One thing is for sure, many would rather die before they had to witness the death, dismemberment, or brain damage of a loved one, especially when it comes to their children.
Today, we face a growing hysteria over whether or not to vaccinate your children, or yourself for that matter. We even see our own government pushing for laws making getting vaccinations mandatory.
The amount of blogs, tweets, and comments railing against those who choose not to vaccinate has reached a truly fevered pitch. It is most interesting to note that the greater level of paranoia, emotionalism, and hysterics is coming from the pro-vaccine side. I hope to do a series of blog posts on the issue of vaccines; I'm thinking somewhere around 5 will suffice.
To begin, I'll start with a sort of ontology of vaccines and then proceed from there.
Formally, ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. This will not be an exhaustive ontological look at vaccines, but instead I will attempt to the lay the groundwork for the later posts in this series as to what they are, why they're used, and what they mean for us as a society.
It is imperative that terms and beliefs are defined when debating anything of value. Nowhere is this more relevant today than in the issue of vaccines.
Both sides believe they are doing the best for their families.
Both sides believe they are adhering to scientific truth.
Most people believe that getting a vaccine protects them from a targeted disease.
Most people have been led to believe that without vaccines, our world would be overrun by rampant, deadly sickness.
There are a vast number though, doctors and scientists included, who say quite the contrary. This group, of which I am included, say that vaccines actually promote the disease they purport to cure and that they are the very last thing we should be giving our children. We would tell you that disease runs it course despite any vaccinations, and there are much better ways in dealing with sickness than inoculating oneself with dead or live viruses.
What is the truth?
Both sides can't be right.
One major thing that is true is that when someone holds to a specific idea about what is morally right, in many cases it is wrong for them to violate their own conscience. This would of course be in matters that cannot be 100% nailed down as it were, such as eating meat.
If someone believes it is wrong to eat meat, it is wrong for them to violate their conscience. Now we can talk with them, even try to persuade them differently, but at the end of the day it would be wrong to cast aspersions on those who feel that way. It would certainly be heinously wrong to fabricate a law that forces them to break said conscience belief.
Obviously, things like murder would not fall into this category. It is wrong to murder no matter one's personal feeling on it.
This idea is beautifully spelled out by the Apostle Paul when he wrote his letter to the Romans. In chapter 14 he is speaking about presumptuous sin and the differences people have over particular beliefs. He uses the issue of eating meat and says this:
But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. Romans 14:23
When it comes to vaccinations, if someone feels they are doing the very best thing for their children by having them vaccinated, then for them to do otherwise would be morally wrong since they would be violating their own conscience. They would not be rejecting the vaccine "from faith".
.jpg)
This is of course equally true for those like myself who do not believe the best thing for my children is a plethora of vaccinations.
Now, as I said, somebody is wrong here. It will indeed be my strongest endeavor to persuade you that vaccines are inherently dangerous and far from the best thing for your children. If you are already in agreement with me, then you will benefit from a further encouraging of your position. The point I am making thus far is that when it comes to what is right with regards to protecting our families, not only are we bound to our own conscience as dutiful parents, we are in no way bound to serve a totalitarian government who would seek to mandate the how and why of our method of protection. The very last thing we would ever want is a government who is forcing medical procedures upon us, especially harmful inoculations.
If you have ever heard the name Edward Jenner it would usually be associated with the very first vaccine. As the story goes, he had heard from milkmaids that when someone contracted cowpox they were subsequently immune to smallpox. It was 1796, and acting upon nothing more than this "old wives tale", he drew out some pustules from the cowpox lesions on a milkmaid named Sarah Nelmes , and then he injected it into an eight year old boy named James Phipps. James came down with a slight fever, but nothing more. After a few days he then injected the boy with smallpox. Nothing happened. He gave him another smallpox injection, and still nothing happened.
From there he began to write many thesis' and develop ways of vaccinating people. The practice was originally called "cowpoxing" but eventually took on the name of vaccination after the word "vacca" which means cow.
Despite strong resistance from many of his colleagues who had seen smallpox follow directly after cowpox, the procedure caught on rapidly and before long vast populations were being vaccinated with even governments in both England and America mandating the practice.
You see, there was one major and generally unacknowledged drawback to vaccination - those inoculated could and did spread smallpox creating more deaths than there would have been naturally.
Now before Edward Jenner developed his vaccination process, the idea of it had already been in practice by way of a more base practice called variolation. It had to do with inoculating oneself with smallpox by scratching it into your skin. The idea was that you could do this at a time and place that was more suitable to you being sick, and then you would have less chance of contracting it at a less opportune time. It was only afforded by the wealthy.
I found an article from 1764 written in a magazine of the day called The Gentlemen's Magazine and Historical Chronicle. It is from volume 34, page 333 and is entitled "The Practice of Inoculation Truly Stated".
The author recognized that smallpox was a contagious disease and that the practice of variolation would create new vectors to spread it.
He compared the smallpox deaths in the 38 years before the introduction of variolation to the 38 years after, and found that smallpox deaths had increased not decreased. He was forced to conclude that variolation on the whole, led to worse problems, because it caused more deaths than lives saved.
Here is an excerpt from his article:
"It is incontestably like the plague a contagious disease, what tends to stop the progress of the infection tends to lessen the danger that attends it; what tends to spread the contagion, tends to increase that danger; the practice of Inoculation manifestly tends to spread the contagion, for a contagious disease is produced by Inoculation where it would not otherwise have been produced; the place where it is thus produced becomes a center of contagion, whence it spreads not less fatally or widely than it would spread from a center where the disease should happen in a natural way; these centers of contagion are manifestly multiplied very greatly by Inoculation ."
This voice from history is a literal echo of what we see today. A vector in the world of disease describes a new transmission of a particular virus from one host to another.
Vectors are created by vaccinating people with live viruses. There is just no getting around it.
Despite massive failure of not only the variolation process before him, but Jenner's own vaccination procedure, Edward Jenner published reports and articles stating that his technique would provide lifelong immunization from smallpox.
This was literally laughed at by most professional doctors because they could have told him of thousands of cases where cowpox led to smallpox.
Nevertheless, Jenner's vaccination process began to be used widely due to the acceptance of it by the right number of people within the medical profession.
This, despite the reports rolling in right from the beginning of vaccination failure.
In a book written in 1889 by a man named Charles Creighton called "Jenner and Vaccination", on pp. 95-96 we read this:
" In 1799, Mr. Drake vaccinated a number of children with cowpox matter obtained from Edward Jenner. The children were then tested by being inoculated with smallpox to see if the cowpox procedure had been effective. All of them developed smallpox, and vaccination failed to protect any of them. Jenner received the report but decided to ignore the results because they were not in support of his theory."
In 1900, G. W. Harman, MD, writing in 'Medical Brief: A Monthly Journal of Scientific Medicine and Surgery' in vol. 28 on p. 84 in an article entitled “A Physician’s Argument Against the Efficacy of Virus Inoculation,” said,
"Every recruit that enters the French army is vaccinated. During the Franco-Prussian war there were twenty-three thousand four hundred and sixty-nine cases of small-pox in that army. The London Lancet of July 15, 1871 said: Of nine thousand three hundred and ninety-two small-pox patients in London hospitals, six thousand eight hundred and fifty-four had been vaccinated. Seventeen and one-half per cent of those attacked died. In the whole country more than one hundred and twenty-two thousand vaccinated persons have suffered from small-pox . . . Official returns from Germany show that between 1870 and 1885 one million vaccinated persons died from small-pox. "
One more historical event well worth mentioning is the case of a large English town called Leicester. In this town in the 1880's the government had pushed very hard for vaccinations through the use of fines and even jail time. Concerns over vaccine safety, effectiveness, and governmental infringement on personal liberty and freedom through compulsory vaccination stoked the fires of the anti-vaccine movement. People began to resist the government and chose to pay fines. Some even accepted imprisonment rather than allowing vaccination for themselves or their children. The public backlash culminated in the great demonstration in Leicester England, in 1885. That same year Leicester’s government was replaced with a new government that was opposed to compulsory vaccination. By 1887, the vaccination coverage rates had dropped to 10%
Instead of relying on vaccination, people began to rely on proper sanitation, quarantine of smallpox patients and thorough disinfection of their homes. They believed this technique was a cheap and effective means that eliminated the need for vaccination. However, there were dire predictions from the majority of the medical community that strongly endorsed vaccination and believed the low vaccination rate would result in a terrible “massacre,” especially in the “unprotected” children.
You can read all about this in an archived article entitled “A Demonstration Against Vaccination,” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, April 16, 1885, p. 380.
The prophecy that the Leicester residents would eventually be plagued with disaster never did come to pass. Low vaccination rates resulted in lower smallpox rates and deaths, than in well-vaccinated towns.
In fact, the lower vaccination rates correlated to an overall decrease in smallpox deaths.
Leicester showed that by abandoning vaccination in favor of what became termed as the “Leicester Method,” deaths from smallpox were far lower than when vaccination rates were high.
The experience of unvaccinated Leicester is an eye-opener to the people and an eye-sore to the pro-vaccinists the world over. Here was a great manufacturing town having a population of nearly a quarter of a million, which had demonstrated by a crucial test of an experience extending over a period of more than a quarter of a century, that an unvaccinated population has been far less susceptible to small-pox and far less afflicted by that disease since it abandoned vaccination than it was at a time when ninety-five per cent of its births were vaccinated and its adult population were re-vaccinated.
Now, before you jump to conclusions and chalk all this up to primitive medicine, let's have a look at today's statistics, with emphasis on measles.
As one of many examples involving all infectious diseases of childhood against which vaccines have been developed, ever since any measles vaccines have been introduced and used in mass proportions, reports of outbreaks and epidemics of measles in even 100% vaccinated populations started filling pages in medical journals.
Reports of serious reactions including deaths also appeared with increasing frequency.
One of the most informed, scholarly, and effective advocates for rejecting vaccines is Dr Viera Scheibner (PhD). I would like very much to read her book called "Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research", but it starts at 100 bucks used on Amazon, and I'm not ready to pay that right now.
However, we have much of her articles and lectures online to enjoy and I want to draw from that briefly.
The measles vaccination in the US and many other countries started in the early 1960s, at the time when measles was naturally abating and was heading for the 18 year low. That’s why the vaccine seemingly lowered the incidence; however, this was only coincidental with the natural dynamics of measles. When highlighting these facts in an article, Dr. Scheibner provides a handy graph to show this. In the UK, by the time the measles vaccination was introduced in 1963, measles was already on a steady decline.
It is less well known to the general public that vaccinated children started developing an especially vicious form of measles, due to the altered host immune response caused by the deleterious effect of the measles vaccines. It resisted all orthodox treatment and carried a high mortality rate.
It has become known as atypical measles. (AMS)
Record keepers Rauh and Schmidt (1965) described nine cases of AMS which occurred in 1963 during a measles epidemic in Cincinnati. The authors followed 386 children who had received three doses of killed measles virus vaccine in 1961. Of these 386 children, 125 had been exposed to measles and 54 developed it [i.e. measles].
The new, atypical measles, occurring in the vaccinated was characterised by high fever, unusual rash and pneumonia, often with history of vaccination with killed measles vaccine.
Rauh and Schmidt (1965) concluded that, “It is obvious that three injections of killed vaccine had not protected a large percentage of children against measles when exposed within a period of two-and-a-half years after immunization”.
Massive outbreaks of measles in vaccinated children have continued and intensified to this day. Contemporary observations of the ineffectiveness of vaccination indicate that the incidence of measles has increased and has not continued decreasing as it did for some 100 years before any type of measles vaccination was introduced.
Conrad et al. (1971) published a report about the dynamics of measles in the US in the last four years and conceded that measles was on the increase and that “eradication, if possible, now seems far in the future”.
Barratta et al. (1970) investigated an outbreak in Florida from December 1968 to February 1969 and found little difference in the incidence of measles in vaccinated and unvaccinated children.
Right through the 1980s, measles outbreaks in fully vaccinated children have continued all over the US and all other countries with high vaccination rates all over the world.
Robertson et al. (1992) wrote that in 1985 and 1986, 152 measles outbreaks in US school-age children occurred among persons who had previously received measles vaccine. “Every 2-3 years, there is an upsurge of measles irrespective of vaccination compliance”.
To cap it all: the wholly unvaccinated Amish (they claim religious exemption) had not reported a single case of measles between 1970 and December 1987, for 18 years (Sutter et al. 1991). It is almost certain that a similar situation would have applied to outside communities without any vaccination and that measles vaccination had actually kept measles alive and kicking. According to Hedrich (1933), there is a variety of dynamics of measles occurrence, from 2-3 years to up to 18 years, as later also witnessed by the unvaccinated Amish.
Additionally, the vaccine-rejecting Amish have zero cases of Autism, a fact we will revisit in our subsequent articles within this blog series.
Hopefully, by now you may be taking a step back and re-thinking your view of vaccines. Is it possible that the recent outbreak of measles at Disneyland stemmed directly from the use of the MMR vaccination? Is it possible? If we're honest, I believe the answer is yes, and if it is at least possible, you then owe it to your family to do your due diligence and research the truth and the very best options for your children.
We really are discussing what is the best for our babies. If I choose to visit Africa, I may entertain the idea of a vaccine or two. The thing is, I'm not going to Africa, and I am sure not taking my children. We are injecting huge amounts of noxious viruses into our babies. I assure you, this is not good.
DPT is one such class of vaccination.
DPT (also DTP and DTwP) refers to a class of combination vaccines against three infectious diseases in humans: diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), and tetanus. The vaccine components include diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and killed whole cells of the organism that causes pertussis.
On record, is the reality that when Japan began suffering mass numbers of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), they delayed the point at which DPT was administered.
Delay of DPT immunisation until 2 years of age in Japan resulted in a dramatic decline in adverse side effects. In the period of 1970-1974, when DPT vaccination was begun at 3 to 5 months of age, the Japanese national compensation system paid out claims for 57 permanent severe damage vaccine cases, and 37 deaths.
During the ensuing six year period 1975-1980, when DPT injections were delayed to 24 months of age, severe reactions from the vaccine were reduced to a total of eight with three deaths.
This represents an 85 to 90 percent reduction in severe cases of damage and death!
Dr. Vera Scheibner and her husband electrochemical engineer Leif Karlsson invented the CotWatch breathing monitor for babies who are diagnosed “at risk” for SIDS, or “Cot Death” as it is known in Australia. Over the next three years, the couple monitored hundreds of babies and studied the event reports that their CotWatch produced. In a scientific study of SIDS, episodes of apnea (cessation of breathing) and hypopnea (abnormally shallow breathing) were measured before and after DPT vaccinations. "Cotwatch" (a precise breathing monitor) was used, and the computer printouts it generated (in integrals of the weighted apnea-hypopnea density -- WAHD) were analyzed. The data clearly shows that vaccination caused an extraordinary increase in episodes where breathing either nearly ceased or stopped completely. These episodes continued for months following vaccinations. The Scheibners concluded that "vaccination is the single most prevalent and most preventable cause of infant deaths.
Another brilliant woman, Dr. Suzanne Humphries, who left her 300,000 dollar a year profession to be a researcher has written a wealth of information from which we may be informed.
I strongly recommend getting her book, "Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History". Just click the link.
Without going into the deeper data there, I want to highlight some particular revelations she came to.
"In my research, I was startled [to realize] that what I found was completely counter to what I have been told and taught my entire life. I now don't believe that smallpox vaccines eradicated smallpox. I now don't believe that polio vaccines eradicated polio.
The stories are very twisted, long, and complicated, and the vaccines have changed over time. It's very easy to throw up smokescreens here and there and make whatever argument one might want to, because people are so ignorant and because the story is so complicated."
I for one do not want to remain ignorant of the subject of vaccines. One thing Dr. Humphries also said is that we cannot simply dabble in the subject of vaccines. It is all or nothing. We must have information and we have to have knowledge. We have to understand the history, the medical literature, the biology, the chemistry, the physiology, and the immunology. That is not easy. You cannot dabble in the topic of vaccination. If you do, you're likely going to be toppled by the pro-vaccine lobby because they're doing their homework.
I trust you have benefited from this article. My hope is that it has spurred you to think more deeply about what it means to vaccinate someone, and what the very best course of action to take really is.
Stay tuned for more in depth study of the many facets of this crucial issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment