It's so easy to believe the lie that there is protection in antibodies that are created by shots called vaccines. People want to believe that lie. The truth is, the protection is all cellular and that protection is fully developed by experiencing a natural exposure to the pathogen through its normal entry method that is usually through the epithelial barrier involving cellular receptors. When that happens, fully robust antibodies to ALL parts of the invader, and the memory to quickly remake them will be there as a backup if the cellular protection fails in the future. You can't get that kind of protection with shots. In fact, there are known mechanisms whereby the shots destroy the cellular protection. The problem is, if people are scared enough of natural exposures, they will still run out to get a shot. And big pharma knows that, and will continue to stoke the fear. https://rumble.com/v4wx7fi-the-power-of-antibodies-unveiling-the-truth-behind-artificial-immunization.html
It's well known by anybody paying attention that the purported smallpox "vaccine" was a fraud from the get-go; it never worked to stop infection or transmission and its adverse effects were devastating. The idea that although it didn't work for smallpox but somehow magically works for monkeypox is ridiculous. I've learned the medical journals can't be trusted about anything -- former editors of the biggest journals log ago admitted the journals have been corrupted by Big Pharma, which finances them. I suspect the recent paper touting the smallpox vaccine as somehow being protective against monkeypox is more of the same: yet another false paper attempting to shore up vaccines by pretending they're effective when in fact most or all are highly toxic. The fact the powers-that-be refuse to test any vaccine against a truly inert placebo should tell anyone willing and able to think about it that "vaccines" are inherently dangerous -- and a good place to start for people wanting to know more is the book "Turtles All the Way Down."
The original vaccines for smallpox were not injections. Those came fairly late in the game in fact. Rather, the originals were pricks smeared with the pox solution; I had 2 of those before the injection variety. That immunity should be somewhat stronger, I would think, since it involved absorbing the actual pox into my body somewhat more naturally, more like normal infection transmission.
Dr. McCullough and others have reported on the failure of smallpox vaccination in preventing smallpox, citing fatal infections from such things as syphilis due to contamination. The contamination came from the crude way of obtaining the serum. However, I have not heard him speak of the benefit of the vaccine obtained using modern techniques. Granted, there were no smallpox outbreaks at the time I received my smallpox vaccine and one could say the risk of adverse effects outweighed any benefit at the time. But the question I have yet to hear Dr. McCullough answer is, did the smallpox vaccine eradicate smallpox in any part of the world? When was the last known case of smallpox?
I have had FOUR small-pox vaccinations since 1953 birth and over a 40-year military career. But not in a high-risk group, so I myself am not worried about this specific MPox. But GOF research scares me. I did my US Army War College thesis in 2005 on Countermeasures to bioweapons, and I didn't even consider a GOF threat. DOC ENZ, Robert W. Enzenauer, MD, MPH BG Retired
Dr. McCullough, thank you for the nice summary of the revenant article, but I was really hoping that you analyze and criticize it.
What do the studies reveal about the effectiveness of smallpox vaccination for reducing mpox transmission in people who HIV+ and detectable vs people who are HIV+ and not detectable vs people who are HIV-? Does that appear relevant to you?
It's so easy to believe the lie that there is protection in antibodies that are created by shots called vaccines. People want to believe that lie. The truth is, the protection is all cellular and that protection is fully developed by experiencing a natural exposure to the pathogen through its normal entry method that is usually through the epithelial barrier involving cellular receptors. When that happens, fully robust antibodies to ALL parts of the invader, and the memory to quickly remake them will be there as a backup if the cellular protection fails in the future. You can't get that kind of protection with shots. In fact, there are known mechanisms whereby the shots destroy the cellular protection. The problem is, if people are scared enough of natural exposures, they will still run out to get a shot. And big pharma knows that, and will continue to stoke the fear. https://rumble.com/v4wx7fi-the-power-of-antibodies-unveiling-the-truth-behind-artificial-immunization.html
It's well known by anybody paying attention that the purported smallpox "vaccine" was a fraud from the get-go; it never worked to stop infection or transmission and its adverse effects were devastating. The idea that although it didn't work for smallpox but somehow magically works for monkeypox is ridiculous. I've learned the medical journals can't be trusted about anything -- former editors of the biggest journals log ago admitted the journals have been corrupted by Big Pharma, which finances them. I suspect the recent paper touting the smallpox vaccine as somehow being protective against monkeypox is more of the same: yet another false paper attempting to shore up vaccines by pretending they're effective when in fact most or all are highly toxic. The fact the powers-that-be refuse to test any vaccine against a truly inert placebo should tell anyone willing and able to think about it that "vaccines" are inherently dangerous -- and a good place to start for people wanting to know more is the book "Turtles All the Way Down."
The original vaccines for smallpox were not injections. Those came fairly late in the game in fact. Rather, the originals were pricks smeared with the pox solution; I had 2 of those before the injection variety. That immunity should be somewhat stronger, I would think, since it involved absorbing the actual pox into my body somewhat more naturally, more like normal infection transmission.
Dr. McCullough and others have reported on the failure of smallpox vaccination in preventing smallpox, citing fatal infections from such things as syphilis due to contamination. The contamination came from the crude way of obtaining the serum. However, I have not heard him speak of the benefit of the vaccine obtained using modern techniques. Granted, there were no smallpox outbreaks at the time I received my smallpox vaccine and one could say the risk of adverse effects outweighed any benefit at the time. But the question I have yet to hear Dr. McCullough answer is, did the smallpox vaccine eradicate smallpox in any part of the world? When was the last known case of smallpox?
A better long term solution may be to stop putting your body in harms way by exposing it to known toxins.
Thank you, Dr McCullough. As always, you are a valuable source of high quality information!
I have had FOUR small-pox vaccinations since 1953 birth and over a 40-year military career. But not in a high-risk group, so I myself am not worried about this specific MPox. But GOF research scares me. I did my US Army War College thesis in 2005 on Countermeasures to bioweapons, and I didn't even consider a GOF threat. DOC ENZ, Robert W. Enzenauer, MD, MPH BG Retired
Dr. McCullough, thank you for the nice summary of the revenant article, but I was really hoping that you analyze and criticize it.
What do the studies reveal about the effectiveness of smallpox vaccination for reducing mpox transmission in people who HIV+ and detectable vs people who are HIV+ and not detectable vs people who are HIV-? Does that appear relevant to you?