Efficacy and Effectiveness
Here, we clearly delineate the term "efficacy" from "effectiveness." Efficacy is defined as "the power to bring about a desired result" and medical authorities have previously established an association for this term. To them, the "result" indicates either "a decrease in the circulation of a particular bacteria or virus" or "the production of antibodies."

Instead, we have gathered documentation indicating that vaccines are not "effective." In relation to the subject of vaccination, WAVE uses the term "effective," in a broader sense, meaning both "not preventing disease" and also "not producing an overall healthful effect on humanity."

For instance, if a disease is so harmless that vaccination is deemed unnecessary, it cannot be valued -- especially when considering the vaccine risks -- as "effective." If a disease is found to be, in fact, beneficial to the development and maturation of human immune systems(1), any prevention of the disease through the use of vaccination cannot be thought of as "effective." Also, although pharmaceutical and medical industries have been quick to claim false triumph, improvements in sanitation, clean water supplies, personal hygeine and nutrition were largely responsible for declines in disease incidence and mortality. The criteria in which drug companies determine a vaccine is 70% "effective" (or some such percentage) can also be completely inappropriate (both in terms of "effectiveness" and "efficacy"). ...more

Efficacy and Effectiveness
Here, we clearly delineate the term "efficacy" from "effectiveness." Efficacy is defined as "the power to bring about a desired result" and medical authorities have previously established an association for this term. To them, the "result" indicates either "a decrease in the circulation of a particular bacteria or virus" or "the production of antibodies."

Instead, we have gathered documentation indicating that vaccines are not "effective." In relation to the subject of vaccination, WAVE uses the term "effective," in a broader sense, meaning both "not preventing disease" and also "not producing an overall healthful effect on humanity."

For instance, if a disease is so harmless that vaccination is deemed unnecessary, it cannot be valued -- especially when considering the vaccine risks -- as "effective." If a disease is found to be, in fact, beneficial to the development and maturation of human immune systems(1), any prevention of the disease through the use of vaccination cannot be thought of as "effective." Also, although pharmaceutical and medical industries have been quick to claim false triumph, improvements in sanitation, clean water supplies, personal hygeine and nutrition were largely responsible for declines in disease incidence and mortality. The criteria in which drug companies determine a vaccine is 70% "effective" (or some such percentage) can also be completely inappropriate (both in terms of "effectiveness" and "efficacy").

History Shows Vaccination Had Little Effect
Examine the evidence for yourself. Vaccines contributed little to the eradication of diseases like smallpox, tetanus or polio. Ask yourself which vaccine it was that eradicated scarlet fever or the plague. There were no vaccines yet and they waned just the same. Medicine was quick to cry victory over diseases like small pox, tetanus and polio but they were all well on their way out when vaccines were introduced. One could just as easily take credit for dropping the ocean's receding tide by bailing buckets of water out it. History demonstrates that it was improvements in hygeine, sanitation, nutrition, standards of living, and water and food supply that lead to the decline of most infectious disease.

Antibodies Do NOT Mean Immunity
Drug companies conduct (their own) studies and determine effectiveness by merely measuring antibody response. This is purely an isolated technical feat and does not mean, by any measure, that a person is necessarily immune to a disease at all. Many people contract diseases they had produced antibodies against. For example, in one study, 87 subjects with naturally acquired immunity to Rubella, antibodies were not found. But in 39 our of 65 vaccinated subjects who had contracted rubella, antibodies were found. Antibody titers cannot be relied upon for proper scientific evaluation yet this is the standard method for vaccine "efficacy".

Other Faulty Methods
Described in the Federal Register, the pertussis vaccine was evaluated for potency by injection into mice, even though animal test results often to not apply to human physiology. The mice were observed for fourteen days only and "mice dying within 72 hours after challenge shall be excluded from the test" and "all mice that show both paralysis and enlargement (of the head) shall be considered as deaths for the purpose of determining the ED 50."

Disease is Good
It may take some getting used to becasue we've all been sold on faring germs and disease, but the idea that diseases are good for you is scientifically sound. Many Febrile Infectious Childhood Diseases (FICD's) are found to impart protection from more serious adult diseases like diabetes, asthma, allergies, and cancers. We are meant to process these germs and prime and mature our immune systems.

Vaccine Failures
Study the citations on this page to evaluate how effective vaccination was during outbreaks.

References:
1. "The study consistently revealed a lower cancer risk for patients with a history of FICD (febrile infectious childhood diseases)."
Albonico HU, et al Febrile Infectious Childhood Disease In The History Of Cancer Patients And Matched Controls Med Hypothesis; 51(4) 315-20 10/1/1998
Hide.