Dr Holt Treatment
Table above showing results of the study, comparing:
2 groups who had measles ("positive") and one not ("negative"),
and how many of them had certain diseases later in their life.
A study by Tove Ronne, published 1985 in The Lancet, contains clear evidence and states:
"There is a a highly significant association between ... missed measles rash and later develpoment of ... diseases ... and certain tumors"
According to the table on page 3 (“Number of Individuals With Various Diseases According To Negative Or Positive History Of Measles”), 15 people (from 252) who had not had measles, developed cancer (other than skin and cervical cancer), whereas from the control group (230 people) who had had measles, only one developed cancer.
A similar significant difference:
11 people (from 252) who had not had measles, suffered from degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, whereas from the control group (230 people) who had had measles, only one suffered fromdegenerative diseases of bone and cartilage.
The figures for cervical cancer are 8 times higher if people had not had measles: 8 (no measles group) versus only one (measles group);
sebaceous skin diseases are 6 times higher: 28 (no measles group) versus only 4 (measles group);
immunoreactive diseases are nearly 4 times higher: 19 (no measles group) versus only 5 (measles group).
The 4 page long study documents these significant findings, but does not draw any conclusions from them.
This study looks into why some people who got infected with measles did not have the typical skin rashes. They suggest, that the measles virus, if not neutralised in the skin, might go into damaged cells, resulting in "giant cell pneumonia", and that this may be associated with the various diseases listed in the table on the left.
See below for copies of the original study.
The Lancet is influencedd by the drug companies, who are not interested in this angle:
they rather promote vaccination to prevent measles in order to make profit.
Their publicity in May 2014 (injecting high doses of measles virus to destroy cancer) is based on only 2 people and suggests to use measles injections may cure cancer; wouldn't it be easier and more natural, to let measles take their course as they've done for generations, with all the significant advantages shown in the table on the left?
But there wouldn't be any profit for the shareholders of the companies producing vaccines...
Taking these benefits of measles into account, why should anyone avoid measles and choose MMR vaccination with several long term side effects (including death) instead?
Our natural immune system works very well, and together with fever usually fights infections off within a few days. And it has proven eficient in the long term, including transferring immunity through breastfeeding to babies.
Vaccines are designed to trigger short term emergency immune responses, and are normally only "tested" for a few years, and not in connection with other vaccines or environmental pollutants; some of their ingredients for prolonging the shelf life are highly controversial. Until 2016 there have been no proper scientific studies with control groups who have had no vaccines at all.
See original copies of the study and links below.
by Ralph Nimmann, Hebden Bridge, England, 5 June 2014 [edited 1 Feb 2017]
Source of the copies:
LINKS to web sites on the subject of vaccine safety and efficacyHere is a list with some web sites which are not directly or indirectly funded by the pharmaceutical corporations. All have an internal search option - for example search for MMR.
Please e-mail Ralph with your comments or suggestions.
Selected links on
w Network Cambridge /UK
The Gift of Life - a presentation | Spiritual Web Page Cambridge | Dances of Universal Peace
[ this page is www.rainbow-cambridge.org.uk/healing/measles-vaccination.htm ]
View Stats Rainbow Network - - View Stats Healing&Health