in the basement with twenty of the same migrant workers builders and had a fake registration."

By the way, SOMETIMES such information still seeps through the censorship of vaccinators. So, typing in Yandex "diphtheria died" it is easy to find two gypsy boys, a homeless woman from Kazan, "asocial elements", etc. Of course, EVERYWHERE emphasize that they were unvaccinated, and recommend immediately "increase coverage" ... But I have not yet met ANY explicit mention of the death of a socially well-off unvaccinated. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I couldn't find them. Usually only sex, age, name and "unvaccinated" are reported. .

And yet I want to return to lethality. Even according to the relatively socially prosperous 2002 in relatively socially prosperous Moscow, HALF of the dead were, roughly speaking, "homeless". I don’t think that in 1996-1998 and in the Russian Federation as a whole there were fewer, if not more, therefore, out of the 499 mentioned deaths in 1996-1998, there were about 250 in Russia. Excluding them from the statistics, we get that the remaining unvaccinated are approximately equal to vaccinated (about 125 people each). Thus, the vaccine reduces the risk of death by only TWICE. Considering the severe complications and the high percentage of adverse reactions (See below, DTP is considered the most dangerous even by the doctors themselves) and the really low probability of diphtheria (unless, of course, you are a homeless person), I would not call vaccination "reliable protection." And if we take into account that alcoholism is a proven catalyst for diphtheria mortality and its scope in Russia is impressive even according to modest official data, then it is not at all excluded that half of the "remaining 125 unvaccinated dead" "abused" (although this was not reflected in any official papers), and if we exclude them, we get exactly the same result as for the incidence - the presence or absence of vaccinations does NOT affect mortality from diphtheria.

So why, with the start of mass revaccination, did the epidemic decline and then stop? Is this not an indicator of the effectiveness of vaccines? To answer this question, you need to slightly expand the field of view, both in time and geographically. Recall that no quarantines were introduced, and entry and exit to foreign countries was not closed. With vaccination coverage often LOWER than in the post-Soviet camp, the epidemic did not spread to any European country (although the same Finns visited St. Petersburg in droves). According to various sources, the immune layer in the United States was about 60%, in Europe - about 70%, in different ways in different countries, but Russia did not stand out in this regard. However, epidemics almost SIMULTANEOUSLY broke out only in the post-Soviet space and lasted for about the same time - about 4 years, REGARDLESS of the intensity of vaccination in each of the countries (and it was very different). And if you look at how long the epidemics lasted in the pre-vaccination time, you can be surprised to find the same period. Those. mass revaccination did NOT change the natural course of the epidemic. Who was supposed to get sick - got sick, who did not get sick - most likely would not get sick without vaccination. And the cause of the epidemic was not the notorious "reduction in coverage", but elementary social factors characteristic of the consequences of the collapse of Soviet regimes (homeless people, refugees, impoverished pensioners, impoverished unskilled medical workers, etc.).

The DTP vaccine is dangerous.

DTP is one of the most dangerous vaccines. Its history is most rich in lawsuits, numerous children's corpses, bribery of experts, official bans in entire states. If you are interested, you can read this story in sufficient detail here (in the American version, the vaccine is called DPT). What makes it most dangerous is the whole-cell pertussis component. However, the diphtheria-tetanus part cannot be called harmless. But this is not enough. The vaccine contains a mercury-organic pesticide - merthiolate (in some foreign batches - thiomersal) and formaldehyde, and in quite tangible amounts. Doses of merthiolate in vaccines are so high that they give pronounced reactions both in human cell cultures and in mice.

It is significant that the official safety testing of merthiolate in Russia has not been carried out, it is not in the approved pharmacological lists, which include all approved medicines. The "recommended" doses were calculated a long time ago, based on a single injection of five (only!) Guinea pigs. And children with different vaccines are given at least five doses (!). Meanwhile, "alkyl mercury compounds are not used in medicine, they are highly toxic compounds, they, unlike most other compounds, are lipophilic, are slowly excreted from the body, and therefore can accumulate in the nervous tissue ...". Moreover, there are experimental data that the poisonous properties of merthiolate are enhanced tenfold in the presence of aluminum hydroxide, i.e. a dose of merthiolate that does not cause a reaction in the cell culture when aluminum hydroxide is added causes cell death.

Do I need to remind you that aluminum hydroxide is also found in DPT? But not only was the Ministry of Health in no hurry (and still is not going to) check the safety of merthiolate, referring to the standards of the fifties of the last century, it also tacitly approves the use of "bad" merthiolate. Not only is it a pesticide, but also a "technical" one. And just a year later, Europe was even afraid to produce such a poison on its territory (!) (see the second picture). However, it is still present in DTP. It is enough just to type the word "merthiolate" in Yandex to get an impressive list of publications about its dangers.

DTP torture.

USA. Despite all the research, the whole cell pertussis vaccine is still licensed by the FDA. The main reason for this is the foreign market, where US manufacturers supply their vaccines, where the cheaper whole-cell version of DPT finds demand. The World Health Organization (WHO) is the main agency for the acquisition and distribution of DPT whole cell vaccine. That the US has stopped using a whole-cell vaccine domestically but is selling it for use in the rest of the world appears to be a violation of ethical standards.

Although the number of registered serious casualties is very high (and the number of non-registered even more), still their percentage may seem small. However, we should not forget about the "light" reactions. And there are many more of them. Local reactions and temperature are practically guaranteed to you (more than 50% of cases, according to various sources, from about 60 to 80). But these are trifles. Move on.
Here is what they write to us on the vaccination site: "unusual (up to a squeal) crying of a child, usually lasting continuously for 3 hours. The frequency of such a reaction is estimated at 1 in 200 cases. ... Despite the fact that this reaction frightens parents, who are not mentally prepared and not informed about such a possibility, it passes without consequences. Let's not forget to multiply by four (on that site everything is referred to doses, not people), and we get - every fiftieth child is tortured with unbearable pain for three hours.
In principle, sticking needles under the nails in the Gestapo, from a medical point of view, also "passed without consequences", at least serious ones (if the needles are sterile, of course). However, all international laws prohibit torture even in relation to repeat offenders, rapists and murderers. And even "in the public interest", for example, to find out and arrest accomplices. Is it possible to torture innocent babies??? And is it really without consequences? I am not ready to assess the scientific nature of classical psychoanalysis, but it associates many psychological problems with the stresses of early childhood - a rude word from a father, a conflict with a mother, and so on. Isn't a three-hour ordeal of acute pain really such a stress and can't affect the psyche? Who checked it and how?

Of course, the list of dangers is far from exhausted, and I did not set myself the goal of covering it all - if there is interest, numerous publications on this topic are easy to find, in particular, on the "1796" website (the link to it is just below). It is only important to understand that the dangers REALLY EXIST. And to understand that "pro-vaccine" sources in every possible way downplay them and at the same time inflate the dangers of diseases.

To vaccinate or not?

You decide.
If you are interested in my opinion - I personally decided for my youngest child unambiguously - he did not receive ANY vaccinations from anything. For almost four years of life, we do not know what a doctor is and what a polyclinic is. In the icy water in Karelia, together with the kayak, we turned over, we eat everything from the adult table, we crack chocolate, strawberries, citrus fruits, canned food, ice cream. Diathesis and allergies are not familiar to us. In the kindergarten, even when almost everyone is sick, ours walks (healthy). The older four vaccinated children were sick in childhood in significant numbers. Based on my own experience of raising five children and the experience of personally interviewed acquaintances (and among them there are parents of post-vaccination disabled people), I am ready to subscribe to the words of the famous doctor Prafulla Vijaykar "Vaccinations are the greatest killer of children ... A child is born healthy. Vaccinations make him sick. Everything we have seen in our practice how the most serious illnesses begin after vaccinations ... "

SBER got a time machine

An interesting, though not very pleasant, incident happened the other day. My counterparty sent me to a legal entity (I am registered as an individual entrepreneur) from an individual the amount through the SBER teller by printing a paper payment. In the payment were my current details, in the bank "Regional Credit" (colloquially - Modulbank). But the money did not appear for a suspiciously long time, and I looked closely at the check. Here's what happened: Let's pay attention to the fact that there are completely DIFFERENT details on the check. Where could the operator get them from??? I had these details a year ago, until the license was revoked from SB-Bank. It turns out that SBER stores the entire database and pulls the details automatically by TIN? But why didn’t the new details get pumped up then, there were already a fair amount of payments on them, besides, there were also third details between them, in SDM-bank. Mystery. Maybe someone who is familiar with the SBER better, clarify?? PS Trivial things about the fact that first the operator, and then, in a good way, the client, had to check the payment with the shipment can not be written, they are more or less obvious.

Secrets of the serial investor. We minimize exchange rate differences.

When placing ruble deposits during the revocation of a license, the depositor is practically not threatened with anything (except that the loss of interest in two weeks is not too great, but it’s quite a criminal case of “deposits in a notebook outside the register”, which, fortunately, is still not so common) . But foreign currency investors can easily get into the exchange rate difference in two “asv-weeks”. With current political trends, it will most likely be negative, although here it’s how lucky. Let me explain with an example. Let's say a depositor had $10,000 in the Transportny bank, his license was revoked on May 20, 2015 - so the issuance rate at the DIA was 49.18 (roughly) - we get 491,800 rubles and go to the exchanger. But this is already happening in two weeks, during which time the course has gone to 53.5-55 rubles. Roughly at the rate of 54 we get 9107 dollars, i.e. losses - 9% - this is the interest for more than a year at the present time! Yes, theoretically there are options when the exchange rate could fall in the same two weeks, but hoping for this is already a game of roulette, and we are conservative investors, so we do not consider stocks, forex and other casinos, but try to minimize such problems .

In the 1920s, two French scientists - Calmette and Guerin - created an anti-tuberculosis vaccine (hence the name - Bacillum Calmette Guerin, BCG; in Russian - BCG). Currently, in Russia it is done in the first days of life, including in maternity hospitals. It is often called mandatory in popular literature (although this is contrary to current legislation). According to the same literature, it is considered "non-dangerous" and "the main means of preventing tuberculosis." Gives good income to vaccine manufacturers.

Historical and statistical evidence.

Tuberculosis is primarily a social disease, especially in "dark, damp rooms." Advertising BCG likes to cite as an example the literature of the 19th century, where all the heroes died of consumption together, and the terrible statistics of this mortality, and in the 20th century, mortality fell, allegedly with the advent of vaccinations. However, in such popular agitations they forget to mention that, in addition to vaccinations, over a hundred years there has been a radical improvement in the standard of living, people have left cramped basements, electricity and hot water have appeared, food has improved, medicines (streptomycin) have appeared. Let's see in what proportions a change in the standard of living and mass vaccinations can change mortality and morbidity.

Mortality in England from 1855 to 1947 decreased by 7.7 times, and by 1953 (the beginning of the use of BCG) - by 14.3 times (this is still WITHOUT vaccines).

New York. Mortality per 10,000 cases in 1812 - 700, 1882 - 370 (this is BEFORE the discovery of Koch's wand), after the first sanatoriums - 180, after World War II (but BEFORE vaccines and even BEFORE antibiotics) - 48. Total - 14.6 times .

Poland. BCG has been mandatory since 1955. They vaccinate FOUR times - at 0,7,12 and 18 years. It would seem that tuberculosis should disappear! However, in 1995, the incidence was 42 per 100 thousand, with the WHO epidemic threshold of 50. Compare with the neighboring Czech Republic, where BCG was abandoned in 1986. In the same 1995, the incidence was 18 per 100 thousand, and in Slovakia - less than one case (!).

In the Netherlands and the USA, BCG has never been on the vaccination calendars. At the same time, the incidence of tuberculosis is the lowest in the world. Coincidence?

1989 The USSR is still alive and is at the MINIMUM of its incidence (impoverishment and homeless people are yet to come). BCG is being planned, as in the entire socialist camp, including China, where the coverage of children with BCG is 97% (!). So, let's look at the statistics of tuberculosis mortality per 100,000 people. USSR - 8.15; China - 14.65; Holland - 0.2; Australia - 0.35; Canada and the USA - 0.4. Is it necessary to say that in the last four countries they do not make BCG? Coincidence? Are they not afraid of tuberculosis? They are afraid, even how, they constantly test everyone, plus they examine all immigrants, in Australia they can even officially ban entry at the slightest suspicion of being a carrier. Even AIDS is not on this list, but tuberculosis is.

"Vaccinators" of course argue that BCG is not made in "prosperous" countries BECAUSE of the low incidence. I will not insist on the opposite (high mortality DUE TO doing BCG), although such hypotheses are quite scientifically substantiated (with mass vaccinations, a huge amount of live viruses is constantly injected into the population, diagnosis is complicated (the Mantoux test actually does not work), general immunity is weakened, and so on. Yes and practicing phthisiatricians for 30-40 years, in particular Noreiko B.V. and V.P. Sukhanovsky, note significantly more severe forms of the disease in the vaccinated). Let's pay attention to something else - the mortality rate of the BCG camp is 20-70 times higher compared to Holland-Canada (!), i.e. the difference is much larger than the decline in mortality in the same US over 150 years (see above). Is the standard of living in socialist countries so much worse than in the US in the 19th century??? And even if we accept that it is the same, it will mean that the vaccine DOES NOT WORK AT ALL. And if we take it a little better (which is more plausible, after all, the slums of New York in the 19th century and Moscow "khrushchev" and even communal apartments are a huge difference), it turns out that the vaccine works IN MINUS, INCREASING mortality.

In any case, there is not a single example of neighboring countries that are close in terms of living standards, where a country with a mandatory vaccine would noticeably lag behind a country without it in terms of mortality. There are as many reverse examples as you like (the same Poland-Czech Republic).

BCG vaccination is ineffective.

Direct experimental evidence.

Efficiency is usually expressed numerically as a percentage. After a 100% effective vaccine, there is no chance of getting sick. After 99% - the probability of getting sick is a hundred times less than that of an unvaccinated person. After 80% - five times. After 0% - the same as the unvaccinated. Correct measurements involve correctly selecting two health-IDENTICAL groups, one of which receives a vaccine and the other a placebo (eg, saline). The largest "correct" test was made in India, more on that below. In propaganda literature, not direct, but statistical tests are popular - retroactively.

They simply look at the percentage of sick or dead among the vaccinated and unvaccinated of the entire population. This makes some statistical sense only with LOW population coverage and optional vaccinations. With a coverage of 95-97% and universal vaccination in maternity hospitals, only clearly premature, weakened, pathological children remain unvaccinated, whose pathology is so obvious that it allows them to save the weak from the mandatory injection dose immediately in the maternity hospital, with virtually no diagnosis. It is no wonder that the percentage of ANY disease among such children is disproportionately high, and the effectiveness of ANY vaccine by this method reaches 80-90% almost always, even if it is replaced with salted water. But back to the BCG efficacy numbers and a few direct tests.

Direct comparative studies of the London Department of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (Fine P.E.M. et al, 1995) give a figure of "no more than 20%"

Research in the Colombian-American team (Arbelaez M. et al, 2000) - 22-26%

The largest, first and last conducted according to all scientific rules with the participation of WHO, the US Public Health Service and the Medical Research Council of India (India, 1968-1970) - 0%. ZERO effectiveness of the most famous Paris/Pasteur and Denmark/Copenhagen strains. Moreover, among the vaccinated, the incidence of tuberculosis was HIGHER. The urgently created WHO working group did not find ANY methodological errors.

The Moscow group (Aksenova V.A. et al., 1997) conducted a study of 1,200,000 children and adolescents. It was found that the number of complications after BCG ("bezezhites") was several times higher than the incidence of tuberculosis in the unvaccinated. At the same time, the incidence rates of tuberculosis itself did not differ.

The BCG vaccine is dangerous.

direct complications. Most often - lymphadenitis (1% of all vaccinated, according to Mori T et al, 1996), purulent adenitis - 0.02%, etc. There are also allergic reactions.

Weakened immunity in the post-vaccination period to OTHER diseases, up to the banal flu, the likelihood of catching which for the majority of those reading this page is incomparably higher than meeting with tuberculosis in an open form ...

The aggravation (!) of the course of the disease (Noreiko B.V., 2003), the predominance of cavernous forms, in contrast to the classical "primary" tuberculosis, known 30-50 years ago and quite treatable with modern methods.

Random overlays. Either the vaccine will be infected, or the dose will be mixed up. The city of Pernik (Bulgaria) - out of 280 children vaccinated with an infected vaccine, 111 died, 75 were severe tuberculosis cases. Zhanatas (Kazakhstan, 1997) - 153 were infected, two died (the dose was mixed up). 215 serious lymphadenitis with surgery and many months of chemotherapy (Kazakhstan, 2004) from low-quality cheap vaccine from Serbia... Who's next? Knowing the salaries of our doctors and the qualifications of the medical staff who remained on such salaries, are you sure that they will not confuse anything with your child again and save on nothing?

Indirect dangers of BCG vaccination.

BCG vaccination greatly confuses the interpretation of the Mantoux test. Most of the vaccinated people have a positive reaction, and some even have a super-positive one, as a result, on the one hand, a perfectly healthy child can be subjected to repeated irradiation (fluorography), “prophylactic” chemotherapy with heavy antibiotics, mental stress and stress (tuberculosis is often suspected in school or kindergarten, forming suspicion and hostility, plus unpleasant trips to the TB dispensary), and, on the other hand, on the contrary, makes it difficult to diagnose true tuberculosis if it has not yet developed to a stage sufficient for a super-clear reaction.

The phthisiatricians themselves unanimously complain about the low information content of the Mantoux test, this is no longer a secret for anyone ... From the official statement of the WHO (!): "We still do not have a simple sensitive test that would distinguish ... patients with an active form of tuberculosis ... from persons previously vaccinated with BCG" (WHO Bulletin, 1990).

And once again about fluorography. Often, for advertising purposes, nominal and effective doses are confused (citing the smaller of them), in addition (according to unofficial data from inspectors), equipment is often configured in such a way that it gives out a much larger dose. Of course, it is still very far from radiation sickness, but the probability of cancer is already obtained, albeit small, but quite comparable with the incidence of the same childhood diseases ... Swap one for another?

Why are we used to other numbers?

Why do doctors say the opposite?

If you're just curious, I'll give a brief summary of the reasons in a short article "wise about vaccinations."

If you are seriously worried about the health of your baby, current or just planned, I strongly advise you to purchase and read the wonderful book "Merciless Immunization" (Author - A. Kotok). Most of the references to the works and statistical materials of this page are taken from this book. This is an extensive work with a lot of factual material and extensive references to original works, and not the usual phrases "it is well known that ..." and "it is scientifically proven that ...", wandering from textbook to textbook. You can also visit the website of the author of the book, where many little-known and carefully suppressed works are freely available, as well as a forum.

To vaccinate or not?

You decide.

If you are interested in my opinion - I personally decided for my youngest child unambiguously - he did not receive ANY vaccinations from anything. For almost four years of life, we do not know what a doctor is and what a polyclinic is. In the icy water in Karelia, together with the kayak, we turned over, we eat everything from the adult table, we crack chocolate, strawberries, citrus fruits, canned food, ice cream. Diathesis and allergies are not familiar to us.

In the kindergarten, even when almost everyone is sick, ours walks (healthy). The older four children were sick in childhood in proportion to vaccination. The more complete the vaccination, the more sick. Based on my own experience of raising five children and the experience of personally interviewed acquaintances (and among them there are parents of post-vaccination disabled people), I am ready to subscribe to the words of the famous doctor Prafulla Vijaykar "Vaccinations are the greatest killer of children ... A child is born healthy. Vaccinations make him sick. Everything we have seen in our practice how the most serious illnesses begin after vaccinations ... "