A Shot to the Head in Biological Darkness

Headline: Experts Agree: Vaccines Give Health Care A Needed Shot In The Arm "Disparities in access, inconsistent funding, public misperceptions, and scientific roadblocks, such as the disappointing results of HIV/AIDS vaccine trials, all stand in the way of more widespread use of immunizations."

Big Pharma wants us to perceive that all vaccines are safe and efficacious. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. From where do the public "misperceptions" come? They are largely the fault of the CDC and its need for immunological secrecy.

Over one billion dollars have been paid out to families of children who have been injured or killed by vaccination since the October 1, 1988 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (Public Law 99-660) put the the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) into play.

Misperception? Parents just want to know why government agencies are more interested in protecting pharmaceutical companies over their children. Of course, this is where parents have lost sight of their primary mission as protector of their own children. It is not the role of the federal government, nor medical authorities, to protect your children from biological ignorance. Just how bad a job must they do before we wake up and realize the callous disregard with which the federal government protects us? Just look at the FDA. Over 784,000 Americans meet their maker each year due to substances and methods which they approve in the medical realm.

It's not a stretch to say that FDA sucks pretty bad at accomplishing its stated mission. Harvey Wiley has rolled over in his grave so many times now that there's probably a sink hole all the way to Chinese heparin.

To which public misperception do the vaccine "experts" refer? Their great concern is that you might actually learn about the immunological truth of vaccination. It is based upon Louis Pasteur's victim consciousness-based biological paradigm. It is wholly incomplete and immature -- which is why you can't "fix" vaccines. They are built on a foundation of microbial quicksand. Even the most solid-looking building cannot be saved by changing the window treatments if it is built on a false foundation. This is what the thimerosal distraction amounts to -- changing the window dressing while the structure is falling down around you.

Yes, it's true that vaccination can limit the "expression" of a given disease, but the question of whether it is the best (or even a good) way of preventing it is never considered. Those with budgetary conflicts of interest running into the billions cannot conceive that childhood diseases may actually be nature's way of strengthening immune function for future generations. What are the long-term ramifications of preventing normal childhood immune development?

Name another culture in medical history that ever had a cancer rate of 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women.

"Living longer" does not explain a cancer epidemic in children, much less diabetes and neurological diseases in the young and younger. Each successive generation raised on vaccination instead of optimal nutrition suffers inevitably from a lack of true immunological understanding. In our pharmaceutical society, all biological symptoms have become indicative of a drug or vaccine deficiency, rather than a deficiency of knowing how to live correctly.

I reiterate, we have been convinced that the only way to live is by "pasteurizing" anything that is microscopic and moves. When will we put Pasteur out to pasture? Paging Antoine Béchamp.

Vaccination may be a shot in the arm to the pharmaceutical industry, but it is a shot in the head to the children sacrificed at the altar of the Church of Biological Mysticism. Sure, the road to autism is paved with good intentions, so what? Why do you think that more and more parents are reluctant to subject their children to mass vaccination?

Medical "experts" are even claiming that the failure to produce an "HIV" vaccine is a reason "shot" compliance rates are waning. In the case of the super-villain retrovirus, what they fail to acknowledge is that HIV has never been caught in the act of doing anything on the order of that which is later diagnosed as AIDS. This is another cognitively dissonant moment in vaccine worship.

How would they be able to tell the difference between an HIV antibody that is naturally derived (and used to mean certain death) and one that is vaccine-induced (and would, according to welfare scientists such as Robert Gallo) mean certain life? Perhaps we should all read up on the one man who has steadfastly remained scientific while the AIDS industry devolved into a primordial slime of political and pharmaceutical corruption. Antibodies in the era of AIDS conveniently mean opposite of what they used to indicate when there was some semblance of immunological sanity, prior to Big Pharma's purchase of Big Government.

It used to be considered blasphemous to question the third rail of medical politics. Now even formerly vociferous proponents of the vaccine religion are questioning its unquestionability.

It's just a shame that so many children were sacrificed along the way. Will yours be?