Dumbed-Down Populations Accept Outrageous Vaccine Logic
Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic
by Jon Rappoport
February 5, 2013
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.
One of the two bonuses in THE MATRIX REVEALED is my complete 18-lesson course, LOGIC AND ANALYSIS, which includes the teacher’s manual and a CD to guide you. I was previously selling the course for $375. This is a new way to teach logic, the subject that has been missing from schools for decades.
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.
Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
Filed under: Logic Course, Matrix Revealed, Medical Fraud 
Jon Rappoport has worked as a free-lance investigative reporter for over 30 years. http://nomorefakenews.com/
2013-02-09 01:00:11
Source:
First off, I will admit I only read through about 20% of your article before I had concluded not only are you an idiot but also a “know-it-all” who pretends to be intelligent when he’s obviously not. I will correct you on the immediate errors that I found in your claims…at least the ones from the 20% I read through at the beginning:
1. Active viruses are not injected into people in vaccines. Pharm companies take active viruses and beat them down with various means to render them, in layman’s terms, nearly dead and incapable of replicating. So yes, while the virus is present, it’s all but dead at the time of injection. This allows the immune system a chance to deal with a version of the virus in a weakened state. Truth is, you can contract the virus from this process. But the likelihood of it is extremely, as in like 0.0001% chance in most cases.
2. Your argument against why your body can’t fight it off on it’s own later when the virus is contracted — well you just have no clue what you’re talking about. Obviously your immune system can’t fight off a full blown living version of a virus or we’d not even be talking about this to begin with. Viruses thwart the body…it’s how they exist…it’s how they replicate and spread. If your body could fight them off without science, then there would be no viruses… they’d simply be unable to spread and would die off. Science gives us the ability to make weakened versions of these viruses and then “teach” our bodies how to fight the full virus. It’s like training a person to shoot a gun. Having a gun is one thing…but if a bad guy breaks in your house intent on killing you…simply having the gun may not be enough to save you. So you need to know how to load, aim, and fire the gun to protect yourself. How do you learn to do this? Practice…and practice perhaps, against people “pretending” to be bad guys or dummy targets…so when the real thing shows up, you know what to do and how to do it.
3. Your argument against presence of antibodies is also illogically flawed. A test for a disease and the post vaccination are two separate situations. I’ve had a chickenpox vaccine, so I carry antibodies for it. If I’m tested, this is how they know I’ve had the vaccine. Either I was vaccinated or I already had the pox. Where is your argument even valid here? It doesn’t even make sense.
4. Bulking up the immune system? That terminology is misleading. Vaccines do not do that. Vaccines merely teach the body to identify and destroy a certain type of cell…aka-the virus.
5. Your argument against the fact that the body’s cells can store data is moronic. A single strand of DNA contains all the programming and cellular information needed to replicate your entire body. Cells within our immune system DO contain and retain data related to disease resistance. This is how a mother can pass on resistance to her child. This is how we resist getting sick with the same virus more than once. It does not happen. Once the body defeats a virus, it can never harm us again. “But I’ve had the flu every single year!” Yes, and every time, you are contracting a brand new strain of the same disease. Viruses replicate and evolve far faster than any other living thing. Why? Because they are extremely small and simple life-forms and are capable of replicating and adapting far faster than larger creatures. It takes us a million years to climb down out of the trees…but a virus can change in less than a year. This is why flu shots, for instance, are not highly effective. Influenza changes yearly to a point where its cellular makeup is completely altered. Essentially, Pharma companies make vaccines based on last year’s version of the Influenza virus. So the current virus is already different. You give yourself a better than 50/50 chance of resisting the flu by getting a shot, but it’s a narrow margin. Based on the vaccine, your body can, for the most part, if you’re healthy, probably identify the new version of the virus and kill it…but not always. 2012-13 flu season has been especially bad because the virus this year was resistant more than in previous years. I fear one day, this virus will shift so much that we’ll be looking at a pandemic than shots will not ward off at all. Viruses and bacteria can also develop resistance to antibiotics, so this becomes a danger as well.
In the end, you’re not educated on biology whatsoever. You should shut the hell up and stop feeding inaccurate and intentionally false information to people while claiming it to be the gospel. You don’t know what you’re talking about and you are just helping viruses and diseases along when you convince people to avoid vaccinations.
One day maybe they’ll create a vaccine for stupidity. I hope you’re in line when they start handing them out.
Welcome to B4IN where every ‘contributor/reporter’ thinks they have the knowledge of the almighty and you should just take their word for it without supporting evidence.
Thanks! I’ve been here a long while myself. Normally I don’t dog people out, but my wife is a biology student…so this guy was smoking the bong-pipe-of-stupidity and the smoke was starting to cloud my better judgement.
Thank you John, yes I believe Big Pharma, like the Military Industrial Complex, maintains their existence by perpetuating the narrative that peace, health, and prosperity are just around the corner and all the while inventing other causes in order to justify that belief in order to maximize their financial gains.
A prime example is Jerry Lewis’ Muscular Dystrophy Telethon that he championed for nearly 60 years and raised $2.45 Billion Dollars through 2009 to “Find the cure”. Well, to his credit Mr. Lewis was notified by Dr. Joel Wallech that supplementing minerals into a a diet, he believed was the culprit in Muscular Dystrophy and proved through volunteer subjects that you can cure this disease.
Well, much to Jerry’s amazement he recognized the solution/cure and was very ecstatic to bring the test results to the Muscular Dystrophy Association Board and was summarily fired as their spokesperson.
You see, when this Association generated $2.45 Billion for “Research” the gravy train would dry up if a real cure, especially a simple, inexpensive cure was discovered where Big Pharma couldn’t monopolize, then there was no interest, and in fact, went way out of their way to silence their critics through confidentiality clauses.
So, logically speaking, there is no financial benefit to emphasizing proper nutritional and mineral diets for Big Pharma, but their most certainly is if you can perpetuate the current myths of vaccines especially when substantial profits are to be made from those urgings to receive them.
Admittedly, BigPharma does run some serious scams and I too, agree that there is no profit in cures and so no businesses are interested in anything more that “treating” disease. But that aside, vaccinations date back as far as the 17th century. Yes…I said that. Vaccines and the art of vaccination were likely invented by the Indian/Chinese in their battle with Smallpox. Here’s a link for those of you too stupid to research it yourselves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination
Vaccines are not the money makers that regular medications are. The Pharma companies don’t make that much on them…practically nothing at all due to government regulation [thankfully they did something right for a change].
This article began as a bash on vaccinations, not on BigPharma. Don’t change the subject to try and reiterate the same crap. Argue valid points or go home please.
Read the inserts to these flu vaccines, especially flu vaccines, there rather horrific. The ‘cocktail’s” ingredients should be criminal to dispense.