(NaturalNews) Conventional medical doctors around the world (and the drug companies that support them) want all children to be vaccinated against measles, mumps, HPV, chicken pox and literally over a hundred other diseases. Bill Gates even supports the effort to "eradicate" disease from our planet by vaccinating people in developing nations. It all sounds like a noble goal, but like any such effort, it is based on an assumption. Upon closer inspection, that assumption turns out to be nothing more than blatant quacksterism hidden behind the technical jargon of modern medicine.
What assumption am I referring to? The assumption that immune system intervention (vaccines) produces a better long-term result than immune system adaptation (allowing the person to conquer such infections on their own).
At first, it may seem like a no-brainer: Of course it's better to not get infected! Or, at least, that's the conclusion most doctors jump to without any real thought on the subject. In their minds, immune system intervention is obviously superior to immune system adaptation. And in fact they dismiss anyone who dares question this wisdom of modern vaccines. But is this assumption really true?
In other words, is it true from a scientific perspective? Do mass vaccinations for non-fatal diseases actually improve the health and lives of those who receive them?
Vaccines don't stand up to scientific scrutiny
I realize it may seem odd to invoke the laws of scientific reasoning on this issue. Vaccinations are supposed to be accepted without reason, without question
by both medical professional and the public, right? Even daring to question vaccines
is akin to questioning Darwinism in the minds of many.
But this, of course, reveals the fatal flaw of the pro-vaccine gang: They are afraid
of being questioned. They fear scientific scrutiny so much that they have to reframe the entire debate as one made up of "doctors vs. quacks" rather than one of scientific evidence (which they don't have) vs. quackery (which they have lots of).This is the strategy of the intellectually desperate.
Truth does not fear investigation, and if vaccines are so provably useful for enhancing the health of children, then doctors shouldn't mind people asking questions or even openly debating the merits of vaccination programs. And yet what you see with vaccines today is a cult-like worship of vaccines that despises scrutiny or even solid science. Vaccines are good because they tell us so, and that should be sufficient reason, we're told.
Is it their authority
that makes vaccines "scientific," not actually any real science.
So much for the scientific method when it comes to medicine, huh?
Mild infections actually IMPROVE health
Meanwhile, new research is showing that human health improves when it is EXPOSED to full-strength pathogens and infections
that force the body to activate an adaptive response.
For example, new research conducted at Nottingham University (in the UK) is studying whether infecting patients with microscopic parasites (hookworms) actually improves their body's ability to deal with multiple sclerosis. A pioneering study in Argentina showed positive results for asthma patients, demonstrating that hookworm infections invoke a healthy adaptive response in the body that tends to tame asthma.
In fact, as this Telegraph story explains (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews...
), one of the primary reasons why so many first-world citizens are getting sick with degenerative disease these days may be that people aren't exposed to enough infections
in their lives.
This "hygiene hypothesis" challenges the conventional wisdom of vaccinations, which instead believes that the human body should be denied
the experience of a full-strength infection (and the adaptive response that follows).
It is the odd belief of vaccine
promoters, in other words, that the human body is inherently incapable of dealing with infections
and must be protected through chemical intervention. This deeply-rooted lack of faith in the technology of the human body is a bedrock belief of western medicine, which prefers intervention over self care (and external solutions instead of internal ones). By sheer coincidence, this core belief also happens to maximize the profits of the drug companies and conventional medical practitioners who thrive on the revenues created through medical intervention.
The upshot of all this is the sobering realization that children need to play in the dirt
. Eating a piece of food you drop on the floor won't kill you (the five-second rule!), and there IS such as thing as being "too clean."
Are people trying to live like the Bubble Boy?
The public's strange fascination with anti-bacterial soaps (which have been widely shown to actually promote superbug populations) (http://www.naturalnews.com/022178.html
), antibiotics and vaccines shows a remarkable fear of the real world, as if people are seeking to hide inside sterilized plastic bubbles, free from the scary germs of the world.
Doctors prey upon this fear by scaring parents into thinking their child might die if they don't get them vaccinated. The germs of the world are to be feared, doctors say, not embraced. Modern medicine's "War on Germs" is a lot like George Bush's "War on Terror." It's a never-ending war against an imaginary opponent, used primarily to control people into doing what you want.
But I say this theory is fundamentally flawed. It is based on what seems
to be obvious, but in truth is far more complex. It SEEMS that protecting children from chicken pox, for example, is good for them, but in reality that intervention deprives their immune systems of the adaptive response necessary to protect against future, more serious infections.
An immune system
, much like a musculoskeletal system, needs exercise
to stay strong. When denied exposure to real pathogens, it becomes weak and lazy, depriving the person of the immune system experience needed to mature and adapt. A child deprived of chicken pox today is far more likely to be stricken by other infectious diseases in the future -- diseases for which effective vaccines will never exist.
And thus the entire belief system upon which vaccinations are based appears to be fundamentally flawed when considering non-fatal infections
. I'm not arguing that a person working in a biohazard facility shouldn't be vaccinated against Ebola or Marburg or other extremely deadly virulent strains. There is no healthy adaptive response to such aggressive, dangerous pathogens. But neither are such deadly strains any real risk to the public: They kill their victims too quickly to successfully spread throughout the population. As any CDC official will tell you, the most widespread strains of infectious disease are the weakest strains
because they can live in hosts and incubate for long enough to be transmitted to others.Children should not be vaccinated against these largely non-fatal pathogens
that actually serve an important function in the maturation of that child's immune system technology.
One child, one thousand vaccines
Today, we are over-vaccinating our children to the point of utterly ridiculousness, and some doctors are claiming the effort should be boosted to include even as many as "one thousand vaccines." The more, the merrier!
And yet this vaccination agenda, upon closer inspection, appears to be based entirely on an irrational belief in vaccines rather than a scientifically-proven benefit derived from the intervention. Science, in fact, isn't even allowed in this debate. Opponents of vaccines are screamed right out of the room before they can even raise a single point of objection.
The only science they can really quote concerns whether or not the child's body develops antibodies following the vaccine injection. This is an incredibly short-sighted view that completely disregards the long-term consequences of this immune system intervention. Then again, such short-sighted views characterize modern medicine, which essentially ignores the long-term effects of practically everything it promotes: Vaccines, pharmaceuticals, chemotherapy, radiation treatments and so on.
When science becomes gospel, it is no longer science, but just another religion framed in a different jargon. There's nothing wrong with religion, of course, but when vaccine-pushing scientists dismiss religion as being "unscientific" and then resort to precisely the same strategy of faith-based pronouncements of truth in their own work, they only demonstrate the irrational double standard upon which their agenda is based.
Vaccines are not to be questioned, period. And anyone who questions them shall be interrogated by the Church of Modern Medicine. I wonder if the ghosts of Copernicus and Galileo might have a few words to say about that? Modern medicine has become to real science what the Church of the year 1633 was to Galileo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
The Scientific Revolution
unleashed by those great minds of human history has now been all but abandoned by pushers of pharmaceutical profits at the expense of human health. Vaccines fail every scientific test of long-term safety or even efficacy, and yet they continue to be pushed as gospel by believers in the chemical interventions of modern medicine.
To call them quacks as actually missing the point. They are not actually knowingly committing fraud. Most of these doctors and health authorities actually believe
what they're doing is right. And therein lies the greater danger -- they are cult-like believers
in a system of treatment that defies scientific questioning. In their minds, the vaccine theory is beyond questioning. It is gospel. It is truth. And those who dare question it are, in their minds, lunatics from the start.
These are the obvious signs of modern medicine's dangerous descent into medical fanaticism
. Vaccine promoters are, in every way, fanatically dedicated to their irrational beliefs that intervening in the immune system in better than allowing the immune system to do its job.
And if you break this down to the essential underlying concepts, here's what it all really means:Doctors believe that THEIR technology is superior to the technology of the human immune system
Arrogance, in other words. Man is smarter than Mother Nature. Chemicals are superior to the body's own immune system nanotechnology. These beliefs characterize the gospel of modern medicine, and they simultaneously reveal a highly pessimistic view of Mother Nature.
Darwinism, Natural Selection and the fatal contradiction in western medical philosophy
One reason this is all so fascinating is because virtually all vaccine pushers also believe in Darwinism and the laws of natural selection
. Those very laws dictate that, over hundreds of thousands of years of mutation and natural selection, nature would have chosen the most fit and most biologically advanced members of the human race to survive and pass on their genes.
Thus, the human beings that survived to today are, by their own definition of natural selection, the most advanced forms of life possible within the species. We are the cream of the crop, the super-fit humans who survived while our lesser-qualified peers died and disappeared from the gene pool.
And yet, all of a sudden, by pushing vaccines, these same doctors are admitting they have NO faith in the technology of the very human beings they claim are genetically superior thanks to natural selection!
This simple example exposes the flawed philosophy of western medical scientists and doctors. Their ideas simply don't add up. Are humans genetically superior survivors possessing top-class immune system technology derived from millennia of natural selection? Or are they chemically-deficient, immune-suppressed failures of immune system technology that warrant aggressive pharmaceutical intervention?
Vaccine pushers want to have it both ways. They want you to believe your immune system is the technical equivalent of a biological supercomputer, created by countless mutations that selected for superior beings. But if you walk into a doctor's office and tell them you're a superior being with a highly advanced immune system based on hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, they'll jab you with a vaccine anyway, because they actually don't believe human beings possess any advanced immune system technology at all.
You cannot believe in Natural Selection and vaccines at the same time. Not without holding a bizarre contradiction in your own head.
Then again, modern medicine is a comedy of contradiction. And why should we expect anything different from these geniuses when it comes to the vaccine question?
Whether doctors, or students or priests, those who do not question their own beliefs are doomed to fanaticism in all its various forms.
The vaccine-pushing agenda of modern times is, in every way, a form of runaway medical fanaticism full of contradiction.
My own beliefs on this issue make a lot more sense: Mother Nature produces amazing technology, and the human immune system is one of the most advanced biological supercomputers that has ever existed on our planet
. That immune system, when properly supported, can easily overcome common infections. Vaccines are not merely unnecessary; they are a chemical assault that damages the immune system and interferes with the immune technology that should be embraced, not hijacked.
I trust Mother Nature's technology over the interventions of profit-minded doctors and drug companies, and I dismiss modern medicine's view of the human body as being ridiculously pessimistic. Modern doctors are, in a very real sense, biological "doom and gloomers" who want you to believe that, without their expensive interventions, you're doomed to die of disease.
And that's just plain bunk.
Research and sources
To support the statements in this story, I have collected over 50 quotes from health experts, authors and researchers on the subject of vaccines and the immune system. You can read that full list here: http://www.naturalnews.com/025595.html
Read those quotes to learn more about the harm of vaccines.