Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic
7 2013-02-11 by necromanser
Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic
Monday, February 11, 2013 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.
59 comments
13 AnSq 2013-02-11
That's not the only way to test for a disease. You see, there are these things called symptoms...
If there are antibodies there, they must have been produced because of some 'trigger' for them. That might be a vaccination, or it might be the disease itself. Assuming you have never had the vaccination, then you must have the disease, right? And assuming you have, it's much less likely to be the real disease. The two possibilities ("Vaccine-produced antibodies=health" and "Antibodies naturally produced by the body=illness") are entirely separate and not comparable.
Because it works.
There doesn't need to be a basis for it or an explanation. We just need to show that it works. And it does.
It's not presented as a formal definition or proof. It's an easily understandable shorthand and metaphor.
Practice. You get better at playing the piano with it. You get better at playing baseball with it. You get better at fighting off disease with it.
Yep. What's your point?
That doesn't show that vaccines weren't part of the reason, just that they weren't the whole reason. Nobody is arguing that they were the whole reason.
It's unethical. We have evidence that vaccines work, so conducting a study denying people of that just to satisfy conspiracy theorists is stupid.
Evidently not by your twisted definition. Kinda doesn't matter though when your definition is wrong. You're cherry-picking your logic and intentionally ignoring major things.
Because they already have. They don't need to. It's a waste of time. No matter what they say, you people aren't going to listen anyway.
TL;DR: By spreading your falsehoods you are a danger to society. The anti-vaccination movement is one of the stupidest things in history. You're not correct just because you're "questioning authority". "Authority" can be right.
This guy said it well.
7 themandotcom 2013-02-11
Dafaq is this? It's 100% clear that vaccines prevent diseases. Polio was prevelant a century ago, even the President was affected. Now, polio will be extinct in a few years, and it's all due to vaccines. Icantbelieve anybody believes otherwise.
-1 [deleted] 2013-02-11
Okay, I'll admit I'm no expert on this particular matter, but the argument about the polio vaccine (or the one I am aware of) is that polio was in steep decline before the vaccine was introduced to the population, and the vaccine had no discernible effect in the eradication of the disease. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.vaccinetruth.org/Polio.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.vaccinetruth.org/polio_chart.htm&h=621&w=480&sz=31&tbnid=bDmaNHuy3PhQRM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=70&zoom=1&usg=__bRUZEAFil_s-jPbqDKjTEQ3POaE=&docid=VH8V23gGr1-X_M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VToZUaOyHaeB0AH0vIHoBw&ved=0CDwQ9QEwAg&dur=223
If you think that these numbers are off, or if you can see an obvious counter-argument that I can't, then please feel free to point it out and let's discuss.
I have to warn you though, there is plenty of stuff that I believe, that you would probably shock you haha.
4 themandotcom 2013-02-11
Well, you should not trust a website called "vaccine truth" for actual facts about vaccines. I notice they don't bother to cite their sources, and it seems quite deliberately misleading for putting "% decrease" on the Y-axis rather than the raw number or the infection rate.
Even if it were true, you'd have to explain why polio is virtually eradicated in present day, but for the vaccine.
-1 [deleted] 2013-02-11
Better sanitation etc. has helped to eradicate many diseases.
Like I said, I'm not expert, and I can't say the figures I gave you are 100% correct, but this is the argument I've heard many people (people far more legit than me) use. If you have more legit numbers, please let me know.
3 themandotcom 2013-02-11
There are plenty of problems with that explanation. Namely, the correlation between vaccination rates and rates of polio. When we saw the Muslim clerics rail against the vaccines as poison, we saw rates rise. After continued efforts, rates fell. There is also a problem with the mechanism of sanitation causing polio specifically, while we have a very solid understanding on the mechanism of polio vaccines.
And a good place to find data is the WHO and the NIH. Not vaccinesareliterallyhitler.it or whatever.
-2 bopoqod 2013-02-11
Ask Penis Moron (aka Piers Morgan) whether it works since after getting vaccinated live on his show, he fell ill to the very disease it was supposed to prevent.
5 themandotcom 2013-02-11
That was the flu shot, right? Well, the flu comes in multiple strains and the flu shot must be produced before the flu season starts, so it only protects against a certain strain or strains. It's possible that he caught a strain he was not immunized for. It is also possible that he caught the disease before or shortly after getting the shot.
But it doesn't seem like you want to directly address the point that vaccines work, as demonstrated by the polio eradication on planet earth.
-2 bopoqod 2013-02-11
Well, clearly vaccines don't work all the time, as demonstrated by Piers Morgan. And what of the other harmful effects of vaccinations, such as autism, narcolepsy, etc.?
6 AnSq 2013-02-11
The vaccine-autism link was admitted to be a total fraud.
-2 themandotcom 2013-02-11
No one claimed anything in health is 100%. Nothing is 109% in the real world.
However, there is no credible evidence that vaccines cause autism or narcolepsy.
-3 bopoqod 2013-02-11
If nothing is 100% in the real world - especially health - then what good is credible evidence?
1 themandotcom 2013-02-11
I don't understand the question.
1 [deleted] 2013-02-11
My understanding is that he's saying "Vaccines don't work 100% of the time, therefore they are 100% evil."
-3 necromanser 2013-02-11
Vaccines are 100% bogus from the first instance up until today. Its established fact vaccines are a racket.
The Medical racket by Wade Frazier
Epidemic years | England and Wales smallpox deaths
1857-1859 | 14,244
1863-1865 | 20,059
1870-1872 | 44,840
5 themandotcom 2013-02-11
Explain why polio is essentially eradicated then.
0 [deleted] 2013-02-11
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.vaccinetruth.org/Polio.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.vaccinetruth.org/polio_chart.htm&h=621&w=480&sz=31&tbnid=bDmaNHuy3PhQRM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=70&zoom=1&usg=__bRUZEAFil_s-jPbqDKjTEQ3POaE=&docid=VH8V23gGr1-X_M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VToZUaOyHaeB0AH0vIHoBw&ved=0CDwQ9QEwAg&dur=223
-3 necromanser 2013-02-11
Show me where it is eradicated. Not just renamed.
6 themandotcom 2013-02-11
Uhhh, what? I don't really understand what you mean by "rename".
But here is a WHO link that says polio has been eradicated in all but three countries. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs114/en/
-2 necromanser 2013-02-11
Your ooohhh ahhha gimmiks wont make a difference. Get your facts straight.
http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/18b875/dumbeddown_populations_accept_outrageous_vaccine/c8d9m6g
5 themandotcom 2013-02-11
I do believe I have my facts straight. Polio has been eradicated, and this is because the polio vaccine.
-3 [deleted] 2013-02-11
not necessarily http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.vaccinetruth.org/Polio.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.vaccinetruth.org/polio_chart.htm&h=621&w=480&sz=31&tbnid=bDmaNHuy3PhQRM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=70&zoom=1&usg=__bRUZEAFil_s-jPbqDKjTEQ3POaE=&docid=VH8V23gGr1-X_M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VToZUaOyHaeB0AH0vIHoBw&ved=0CDwQ9QEwAg&dur=223
edit: don't just downvote me - tell me why you are downvoting me... am I wrong? what is your counter argument?
-4 necromanser 2013-02-11
Youre obviously demeted. Read the criminals history sheet above.
2 themandotcom 2013-02-11
I am not demented. I just look at the evidence and draw conclusions.
-3 necromanser 2013-02-11
Definition of DEMENTIA
: a usually progressive condition (as Alzheimer's disease) marked by deteriorated cognitive functioning often with emotional apathy.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dementia
3 themandotcom 2013-02-11
Well, you're welcome to ad hominem me all you want, but you can't run away from the data.
2 AnSq 2013-02-11
Ad hominem
1 evenmoretiredoflibs 2013-02-11
so what's the modern version of polio?
0 [deleted] 2013-02-11
Show us where it is renamed. Not just eradicated.
4 greenw40 2013-02-11
Just like creationism is "established fact" to fundamental Christians. You're just ignoring testable evidence and clinging to pseudo-science and hearsay only to validate what you already believe.
1 StopBanningMe4 2013-02-11
These people make me so angry. Can I please just smack him across the face?
2 [deleted] 2013-02-11
Jon Rappoport, the journalist who wrote this article, has a BA in Philosophy. According to his website,
He also
He also appears to have confused real life with The Matrix.
Does anybody here think this sounds like a guy who is qualified to write seriously about vaccines?
-1 necromanser 2013-02-11
America's Medico-Drug Cartel
The medico-drug cartel was summed up by J.W Hodge, M.D., of Niagara Falls, N.Y., in these words:
"The medical monopoly or medical trust, euphemistically called the American Medical Association, is not merely the meanest monopoly ever organized, but the most arrogant, dangerous and despotic organisation which ever managed a free people in this or any other age. Any and all methods of healing the sick by means of safe, simple and natural remedies are sure to be assailed and denounced by the arrogant leaders of the AMA doctors' trust as fakes, frauds and humbugs.
Every practitioner of the healing art who does not ally himself with the medical trust is denounced as a 'dangerous quack' and impostor by the predatory trust doctors. Every sanitarian who attempts to restore the sick to a state of health by natural means without resort to the knife or poisonous drugs, disease imparting serums, deadly toxins or vaccines, is at once pounced upon by these medical tyrants and fanatics, bitterly denounced, vilified and persecuted to the fullest extent."
The Purchase of Public Opinion In the following years, not only newsmen, but whole newspapers were bought, financed or founded with Rockefeller money. So Time Magazine, which Henry Luce started in 1923, had been taken over by J.P. Morgan when the magazine got into financial difficulties. When Morgan died and his financial empire crumbled, the Thorough FaceliftHouse of Rockefeller wasted no time in taking over this lush editorial plum also, together with its sisters Fortune and Life, and built for them an expensive 14-story home of their own in Rockefeller Center —. the Time & Life Building. Rockefeller was also co-owner of Time's "rival" magazine, Newsweek, which had been established in the early days of the New Deal with money put up by Rockefeller, Vincent Astor, the Harrimann family and other members and allies of the House.
Millions of Dollars Free Publicity Another interesting revelation in the article of Time was that many years ago already Singer "was pleasantly surprised when Britannica approached him to distill in about 30,000 words the discipline that is, at its heart, the systematic study of what we ought to do." So now we touch the subject of sponsorisation and patronage. They don't always mean immediate cash but, more important, long-term profits. Many decades ago the Encyclopedia Britannica moved from Oxford to Chicago because Rockefeller had bought it to add much needed luster to the University of Chicago and its medical school, the first one he had founded. Peter Singer, "the world's greatest animal defender" who keeps a door permanently open to vivisection and the lucrative medical swindle, gets millions of dollars free publicity thanks to the worldwide engagement of the Rockefeller Foundation and the media makers who are in no position to oppose it. From the article in Time we also learned that Singer's mother had been a medical doctor in the old country, which could mean that little Peter started assimilating all the Rockefeller superstition on vivisection with his mother's milk.
Taken from the CIVIS Foundation Report number 15, Fall-Winter 1993 CIVIS: POB 152, Via Motta 51-CH 6900, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland}
3 [deleted] 2013-02-11
Uh... what does copy-pasting a block of text have to do with Rappoport's lack of scientific qualifications?
1 necromanser 2013-02-11
Why wont the mainstream press cover the vaccine cover-up ? Jon is an investigative reporter. He reports what he sees.
1 [deleted] 2013-02-11
Well, in fairness those are two different things. And neither of them is actually what Rappoport has done in the article you pasted into the title of this thread. It's more of an opinion piece - an opinion of a scientifically unqualified journalist, using a weak understanding of the subject matter to extend his ideas. Why are you taking what he says as fact, when he is quite clearly totally unqualified in what he's talking about?
-1 necromanser 2013-02-11
What makes you so sure that Rockefeller are not involved in the drug mafia ?
2 [deleted] 2013-02-11
I haven't mentioned that. How is it a relevant answer to my comment?
3 space_walrus 2013-02-11
You know why. OP is trying to establish a reason to question vaccine practices, and more broadly, industrialized medicine.
-1 necromanser 2013-02-11
Chemicals and drugs are the root cause of many of the ailments and disease we have today. Like Sugar Free is actually made of poison called Aspartame.
Need I say more ?
-3 necromanser 2013-02-11
Are you not allowed to say - Rockefeller drug mafia ?
0 [deleted] 2013-02-11
Huh? First off you're spouting anti-vaccine garbage, now you're bringing up the Rockefellers? What the fuck is your point?
2 Lorgramoth 2013-02-11
http://ai1.livememe.com/grwng2_lf3ztt.jpg
1 spaghettigod 2013-02-11
TL;DR?
5 Lorgramoth 2013-02-11
OP's a bundle of wooden sticks.
1 spaghettigod 2013-02-11
I think I understand now. Thank you.
-2 necromanser 2013-02-11
http://i.imgur.com/R7HOBoy.jpg
4 spaghettigod 2013-02-11
I encourage you to seek out scientists who know what they're talking about on this subject.
-3 necromanser 2013-02-11
With 49 vaccines by the age of 6, starting with shots even before the baby is born ?
You need a scientist to explain this gimmick ?
You need to stop reproducing and spouting this 100 year old farce.
0 ReptilianFreemason 2013-02-11
"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."
Why do conspiracy theorists think of that as a badge of honour? Nobody debates you because you are bat shit insane.
I seriously hope you are infertile, because any children you have are going to be at risk.
1 youngli0n 2013-02-11
Ya we're bat shit insane. let me guess? everyone in LA is bat shit insane too for standing up for Dorner for going against corruption that they know exists. Or has the shootings at innocent people and no one arrested or in jail been justified to you by the reason of "mistaken identity"? Why aren't those officers in jail?
Does it not make sense that Dorner was dismissed instead of taken to trial because he'd win based on his evidence of the police brutality he tried to put an end to?
You're completely right however, none of us really know the facts. However, am I going to trust someone who is known for being one of the most corrupt groups in their country? Or am I going to trust the person who has gained popularity for trying to take a stand against this corruption, even if it means his own life, which we all know it will. Which side will you choose?
3 ReptilianFreemason 2013-02-11
You guys posting nonsense on the internet, and what's happening with dorner aren't even remotely connected.
1 youngli0n 2013-02-11
yes they are. the same people trying to kill someone trying to expose them is the same people who are pushing vaccines and flouride in water.
-2 necromanser 2013-02-11
You're too dumb to understand the simple logic and facts presented. If you have a legitimate gripe about the facts presented and not some fake underhanded study, come out and show us the numbers.
Oh BTW,
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april182012/gates-vaccines-js.php
Mimicking Monsanto’s PR, Gates used Bollywood actors to strongly promote his vaccine campaign to ‘eradicate polio’ across India. Vaccines ware given to Indian children. Have they brought health?
From “Polio programme: let us declare victory and move on” by Neetu Vashisht and Jacob Puliyel at Medical Ethics http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/202co114.html:
“In 2011 there were an extra 47500 new cases of NPAFP [non-polio acute flaccid paralysis]. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Through this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated.”
The Oral Polio Vaccines were given to Indian children. The CDC dropped the OPV from its vaccine schedule in the US because it was causing polio.
4 ReptilianFreemason 2013-02-11
You deny polio has been erradicated, only renamed. Can you tell me what the new version of polio is then?
0 yellowsnow2 2013-02-11
Confirmed: India’s Polio Eradication Campaign in 2011 Caused 47,500 Cases of Vaccine-Induced Polio Paralysis http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/28/polio-eradication-campaign.aspx That is more than the 20,000 paralysis a year in the US when the polio outbreak was at it's peak... So the vaccine causes more paralysis than the outbreak did... http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/fs-parents.html
-3 VonLmo 2013-02-11
Exactly, which is why the Taliban is killing the polio vaccine workers. Freedom from socialism means killing all vaccine workers & trusting in God that polio will "PassOver", just as death did to spare the jews.
-6 necromanser 2013-02-11
No one is killing the polio vaccines workers. They are dying of shame from being exposed.
-4 themoneystupid 2013-02-11
Nobody needs to be confused but EVERYBODY better be darn well frightened about taking ANY vaccine, under ANY circumstance, for ANY reason, at ANY time in their life."--Dr Duffy DC
"I have been on the staff of the New Jersey State Department of Health, and was in complete charge of the Monmouth County Cerebral Palsy Treatment Center. For the past three years I have been director of the Homestead Rehabilitation Institute (and still am as of this writing). My experiences have enabled me to observe from within the workings of official medicine. At first I could not believe what I saw...Were the truth concerning medical treatment and so-called prevention ever to leak out, the stench of it would obliterate the public confidence in the medical profession and put an end to the fantastic drug profits."---Dr. Milton Fried, D.C., 1956 (Poisoned Needle by McBean p192)
"What, then, is the value of vaccination? We firmly believe that it has no value at all. Its supposed value has been deduced from incorrect reasoning on the part of its advocates. Were small-pox as prevalent and as fatal now as in the eighteenth century, it might even be justifiable to have recourse to inoculation—either by variolous or vaccine matter. History, however, has demonstrated that towards the close of the last century, when Jenner introduced his system, small-pox had gradually died out, as we shall presently show. Even in Jenner's day small-pox had lost its virulence."---Dr. Charles T. Pearce, M.D. [1868 Book: Essay on Vaccination]
"I once believed in Jenner; I once believed in Pasteur. I believed in vaccination. I believed in vivisection. But I changed my views as the result of hard thinking."--Dr Hadwen
"I have no faith in vaccination; nay, I look upon it with the greatest possible disgust, and firmly believe that it is often the medium of conveying many filthy and loathsome diseases from one child to another, and no protection whatever against small pox. Indeed, I consider we are now living in the JENNERIAN epoch for the slaughter of innocents, and the unthinking portion of the adult population."---W. J. COLLINS, M.D., B.S., B.Sc. (Lond.) M.R.C.S (Letter to Vaccination Inquirer)
"The 'victory over epidemics' was not won by medical science or by doctors--and certainly not by vaccines.....the decline...has been the result of technical, social and hygienic improvements and especially of improved nutrition. Here the role of the potato...deserves special mention.....Consider carefully whether you want to let yourself or your children undergo the dangerous, controversial, ineffective and no longer necessary procedure called vaccination, because the claim that vaccinations are the cause for the decline of infectious diseases is utter nonsense."--The Vaccination Nonsense (2004 Lectures)---Dr. med. G. Buchwald ISBN 3-8334-2508-3 page 108.
"The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunization.....There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease."--Dr Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.
"Amazingly, vitamin C has actually already been documented in the medical literature to have readily and consistently cured both acute polio and acute hepatitis, two viral diseases still considered by modern medicine to be incurable." - Thomas E. Levy, MD, JD
"Modern medicine" may well be defined as "the experimental study of what happens when poisonous chemicals are placed into malnourished human bodies." -- A. Saul, Contributing Editor, Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine -- http://www.orthomed.org
"The efforts of the medical profession in the US to control:...its...job it proposes to monopolize. It has been carrying on a vigorous campaign all over the country against new methods and schools of healing because it wants the business...I have watched this medical profession for a long time and it bears watching." - Clarence Darrow, (1857-1938).
"An enormous mass of experience, both of homeopathic doctors and their patients, is invoked in favor of the efficacy of these remedies and doses. But the regular profession stands firm in its belief that such experience is worthless and the whole history is one of quackery and delusion." - William James (1842-1910).
The whole entire existence of the pharmaceutical industry is based on presentation of false science, and advertising this false science and drumming it into the minds of gullible people who have no curiosity to find out why that is so. The Water Cure: An interview with Dr. Batmanghelidj
The carpenter desires timber, the physician disease. ---Rig Veda IX. 7.9
I find medicine is the best of all trades because whether you do any good or not you still get your money. ---Moliere: "A Physician in Spite of Himself," 1664
It is time to lay to rest the notion that germs jump into people and cause diseases. ----Emanuel Cheraskin, M.D., D.M.D. in Vitamin C: Who Needs It?
-3 bopoqod 2013-02-11
If nothing is 100% in the real world - especially health - then what good is credible evidence?