The Case Against Vaccines

Aids Virus by Jon Rappoport I've written articles attacking the theory and practice of vaccination from a variety of angles. But the whole issue also needs to be approached from the perspective of logic. Unfortunately, generations of people have been shut out of learning logic in school. They don't know what it is. Therefore, vaccine advocates have been able to peddle their basic theory without much challenge. It's time to put an end to that free ride. First of all, I need to point out a massive contradiction. When a person receives a vaccine, it's said that his body produces antibodies against a particular germ and this is a good thing. Vaccination thus prepares the body for the day when that germ will really make its attack, at which point the immune system (including antibodies) will mount a successful defense. However, let's look at another venue: for many diseases, when a person is given a blood test to see if he is infected, quite often the standard for infection is "presence of antibodies." This makes no sense at all. If vaccination produces those antibodies, it is heralded as protection. But if a diagnostic blood test reveals those same antibodies, it's a signal of infection and disease. Vaccine-produced antibodies=health. Antibodies naturally produced by the body=illness. Logically speaking, you resolve a contradiction by dropping one of the two sides and admitting it is false. Or you go deeper and reject some prior premise that led to the contradiction in the first place. So let's go deeper. What does vaccination supposedly do to "prepare" the body against the future invasion of a particular germ? It stimulates the production of antibodies against that germ. Antibodies are immune-system scouts that move through the body, identify germs, and paint them for destruction by other immune-system troops. However, since the entire immune system is involved in wreaking that destruction, why is bulking up one department of the immune system---antibodies---sufficient to guarantee future protection? On what basis can we infer that bulking up antibodies, through vaccination, is enough? There is no basis. It's a naked assumption. It's not a fact. Logic makes a clear distinction between assumptions and facts. Confusing the two leads to all sorts of problems, and it certainly does in the case of vaccination. Furthermore, why does the body need a vaccine in order to be prepared for the later invasion of germs? The whole structure/function of the immune system is naturally geared to launch its multifaceted counter-attack against germs whenever trouble arises. The antibodies swing into action when a potentially harmful germ makes its appearance, at age five, eight, 10, 15. It's said that vaccination is a rehearsal for the real thing. But no need for rehearsal has been established. And why are we supposed to believe that such a rehearsal works? The usual answer is: the body remembers the original vaccination and how it produced antibodies, and so it's better prepared to do it again when the need is real. But there is no basis for this extraordinary notion of "remembering." It's another assumption sold as fact. The terms "prepared for the real thing," "rehearsal," and "remember" aren't defined. They're vague. One of the first lessons of logic is: define your terms. A baby, only a few days old, receives a Hepatitis B vaccine. This means the actual Hep-B germ, or some fraction of it, is in the vaccine. The objective? To stimulate the production of antibodies against Hep-B. Assuming the baby can accomplish this feat, the antibodies circulate and paint those Hep-B germs for destruction now. From that moment on, the body is ready to execute the same mission, if and when Hep-B germs float in the door. But when they float in the door, why wouldn't the body produce antibodies on its own, exactly as it did after the vaccination was given? Why did it need the vaccination to teach it how to do what it naturally does? And why should we infer the baby body is undergoing an effective rehearsal when vaccinated, and will somehow remember that lesson years later? The logic of this is tattered and without merit. To these arguments of mine, some vaccine advocates would say, "Well, it doesn't matter because vaccines work. They do prevent disease." Ah, but that is a different argument, and it should be assessed separately. There are two major ways of doing that. One, by evaluating claims that in all places and times, mass vaccination has drastically lowered or eliminated those diseases it was designed to prevent. And two, by a controlled study of two groups of volunteers, in which one group is vaccinated and the other isn't, to gauge the outcome. Let's look at the first method of assessment. Those who claim that vaccines have been magnificently effective in wiping out disease have several major hurdles to overcome. They have to prove, for each disease in question, that when a vaccine for that disease was first introduced, the prevalence of the disease was on the rise or was at a high steady rate in the population. Why? Because, as many critics have stated, some or all of these diseases were already in sharp decline when the vaccines were introduced for the first time. For example: "The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition." Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977 In other words, for reasons having nothing to do with vaccination, the diseases were on the way out. Nutrition had improved, sanitation was better, etc. So let's see the proof, for every disease which vaccines are supposed to prevent, that those diseases were significantly raging in the population when the vaccines were first introduced. Then let's also see proof that, after the introduction of vaccines, the diseases in question weren't merely given new labels (or redefined) to hide the fact that they weren't really going away. There is testimony, for example, that in America, the definition of paralytic polio was changed after the introduction of the Salk vaccine, and by the new more restricted definition, far fewer cases of polio could be diagnosed---thus making it seem the vaccine was effective. There are also questions about the success of the famous smallpox vaccine campaign in Africa and Latin America. When all was said and done, were new cases of smallpox then diagnosed as meningitis? Was destruction wreaked by the vaccine then called AIDS? Researchers, including Robert Gallo, have warned that the smallpox vaccine, when given to people whose immune systems are already grossly weakened, can destroy what's left of the immune system---and immune-defense destruction is the hallmark of the definition of AIDS. The second major way of assessing the success of mass vaccination is through a proper controlled study. For any vaccine, this is how it would be done. Assemble two large groups of people. Total, at least eight thousand. Make sure these two groups are very well matched. That means: similar in age; very similar in medical history and medical drug history; similar exposure levels to environmental chemicals; very close nutritional levels, status, and dietary habits. The first group gets the vaccine. The second group doesn't. They are tracked, with very few dropouts, for a period of at least eight years. The INDEPENDENT researchers note how many from each group get the disease the vaccine is supposed to prevent. They note what other diseases or health challenges the volunteers encounter. Such a study, using these proper standards, has never been done for any vaccine. If that fact seems rather illogical, you're right. It is. Finally, vaccine advocates need to prove that substances in vaccines like mercury, formaldehyde, and aluminum, although classified as toxic when studied alone, are somehow exonerated when shot directly into the body through a needle. The (absurd) logic of this needs to be explained fully. This is not a matter of claiming that "a particular disease," like autism, isn't caused by a particular chemical, like mercury. That's a logical ruse all on its own. We are talking about harm caused by toxins under any name or no name. When a person ingests cyanide, do we say he has a disease? Of course not. Children in school, their parents, and teachers have never been exposed to logic, so it's easy to sell them vaccines as valid. But selling is not the same thing as science. And "being a scientist" is not the same thing as knowing what science and logic actually are. The same fact can be applied to news anchors, public health officials, and politicians. They can say "the evidence for vaccinating is overwhelming," but so can a parrot in a cage, with enough training. Of course, these so-called experts won't come out and engage in a serious debate about the theory and practice of vaccination. They refuse to. Millions of people around the world would eagerly watch a true extended debate on the subject. Such debate used to be a standard practice when logic was studied, when it was understood to be vital for deciding the truth or falsity of a position. Now, it's all about PR and propaganda, the modern version of logic for the dumbed-down crowd.