Shouldn’t the after-effects of vaccination be discussed before?

General Information

The following two articles, written in 2001 & 2009 are basic overviews on the subject of vaccination. I hope they will act as a useful starting point in your quest to expand your knowledge on this subject. These days there is a vast amount of information now readily available compared to the early 1990s when I first started my research into this subject. There was no internet or emails readily available back then and it meant visits to medical libraries, ordering specialist books, attending lectures, writing numerous letters and making many phone calls.
Ultimately it is for you to come to your own decision and make the right choice for you and your family.
I hope you will find this website useful.
Magda Taylor, Director and editor, The Informed Parent


By Magda Taylor, April 2001

Vaccination is a procedure that most of us do not think to question, even when becoming a new parent. Officials from the health department often state that the vast majority of parents have their babies vaccinated, which is true. However this statement does not reflect the main reason behind such a high uptake. Most parents take their children to be vaccinated in the belief that the procedure and all the many vaccines on offer must be extremely safe and effective. As a first-time mother, about 13 years ago, it didn’t even cross my mind to look into this issue, instead I diligently reported to my surgery for all of my baby’s vaccinations.

Parents naturally want their babies to be safe, healthy and assume that it is essential to ‘protect’ their children from the numerous virus and bacteria that surround us. Fear of the germ has been propagated since Louis Pasteur came up with the ‘Germ Theory of Disease’ and this belief system has flourished since. It is interesting to note that Pasteur, himself, declared on his death-bed that ‘the seed (germ) is nothing, the soil (body) is everything’.

It wasn’t until my second child was 12 months old that I started to investigate this subject, which was triggered by a 2-page article entitled ‘Vaccination The Hidden Facts’. I began to wade my way through a great deal of literature on this, what I would now term, highly questionable procedure.

The subject is vast and impossible to cover in this article, but I would like to focus on a few important points that are often neglected.

One important aspect that is rarely raised is the procedure itself. Parents are often told that receiving a vaccine is like having a mild dose of the disease. This is totally incorrect as in normal circumstances virus or bacteria enter the human system through the mouth or nose, triggering a natural immune response. By vaccinating, our first line of defence, the skin, is punctured and the vaccine is introduced directly into the body by-passing one branch of the immune system entirely.

In recent years, because of the growth in knowledge on the immune system, there has been a growing concern amongst some scientists that wrongly stimulating the immune system could lead to a skewed system. The implications of skewing the Th1/Th2 immunity is explained simply by Hilary Butler, a vaccine researcher. She explains – ‘The Th1 system is the “search and destroy” defence of the body and “sets in motion a clear sequence of events which have the focus of ‘find that thing, collect it, show us what it is and at the same time destroy it”.

The Th2 is the other side of the linking circle. It is called humoral immunity, and takes place further down the line than cellular (Th1) immunity. About the same time as the Th1 immune system is surrounding, killing and getting rid of the problem, particles of the ‘problem’ are being presented to the cells which make antibodies. In order for there to be a long-lasting antibody response, there must be a strong Th1 response. These immune responses work hand-in-hand, but a healthy immune system is Th1 focused, since “search and destroy” is the most needed capacity of the immune system in every day life.

Vaccines injected into babies do not in any way, shape or form resemble an inhaled or swallowed germ because they are changed, attenuated, and injected as multi-antigens into the body. Consequently, because of the by-passing of the Th1 branch of the system there is over-stimulation of the Th2 branch, which teaches the body to be in a chronically reactive mode. People who have allergies, asthma and auto-immune disease have what is known as a Th2-skewed immune system.

So it is important to bear this in mind when deciding on any one of the injectable vaccines on offer, as they will all trigger this unnatural response to take place.

Antibody production must also be questioned because parents are led to believe that if their child is vaccinated they will develop a certain level of antibodies and therefore be protected. This again is incorrect. Whilst it is true that antibodies play a role in immunity, even the World Health Organisation admit that antibody level does not equal protection. In other words some individuals with high levels of antibodies can still develop disease. So when the statement is made that a vaccine ‘takes’ on 90-95% of its recipients, this simply means that the majority will develop a certain level of antibodies. This should not be misconstrued to mean that the majority will be ‘protected’, as many outbreaks of disease occur in highly vaccinated populations.

Another area which is often greatly overlooked are the contents of the vaccines. Many parents go to great lengths to study the ingredients of baby foods, drinks and toiletries and yet rarely question what products are being injected into their babies bodies.

Highly toxic substances such as mercury, aluminium and formaldehyde, along with various animal and bird products are commonly used in vaccine manufacturing. The use of tissue from other species will always carry the risk of contamination, and this is not theoretical, as even in the 1950s the use of monkey kidney cells in the polio vaccine were found to be contaminated by a cancer-causing monkey virus, SV40.

The above points are just the tip of an enormous iceberg but I hope this will give you a thirst for finding out more and reaching a decision you feel confident with. Reactions are not so rare, but the reporting of them is, and there are many health problems emerging amongst today’s children which appear to stem from a weakened immune system.

Do vaccines play any role in making our children healthy? It’s for you to find out.


By Magda Taylor, August 2009

Over the last eighteen years I have been researching the subject of vaccination, and I have been asked on a number of occasions to write an article about the subject. It is an enormous subject and I used to find it difficult in deciding what aspects to cover.

However, these days I have reached a point of simplicity, as regards to talking or writing about vaccination, as I feel that a lot of energy can be used up questioning aspects, such as: What do vaccines contain? Are single vaccines safer than combination ones? Are some vaccines useful? Are the pharmaceutical companies just in it for the money? – and so on.

Keeping it simple for me, means just looking at the basic questions surrounding health and disease, and whether vaccination plays any positive role in the matter.

Parents often ask me for advice as to whether they should go ahead with the vaccinations, and I always stress that they must come to their own conclusion, provided it is based on a wide range of study, alongside their gut feeling. Firstly, I encourage them to look at the main theory that vaccination is based on, ie the germ theory of disease. When you look thoroughly at the main theories which form the foundation of vaccination, you may come to view germs and disease in a different way resulting in other concerns of the issue becoming irrelevant.

What do I mean by this? Well, if you come to the conclusion that germs are NOT the cause of disease then the idea of vaccination does not make sense. Even if vaccines were 100% safe and did not contain substances, such as, aluminium, mercury, formaldehyde, and animal and bird tissue, what would be the point in trying to protect yourself and your family from specific germs when they are not the cause? In other words the philosophy behind vaccination is flawed right from the start, therefore trying to ‘protect’ from something that is NOT the cause is completely inappropriate.

When I first embarked on this subject I had almost no knowledge on the subject, I probably shared similar views to the majority of people. Sadly, the majority share the view that vaccination has wiped out diseases like smallpox and polio, and is on its way to eradicating all those childhood infections, such as, whooping cough, measles and mumps. I recall a pro-immunisation doctor stating that most parents have their children vaccinated to which I agreed, but I had to point out to him that most parents hold this view not due to any study of the subject, but mostly out of absolute faith that the medical professionals must know what they are doing, and that the procedure and all the vaccines must be extremely safe and effective. Many are under the illusion that if we stop vaccinating we will return to the ‘dark ages’ and disease will once again become rife.

In 1988, when I became a mother for the first time, it did not even cross my mind to look into the pros and cons of vaccination, instead I diligently reported to my surgery with my baby daughter for all of the vaccinations that were due. I do not believe that any parent likes to take their baby to be vaccinated because there is an instinctive feeling that you are betraying your baby’s trust by handing them over to a stranger, who then proceeds to stick a needle into one or two of their limbs – unexpectedly. Most babies do cry at that moment, however, the mantra that is frequently chanted at new parents ‘that a few moments of pain will mean a lifetime of protection’ can be very effective, especially if you have minimal knowledge and are swayed by the fear that is often projected on to you by the health professionals.

It wasn’t until my second daughter was coming up to 12 months old that I started to investigate this subject, which was triggered by a two-page article featured in a September 1991 edition of the London Evening Standard supplement entitled ‘Vaccination – The Hidden Facts’ by journalist Andrew Tyler. I began to wade my way through a great deal of literature, attend lectures, and discuss the subject with various individuals, including some medical professionals.

A year later The Informed Parent was set up by four concerned mothers, including myself. The main aim being to encourage parents to look into the subject before they make a decision about whether or not to allow their children to receive all the recommended vaccines. I can only say that in all the years I have been studying the subject I have never had any doubt arise that, maybe vaccination has some positive effects on the body. The more research I participated in, the more I became totally convinced that there were no health benefits from this procedure at all. I have now come to the point where I would not even consider vaccination as an option, as in my opinion it will do absolutely nothing to enhance a baby, child or adult’s health.

Yes, vaccines may be tolerated if you are reasonably healthy, but other than that, I believe that they can only have a negative effect on your well-being. This may be very minimal, just taking the edge off your health or it may be to a greater degree. The effects are obviously very dependent on the individual’s constitution and lifestyle. So why then would we want to risk tolerating vaccination if the theories behind it are erroneous?

George Bernard Shaw, who was an anti-vaccinist, as well as a well-known author and playwright, said that if Pasteur’s germ theory were true there would be no one alive to believe it.

We are all teeming with microscopic life from the day we are created to the day we depart. At any given time many bacterial forms could be isolated from our bodies and yet we are not sick. Many of us will be carrying the meningococcal bacteria or the pneumococcal bacteria but most of us do not go on to develop meningitis because we are relatively healthy. These types of disease are diseases of a compromised system, they do not just strike randomly – there will be underlying reasons.

The presence of a variety of bacteria does not automatically mean that you will develop a disease. There are numerous examples in scientific literature highlighting various doctors and scientists of the past who would swallow large quantities of bacteria to prove to their academic colleagues that germs do not make you sick if you maintain a healthy internal environment.

At the time of Louis Pasteur, another academic by the name of Claude Bernard apparently, in amidst of a group of physicians and scientists, stated: ‘The terrain (meaning the internal soil of the body) is everything; the germ is nothing,’ and then drank down a glass of water filled with cholera to prove his point. It has also been written that on Pasteur’s deathbed he admitted that Bernard was right regarding the germ theory, but this seems to have been completely ignored and Pasteur came to be known as the Father of Germ Theory.

Numerous books have been written on Pasteur’s life and his experiments which highlight many concerns regarding the quality of Pasteur’s work. In 1995 Professor Geison of the Historical Institute, University of Princeton, USA, wrote a book entitled “The Private Science of Louis Pasteur” after reviewing over 10,000 pages of Pasteur’s diaries. He reported that if the results of Pasteur’s experiments did not live up to his expectations, he modified his experiments until they provided the outcome desired to prove his ideas. This means in simple terms that theories based on Pasteur’s experiments, such as, ‘immunity’ ‘immune protection’, ’immune defence’ and ‘antibody’ are based on false premises.

There have been many scientists over the years, before and after Bernard, who have reached similar views on germ theory, and I would highly recommend you look at the writings of, for example, Bechamp, Enderlein, Nassens and Rife, to name a few. This is such an important area to grasp and makes studying vaccination a much easier task.

My own definition for immunity is simply health, and the best way to have good immunity (health) is to strive for healthy living habits.

Whilst much has been written about the obvious importance of a good healthy diet, reasonable physical exercise and reasonable living conditions for achieving a higher level of health and vitality, an area that is often forgotten is the importance of sound and stable emotional nourishment. You could be eating a fairly good diet, organic and wholesome, you could be taking some regular exercise, but if there are emotional stresses that lead to negative thinking, this will undoubtedly have an effect on your body. In more recent years this aspect has been addressed from a more scientific view. One such scientist, who started to question much of his orthodox training, Bruce Lipton PhD, now lectures on the subject of how our own thoughts, the way we personally perceive any given situation will have an effect on our physiology. If we chose to look negatively at every thing we are actually weakening the cells of our body and making ourselves susceptible to disease. A positive outlook and, most importantly, a positive belief system will go a long way to keeping your body in ease rather than dis-ease. It is easy to fall into bad habits of always thinking the worse, and any kind of negative thoughts, for example, hatred, jealousy, unforgiveness, and so on, can deplete your vitality and effect your internal chemistry. To find out more about this aspect a good starting point would be to read Bruce Lipton’s book: ‘The Biology of Belief’. For those of you who would like to learn more about how to promote healthy thinking a particularly interesting writer I have found very useful is Dr Wayne Dyer. Much of Dyer’s writing/philosophy is, in a sense, things we already know deep down inside, but which have been buried by all the hype and propaganda by so-called ‘experts’ that is thrust upon us daily through the media. There is always room for improvement for all of us, and when one starts to shift in to a positive thought pattern the rewards are very likely to be success, happiness and good health.

I no longer believe that you can be immune to disease in the sense that has been promoted for numerous years. It is said that over generations we become immune to certain diseases, that we may pass on immunity, or that we become immune after developing certain diseases. However, if this were true than why do some people develop the same disease two or three times over? Also, I feel absolutely certain that if we returned back to living in the same conditions as, for example, London in the late 1800s, then we would gradually witness the rise in smallpox, tuberculosis, scarlet fever, diphtheria, measles and so on, regardless of whether we’re supposedly immune or not. These diseases declined and became less severe due to increased health in the population. This was achieved mostly by improved living conditions and sanitation, better nutrition. So the following generation inherited better health from their parents, and grandparents, which then led the next generation to be healthier resulting in less disease. They had better health passed on to them by the previous generation, that was the immunity they gained. This inherited health (immunity) should have continued to increase in strength had the world populations not been bombarded by the increasing number of vaccinations and suppressive medications that have been introduced, particularly over the last sixty years. This interference in the progression of natural health has sadly resulted in more compromised individuals. Young parents are not passing on such good immunity (health) on to their offspring as they themselves have mostly been vaccinated and medicated throughout their youth and this may be resulting in skewed immune systems. Recent generations are now developing more chronic disease than before, and also at earlier ages, rather than just going through a few acute childhood diseases instead. From a holistic, naturopathic point of view this would be due to their inability to throw a good fever and go through a typical childhood disease. These acute illnesses are viewed as the body’s way of eliminating surplus toxins that have been building up within the child. The body’s intelligence deliberately starts the process of elimination which may result in a rash disease or mucus discharge to clear out the system and put it back into a state of ease rather than leave it in a state of dis-ease.

Children with good health will not develop much acute disease, if they are particularly healthy they may only need to have minimal disease, maybe a 24 – 48 hour fever and some mucus, and this will be enough to clear them out. They may never need to develop, for example, full blown measles. A less healthy child will obviously produce stronger symptoms of disease as they have more toxic matter to be removed from the body and this will result in a lengthier process. Either way, if the acute is allowed to run its course and not be suppressed, the result is likely to be a much healthier child after the disease is resolved. I would like to stress I am referring to acute childhood illness, not diseases of a compromised system, such as meningitis, which I mentioned earlier on in this article.

These days it is more difficult to establish the level of health the average child has. How do we define health? A parent may consider that their child is healthy because they are never ill. This is not necessarily the case – absence of symptoms of disease does not automatically mean health. If a child has been fully vaccinated, received regular doses of fever suppressants, had a less healthy diet, little exercise, and so on, then this will result in a compromised system. A child in this category may not even have the vitality to throw a good fever and start off the process of elimination. Instead the toxins that are accumulating in their system will build up to a point where more chronic conditions will start to emerge. There have been huge increases in, for example, allergies, asthma, juvenile diabetes, mental disorders, various learning difficulties and more chronic disease over the last fifty years, and many researchers who have become concerned by the vaccination procedure are convinced that the growth in these type of conditions are the result of the many vaccines a child receives in its early years.

I have only touched lightly on one of the main foundations of vaccination in this article in the hope that it will inspire you to start to look at the whole health and disease story from a different angle, then you can decide for yourself if vaccination provides any benefits. There are flaws in all the aspects of vaccination, and we can certainly see that in the developed countries of the world where ‘health care’ systems have been established, and vaccines and medications are regularly used, there is an increase in more chronic and long lasting sickness, rather than creating extremely healthy populations.

As the late Dr Robert Mendelsohn stated: ‘Have we traded mumps and measles for cancer and leukaemia?’

The views expressed on this website and in the newsletter are not necessarily those of The Informed Parent Co. Ltd. We are simply bringing these various viewpoints to your attention. We neither recommend nor advise against vaccination. This organisation is non-profit making.