Saturday, March 29, 2008

Drugs, Vaccines or Nutrition?

UK to force drugmakers to share info "Until a drug has been used by millions of people, the rarest and deadliest side effects may remain unknown." I have often called vaccination a form of Russian Roulette, except that with each violation of a child's dermal layers the bullet always goes in. What you don't know is when it will explode.

Drug companies play a similar game with their synthetic ingestibles, but at least the scientific community acknowledges their toxicity and the mortality rate is widely disseminated. This is why responsible doctors (not totally an oxymoron) warn their patients not to take a drug within five years of receiving FDA approval. It is in those formative years in the monopoly market for drugs that all the "unexpected" deleterious effects are reported. It is fairly simple to cover them up during the approval phase of a drug's history (see Vioxx for one) but much more difficult to hide once people in the real world start dropping like flies on the new meds.

When it comes to vaccination, medical authorities are loathe to link anything deleterious to them, lest compliance rates start dropping precipitously. Why is it that vaccinations have been elevated to unquestionable sacrament? Is it not reasonable to honestly and thoroughly investigate ALL of the potential long term consequences of artificial antibody stimulation? Vaccine-worshippers, whether heavy in a science background or not, attack those who merely question the lack of long-term safety data, even if those questioners are not anti-vaccination.

And what if someone is anti-vaccination? He is treated as a heretic rather than met on the merits of his argument. It is said that if people stopped vaccinating, the whole world would run amok with diseases supposedly eradicated by pharmaceutical injection. While it may be true that certain diseases may become more prevalent by reducing reliance upon the suppression techniques of allopathic medicine, the argument that more people will die is based on abject ignorance of natural healing principles.

Vaccine-apologists are not even aware that they are super-glued to the dogma of an immature understanding of the immune system, based upon Louis Pasteur's Germ Theory. It is NOT true that the mere presence of or contact with a pathogen results in disease, much less death from it. The truth is that coming into contact with disease-causing organisms (pathogens), whether exogenous or endogenous is a normal EVERYDAY occurrence, typically not even resulting in a sniffle.

Even the dreaded polio virus, which was on its way out without Salk's intervention, did not cause paralysis in everyone that it touched. A healthy person might not even know he contracted the virus, but by virtue of his functioning immune system remained largely asymptomatic in overcoming the potentially paralytic virus.

Given that some were immune compromised and did succumb to the viral infection with disastrous results, is vaccination the ONLY way to prevent paralysis to polio, for example? Of course that's an absurd supposition and completely ignores the identification of the Law of the Terrain by Antione Béchamp. When you are healthy and you have a fully functioning immune system, your body has the know-how and the capability to fend off attacks from any microbe known or unknown to man.

Perhaps this is shocking to read, because generations have been to taught to fear the microbe, despite the fact that it is the terrain that determines what can actually grow in it.

In homeopathy, we can also use the "polio" nosode to gently sensitize the immune system and alert it to any potential pathogenic presence. This is done without any danger of causing the disease upon which you are focusing, much less an iatrogenic death caused by the allopathic vaccine intervention.

Should one succumb to any given disease, it is ALSO not true that there is nothing that you can do except antibiotics and other toxic drugs. Whether it be homeopathic medicine, silver hydrosol, olive leaf, oregano oil, garlic, mushrooms, liver support or thousands of other substances and holistic techniques, there are numerous methods to assist a "victim" of microbial overgrowth.

Those that decry an honest discussion regarding the best way to prevent and treat disease, do not understand the concept of treating the whole person rather than the disease. Give me the capability to restore full energy and function to the immune system and I care not what "named disease" is encountered, it will be countered. Don't fear the fever. Embrace it and support it and keep it within safe limits (much higher than most people are willing to admit) and watch the beauty and brilliance of the natural world do its job as if according to some higher plan.

If you are concerned about fever, remember homeopathic phosphorus (homeopathic belladonna for children). If you catch it early enough, remember homeopathic Aconitum.

Who is responsible? The person who relies upon artificial immunity with unknown long term consequences (think chronic diseases of degradation) or the person who does everything within his power to shore up optimal immune function should life do what life does. Life is pro-life, it seeks to strengthen us by experience. Although I tolerate your "belief" in vaccination, I demand that you respect my understanding of the biological milieu as one that needs not rely on allopathic sorcery for its survival.

Whether it be drugs or vaccination, if the damage happens to your child, the risk is 100%. Whether you believe that I am right or wrong in my perspective on the immune system, you cannot justify forced compliance with pharmaceutical intervention as long as one child may die as a result of your public health enforced compassion. What say you?

No comments:

Created with Admarket's flickrSLiDR.