From the outset, let's establish that Big Pharma is motivated solely and completely by profits.
A recent article announced that Big Pharma was "urging" governments to stockpile antibiotics in case of a major "flu outbreak." This is absurd on its face. Influenza is caused by any number of viruses, and antibiotics have no effect on viruses - at all. This article has only two purposes: first, to cause fear that a flu epidemic could occur at any time, and second to sell vast quantities of a drug that is wholly ineffectual for the given reason. Profit.
Next, why are vaccines the ONLY government-mandated health regimen? Most of the vaccines are for childhood diseases that have vanishingly small death rates - measles, mumps, chicken pox. They are not pleasant diseases, but per capita, the death rates are tiny. Over the last 10 years, the measles death rate has been less than 1 per year, while the number of known cases has varied between 100 and 200. The number of deaths from mumps and chicken pox are vanishingly small. On a global scale, death rates don't even rise above the statistical noise level.
Why are vaccines mandated and not, say, hand washing, vitamin supplements, healthy diets, and so on ad nauseum. Profit.
If vaccines are so effective, why are there no vaccines for the really dangerous viruses? Could it be that infection rates and/or affected populations are too small to generate tremendous profits? Or maybe there's no political interest in certain diseases. In fact, there are dozens of viral diseases that primarily affect Third World populations who don't have the wealth or trust to use vaccines, and so Big Pharma ignores them.
It's also possible that vaccines don't work, and so they are only produced for diseases that are generally harmless. If someone gets a flu vaccine, then still gets the flu, they are most likely not going to die from it and there's a convenient excuse about a strain that wasn't planned for. If, for instance, an HIV vaccines were announced and people who got it still fell prey to the virus, it would be quite obvious that the vaccine didn't work. Pure Profit.
In fact, there is almost no metric of vaccine efficacy that can't also be explained by better hygiene, better diets, and better overall health care when one is sick. If vaccines were stopped altogether this moment, disease rates would likely not increase over current levels.
That the scientific cabal (scientidiots as we call them) finds the term "herd immunity" an acceptable way to describe human beings and our health is at once revolting and telling. Revolting because these high priests of the secular religion actually view us collectively as flock animals, and telling for the same reason.
It seems that lately, Big Pharma has been on a massive campaign to scare us all into queuing up for our vaccines. They are using every tool at their well-funded disposal to inject us with fear porn and instill guilt. We are told, as members of the "herd," that if any one of us gets sick, then it is the fault of those who have the sense enough to question this whole vaccine regimen.
To that I reply, if vaccines actually worked as advertised, why would any vaccinated individual need to worry about the unvaccinated. In fact, what better marketing tool than to show that vaccinated folks need not worry about outbreaks of measles, chicken pox or flu? There would be no question of efficacy. We could all witness the value in action. Sign me up!
It seems to me that blaming unvaccinated individuals for disease outbreaks is a blatant admission that their products do not work.
In point of fact, do you actually know what is in any given vaccine? I mean really know? Sure, they are labelled, but labels lie and obfuscate. And how many times have you asked your doctor, or been offered the container to read? And those "drug information sheets," you need degrees in medicine, chemistry and ancient Greek to wade through the first paragraph.
Sure, your highly trained doctor promotes them, but what is he/she receiving from the pharmaceutical companies to do so? I've witnessed first-hand the gimmies, elaborate meals and "retreats" hosted by Big Pharma, and I almost want to promote their crud because of all that.
Sure, the government mandates them, but what has government ever done to earn your implicit trust - besides murder, maim and steal, of course? How many government-approved products have ultimately been shown to be harmful?
When you go to the doctor's office to get your jab, have you ever asked to see the vaccine packaging? Have your ever sent samples to an independent lab to be tested and verified as to contents? No? So you are just taking the word of a bunch of people with vested financial interests that what is being delivered directly into your bloodstream is both composed of what is claimed, and works as advertised.
At least heroin users get immediate feedback as to the purity and efficacy of the product they inject.
And there's always an out for Big Pharma. With the flu vaccine, when you still get the flu, well...it's a strain we hadn't planned on last year when we made the potions. Or perhaps there's a new mutated form of the virus that doesn't respond to the current vaccine. Or perhaps you came into contact with an anti-vaxxer.
This last excuse is the one that makes me most suspicious and angry. If the potions worked as advertised, then a vaccine should allow a member of the "herd" to walk into a room full of sick people without worry. After all, you're immune, right? That's what they advertise, right?
The US federal government, paragon of trust and good faith that it is, has actually set up a special court system, called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), just for claims against vaccines and manufacturers. In that court, the manufacturer is never liable. The American taxpayer is. If your claim is found to be valid, you are paid off with tax dollars and required to sign a form giving indemnity to the manufacturer and vowing silence as to the details and outcomes of cases.
Such a deal! The government mandates vaccines, then holds the manufacturers free of blame for any injuries or damages caused by vaccines, then uses your money to pay off the injured parties and shut them up.
And we wonder why we never hear of problems with vaccines?
There are two basic kinds of vaccine. One uses chopped up pieces of viruses - the protein coats - to bind to cell receptors and activate immune responses in the form of B and T cells.
The other uses dead or "inactivated" viruses to the do the same thing.
The first question that arises is, if biologists can't agree whether viruses are actually living creatures, then how do we know they are dead, or "inactive"? Don't exobiologists talk about viruses and bacteria lying dormant for centuries in the harsh environment of space? Besides, if something is never alive, how can it be dead?
A virus is simply a protein shell with various bumps and dimples on the surface that lock into receptors on a cell's "skin". Once a virus latches onto a receptor, it dissolves and injects a set of instructions - like mRNA - into the cell to high-jack the cell's normal processes and re-task them to producing more viruses. In other words, a virus cannot reproduce itself. It must take over a host cell and use it to do the job. This violates one of the basic definitions of Life.
Viruses do not reproduce themselves, they must usurp the life processes of something else. Viruses do not metabolize food and create energy - again they must use the processes of a living cell. Viruses cannot move themselves, they depend on a medium such as air or fluid to randomly float to the next victim. Viruses do not respire - take in oxygen and expire CO2.
They do not meet any of the criteria for life, and in fact many don't even have complete genomes or even DNA. No motility, no respiration, no reproduction equals no life.
So exactly how do we know something is dead that shows no signs of life in the first place? And if it is "deactivated," how does it do anything that provides immunity?
The next big issue is how vaccines are made.
Among other methods, some vaccines are produced by incubating the virus in human fetal tissue. There is only one source of human fetal tissue that is not in utero - aborted babies.
This is one of those little details that are not widely advertised, since most people abhor the idea of having the tissue of aborted children injected into their bloodstreams. On a cellular level, this is hardly different from cannibalism.
Then there's the is use of adjuvants. An adjuvant is a potion that "enhances" the body's immune response, causing the release of antigens, and thus creating immunity (supposedly). The mixtures that different companies use as adjuvants are the primary source of patents, and thus are proprietary to each manufacturer.
If, in fact, adjuvants act as advertised, one wonders why any part of a virus is needed in the first place? What's more, we are not privy to the exact formulae because they are company secrets. In other words, they are the part of the trick that even a magician won't tell another magician.
The most discussed issue with vaccines are the preservatives used to give the potions shelf-life and prevent contamination. In the US, the three approved chemicals are phenol, 2-phenoxyethanol, and thiomersal. The latter is well known to contain mercury, which causes the brain to short-circuit.
Mercury is the suspected cause of autism, and the origin of the expression "mad as a hatter". More in a moment.
Phenoxyethanol is an interesting substance. It is composed of a glycol chain and an ethanol chain bound by oxygen atoms. It is also called ethylene glycol monophenyl ether, phenoxytolarosol, Dowanol EP / EPH, and several other names. It is used in cosmetics and perfume as a liquifier base that evaporates leaving the other ingredients behind. It is also a commercial solvent for various materials such as cellulose and resins. It has the property of preventing bacteria and yeast from reproducing, so it is also used as a topical (on the skin) antiseptic. Lovely stuff to shoot in your veins, especially if you are religiously bound to avoid alcohol.
Phenol is a white crystal composed of C6H5OH, or a phenyl group bonded with a hydroxy group. It is aromatic, meaning it readily evaporates, and volatile, meaning it readily bonds with other substances. It is produced from petroleum. Let's let Wikipedia tell us about it:
"It is primarily used to synthesize plastics and related materials. Phenol and its chemical derivatives are essential for production of polycarbonates, epoxies, Bakelite, nylon, detergents, herbicides such as phenoxy herbicides, and numerous pharmaceutical drugs."
Plastic? Epoxy? Nylon? Herbicide? And they inject that crap into our veins? Recall that phenoxyethanol is basically this stuff mixed with grain alcohol. Double-plus good!
We should also note at this point the connection to nylon and a strange disease called Morgellon's.
Finally, there's thiomersal. You may know this stuff as Merthiolate, which used to be a common part of every medicine cabinet until it was quietly demarketed because of the mercury content. It is a reddish substance used topically (on the skin) to treat cuts and scratches because of its antibacterial and antifungal properties.
Put simply, mercury is highly toxic to life as we know it. According to "scientific consensus," and regular readers here know what we think about that term, it is perfectly harmless, which is why it is used to kill a wide variety of critters and was banned from topical use.
As a vaccine consumer, you have the choice of injecting your bloodstream with a petroleum distillate used in plastics, epoxies and detergents, or a mercury compound that kills everything it touches. How exciting!
I've only surveyed the most visible issues with vaccines. There are many others, such as the wisdom of over-exciting the immune system and its relationship to the growing problems with allergies. There is also scant evidence that vaccine immunity is "remembered" by the body years later, which would take an entire book to discuss thoroughly.
Suffice it to say there are dozens of important considerations to entertain when deciding whether to pump your bloodstream full of toxins and pathogens in an effort to be healthy. The arguments are similar to the use of radiation and toxic chemicals, all of which cause cancer, in cancer treatments: how does making the body sick create health?
There is an all-out campaign to scare people into jabbing themselves with this crud. News stories on measles, chicken pox, and influenza outbreaks, and uninhibited guilt trips on parents are among the many tactics to induce fear and panic.
Of course, vaccines are offered as the only 'reasonable" solution to these fears. Never mind that we are all the products of millions of years of humans surviving these ailments. They are not pleasant, to be sure, but the death rates compared to the (hidden) damage caused by vaccines is laughable. Furthermore, those who die from these ailments are usually immune-compromised to begin with.
tox
No one with a vested interest in selling you vaccines will tell you that a healthy diet, good hygiene and regular use of high-quality dietary supplements are as effective, if not more so, than any vaccines or combination of them. In fact, the study of disease vectors, beginning with Pasteur and Leeuwenhoek, did more for public health than any vaccine ever has. (Note polio infections were falling even before the introduction of the Salk vaccine in the 1950s)
If the foregoing information and links have produced any doubt in your mind about the safety and efficacy of vaccines, then it behooves you to do more investigation, especially if you are a soon-to-be parent about to be surrounded by people with a vested financial interest in pushing vaccines on your child.
Just looking at the preservatives used should make you question whether you want that crud pumped into your newborn. Regular hand-washing, bathing your child and keeping the nursery clean will be far more effective and less dangerous.
Some final questions to ask: if you are vaccinated against, say...flu, then why do they run breathless fear-porn articles about flu outbreaks every year? Wouldn't it be more effective to show all the healthy vaxxers who didn't get the flu this year? Don't you want to be like them? Or can't they show that to us?
