The CDC in USA and NHS England and advocates for mandatory vaccination consistently repeat a dangerous mantra that finds no warranted basis in medical science. This monolithic industry, now a massive network of private and government institutions, state senates, and supported by a compliant media, want us to believe that science has finally settled the debate over vaccine safety and efficacy. All the data is in, so we are told, and no further research and discussion is necessary because vaccines have been officially ruled to pose no neurological and immunological risk to infants, children, pregnant mothers, adults and the elderly. This official policy is founded upon flawed premises and a primitive understanding about the complexities of the human body and its multifaceted immunological system.
This argument’s fallacy is actually quite simple. Valid science is never settled. The myth of “settled science,” which is especially endemic to the biological and medical sciences that rely on private financial interests, is sheer propaganda. Valid science, on the other hand, constantly seeks new discoveries to acquire further knowledge and greater understanding. The pursuit to fully comprehend the complexity of our biological, immunological and physiological systems, therefore, is in perpetual infinite regress. Today’s justifications for medical intervention, whether by drugs or vaccines, eventually become tomorrow’s barbarities as science further penetrates the hidden functions and operations of the human organism. Hence, valid medical research should elicit new questions and not settle upon incomplete facts that are then proselytized as universal truths.
A medical science that refuses to ask new questions and settles upon disputed beliefs to sustain an industry’s financial portfolio is Scientism, a quasi-faith-based creed now institutionalized to promulgate repressive laws. These laws then advance Scientism’s authority. Unfortunately, today this accurately represents the sad state of vaccine research and vaccination policy. Modern vaccine science and conventional medicine, in general, have morphed into a new fascism, a rigid doctrine that has sacrificed the foundations of scientific integrity on the altar of institutional greed, privilege, and profit.
During the past decade, we have witnessed outbreaks of infectious disease among the fully vaccinated. We observe new viral strains appearing that escape current immunization. There are rising rates in autism and neurological disorders and increases in autoimmune conditions never before observed in large percentages of children. And there is a growing body of research pointing to vaccination’s adverse effects upon our immune systems. All of these trends, and many more, give sufficient reason to undertake a serious review of official claims over vaccine safety and efficacy. The evidence for the alarming rates in childhood illnesses parallel to the ever-increasing number of childhood vaccinations and the government’s ridiculous one-size-fits-all policy behind mass, indiscriminate vaccination should convince us that vaccine safety is far from a settled matter.
The official CDC position on vaccines is that they are “unavoidably unsafe.” As New York University’s professor of law Mary Holland has repeatedly stated, the CDC can’t have it both ways. Vaccines cannot be simultaneously safe and unsafe. Yet, by mincing terms, spinning propaganda, and misinterpretingand manipulating scientific research to whitewash vaccine’s life-threatening risks, this is what the government pressures parents to believe.
If we can accept the claim that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe,” then the question is how unsafe are they? And now we possess an enormous body of yet to be challenged research, clinical trials, case examples of severe vaccine injury, and court compensations paid out to families with vaccine-injured children to conclude that vaccine development has a very long way to go before a medically proven safe vaccine will ever be created. Unfortunately, it is our opinion that this research is being ignored or at best marginalized by the most rabid CDC supporters and proponents of mass vaccination.
If the most compelling and thorough medical research indicates that there is no such thing as a safe vaccine, then what are we to make about those in the growing community opposing vaccination who demand safer vaccines while claiming to be pro-vaccine?
First, we must acknowledge that all vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe”; this was a 2011 Supreme Court ruling in the Bruesewitz versus Wyeth case.
The majority of vaccine ingredients have been shown repeatedly to have toxic consequences contributing to serious neurological and autoimmune conditions. These effects can be immediate, such as in the case of a child who undergoes seizures and is left with permanent neurological damage shortly after vaccination. Effects through repeated vaccination can also be accumulative and display symptoms many years later. In fact, there is very little scientific data, and nothing conclusive, about repeated vaccinations’ long-term and accumulative immunosuppressive risks.
The vaccine industry continues to rely upon outdated research, industry funded studies, conflicts of interest with federal agencies and even scientifically irrelevant data to make its case that vaccine additives and ingredients pose no medical risks. What the industry’s arsenal of research sorely lacks is biological and gold standard placebo-controlled clinical trials to support this position. In short, accepted vaccine research is little more than junk science. And junk science can make for the best propaganda to convince a population into the deception of vaccine safety. Joseph Goebbels understood this all too well when he stated, “A lie told often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”
For those who demand the removal of vaccines’ toxic ingredients yet remain provaccine in principle, another and perhaps darker equation of vaccine risks is being ignored or seriously misunderstood. It is not simply the aluminium compounds, ethyl mercury or thimerosal, Polysorbate 80, formaldehyde and other vaccine additives that are associated with vaccines’ portfolios of risks and adverse reactions, including those listed in every vaccine manufacturing and product insert and found in the National Institutes of Health PubMed database of peer reviewed medical literature. These compounds’ neurotoxic risks are well known, and physicians, paediatricians, and scientists are increasingly being forced to acknowledge them and question the vaccine paradigm.
For example, any and every vaccine that contains aluminium, in any amount, is categorically unsafe regardless of a person’s age. This principle should be accepted as a biological and medical fact without question, yet pro-vaccinators deny it outright. In 2015, autoimmune disease researcher Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld at Tel Aviv University published the definitive textbook on vaccines’ adverse effects that are now contributing to a wide variety of autoimmune diseases, including fibromyalgia, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, narcolepsy, connective tissue disease, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, type 1 diabetes, and a host of others. The majority of the 37 scientific papers in Shoenfeld’s Vaccines and Autoimmunity identify the adjuvant aluminium as a crucial culprit contributing to the epidemic rise in autoimmune disorders both in the US and abroad.
In mid-2014, concerns over aluminium adjuvants in vaccines, and the HPV vaccine in particular, reached the French Parliament for review. Unlike scientific committee reviews conducted in the US Congress, French politicians publicly weighed in carefully on the data behind the increase in HPV vaccine-injuries in order to rule on the benefits and risks of promoting the Gardasil and other vaccines containing aluminium.
France has now established a precedent for the way other governments’ health officials and legislative bodies should address the growing questions toward vaccine safety.
Pro-vaccine political correctness is fundamentally based upon the faulty assumption that only known neurologically toxic ingredients, such as aluminium and mercury, need to be removed or replaced with safer compounds. There is no sound argument against the removal of these ingredients that will make vaccines safer. Federal agencies tell us that these toxic metals are in insufficient amounts to pose a toxicological risk and are readily expelled naturally by a child’s body. Although no amount of aluminium and mercury in any quantity has been proven absolutely safe, when an infant receives three, four, or more vaccinations during a single doctor’s visit, the amount of toxins introduced into its body mounts well above the EPA’s and FDA’s level of safety.
Fifteen years ago, the CDC’s argument may have been sufficient to increase confidence in today’s dominant vaccine paradigm. But science advances. Knowledge of the human genome, the emergence of the new science of epigenetics, and a deeper understanding of the body’s immunological activity is opening our horizons to a larger panorama of bio-molecular possibilities and the viral and bacterial activities that are forcing a growing number of scientists to conclude that we really don’t know as much about vaccination’s impact and risks upon the human organism as we previously thought.
If it can be ascertained that there are serious health risks from the viral and bacterial components that go into a vaccine and the genetic debris and contamination due to vaccine manufacturing’s primitive technology, then the removal of toxic chemicals is insufficient for safer vaccines. However, one wishes to interpret it, vaccines introduce pathogens into the body. These pathogens interact with our body’s cells and DNA in known and unknown ways. Our medical understanding about host-pathogen interactions and viral epigenetics are adolescent. For example, in 2010, researchers from the National Brain Research Center in India reported that our scientific understanding of viral “mechanisms of epigenetic control of gene expression continues to baffle scholars.” What we know so far, the scientists conclude, “is still complete.”
Evidence suggests that undesirable viral and genetic activity introduced through vaccines is contributing to the every-increasing infectious disease outbreaks among heavily vaccinated populations, such as the April 2016 mumps outbreak at Harvard University infecting over 40 students and the many pertussis outbreaks during the past several years. That is, infected persons are mostly fully vaccinated. Consequently, we are witnessing what European scientists warned in 2012, that viral epigenetic mechanisms are steadily evading our immune systems. Therefore, vaccines are increasingly becoming ineffective as new viral strains emerge and the length of immunity provided by vaccines is lessening.
The Human Genome Project ended less than two decades ago. Genomics’ new subdivision of epigenetics has only gained attention during the past ten to fifteen years. Already epigenetics is turning our earlier beliefs about DNA and genes upon its head. Barbara Lo Fisher summarizes epigenetics as “stimuli-triggered changes in gene expression that are inheritableand occur independent of changes to the underlying DNA sequence.”
In other areas of epigenetic and toxicological research, other than vaccine science, there is greater acceptance of environmental factors’ affects upon our body’s DNA. It is now accepted that chemicals commonly found in everyday products, such as the endocrine disruptive phthalates and bisphenol-A, are altering gene expression and creating havoc with normal hormonal activity. Food companies are increasingly becoming convinced that pesticides used in huge amounts on genetically modified crops are interfering with our bodies’ genes and are removing GMO ingredients from their products. High fructose corn syrup, processed sugar, and junk food are also becoming more widely accepted as genetic risks contributing to the dramatic increases in obesity, allergies and weakened immune systems.
Science still has very limited knowledge about how bacterial and viral genes interact with our own DNA, gene regulation, and individual genetic dispositions after being injected into the body. This remains a dark area of medical science that scientists are only recently beginning to dive deeper into. Therefore, current vaccine science, says Dr. Toni Bark, is “Frankenscience.”
Doctors, physicians, CDC heads, and health officials really have very little clear idea about what we are actually injecting into our children nor its long term consequences on our natural immune systems. Back in 1971, University of Geneva scientists published a remarkable discovery in the journal World Medicine. According to their study, foreign biological materials that enter directly into the blood stream can potentially become part of us and even combine with our own DNA. This activity known as “jumping genes,” and first postulated in the 1930s by Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock, still largely remains a mystery.
These were some of the early precursory hypotheses and studies that would later become epigenetics. Nevertheless, during the last dozen years biomedical and environmental research, which is unfailingly ignored and denied by the vaccine industry, is gradually mapping new terrains in our genetic understanding. Renowned British epigenetic researcher Dr. Mae-Wan Ho from the Institute of Science in Society has observed that “vaccines themselves can be dangerous, especially live, attenuated viral vaccines or the new recombinant nucleic acid vaccines; they have the potential to generate virulent viruses by recombination and the recombinant nucleic acids could cause autoimmune disease.”
One day it will be conclusively shown that viral and bacterial vaccine components, as well as vaccines’ toxic chemicals, are fundamentally altering the human genome, weakening natural immunity that gives rise to autoimmune diseases, and directly contributing to both short- and long-term onset of debilitating life-threatening illnesses affecting millions of people throughout the world.
We continue this article in part 2 here.