by Rixta Francis

The Fiction of Science

We hear all the time that “the science is clear: vaccines save lives.”

But where is that science? If it exists, then why can nobody show it?

The belief in vaccines comes in two parts: safety and efficacy.

Let’s first look at the science that proves efficacy (spoiler alert: there is none). Vaccines are made by the pharmaceutical industry and this industry has a lot of tricks to make their products look better than they are.

One cherished concept is the “surrogate endpoint”. They make up a theory, e.g. “cholesterol causes heart attacks”. Then they make a drug that lowers cholesterol and then that drug is promoted as preventing heart attacks, even when it does no such thing. It only lowers cholesterol.

The same principle is used with vaccines, but then the surrogate endpoint is antibodies. If a vaccine produces enough antibodies (a totally random number) in enough people the vaccine is considered effective.

But it has been known for some 100 years that antibodies do not equal immunity. Of course the people think that efficacy means that the vaccine prevents the disease, but that’s just not true. There is no scientific proof whatsoever that vaccines prevent disease.

But what about all the diseases that have disappeared?

Some disappeared because of improved living circumstances. E.g. smallpox and cholera are strongly linked to dirt and bad food.

But most of the infectious diseases were renamed as soon as there came a vaccine available. Sometimes (e.g. with polio) this was an official instruction to doctors, but in most cases doctors have such strong faith in vaccines that they simply won’t diagnose e.g. measles or whooping cough in a person who has been fully vaccinated.

With every new vaccine multiple new diagnoses are invented to hide the fact that the vaccine doesn’t work. These are tricks that have nothing to do with science, but everything with beliefs.

Let’s have a look now at the safety of vaccines. The “gold standard” for drugs is the double blind, placebo controlled study.

There is a lot wrong with this, but let’s accept for now that this is the standard. It’s very hard to get a drug approved without doing such studies.

But for vaccines they are simply not done. A placebo is an inactive substance, so in case of vaccines that should be a saline injection.

But vaccines are tested against other vaccines, or a number of other vaccines, or an injection of the vaccine minus the antigen.

Which means that if both groups have a lot of health issues the new vaccine is considered safe and all problems are labelled coincidence.

Of course this is extremely unethical, but the manufacturers get away with this because vaccines have been relabelled as “biologics”, instead of drugs. That’s also the reason why everywhere they can be marketed directly to the public, where this is usually not allowed for prescription drugs.

Many children (and adults) get very sick in the hours, days or weeks after vaccinations, but doctors generally label all these health issues coincidence and not related to the vaccinations.

Considering how much this happens the only conclusion can be that doctors have an almost unlimited belief in coincidence. They have developed such a faith in coincidence to protect their faith in vaccines. It’s quite bizarre when you think about it, but it’s just how it is.

But “all doctors believe in vaccines”. Well, most of them do, but that is completely irrelevant. Beliefs don’t become scientific fact just because a large majority shares those beliefs.

Billions of people believe in Jesus and similar numbers believe in Allah or Shiva. But nobody will say that Christianity, Islam or Hinduism are anything else than religions. If someone plays the numbers card they talk religion, not science.

Why is this so incredibly important?

Many constitutions in the world have an article that in some way states that the government cannot establish a religion or force a religious practice on the people.

Vaccines are a religion and vaccinations are a (barbaric) religious ritual. That means that any kind of mandatory vaccination law is unconstitutional.

Some people might still play semantics and say that a belief system is not the same as a religion. But let’s look at the vaccine religion.

– You are expected to go to preparation classes (prenatal check-ups)

– You are expected to give birth in the temple (=hospital).

– As soon as the baby is born you are confronted with the temple servants (doctors/nurses/midwives) who want to submit your baby to the standard ritual (two injections)

– If you decline they usually will try to convince or coerce you

– At set times after birth you need to bring your baby to another temple (doctor’s practice) for more rituals

– If you don’t want to submit your baby to the rituals you can expect extremely negative reactions, which can become aggression and end up with you not being welcome in the temple anymore

– If you lose the faith (or never join in the first place) you can expect social exclusion and often serious family trouble. Some grandparents even consider “saving their grandchildren” by bringing them to the temple themselves, without the parents permission.

Vaccinations have almost every characteristic of a religion, so the desperate argument that a belief system doesn’t equal a religion doesn’t hold up.

Politicians won’t like it, but if you go to court with this you will win and mandatory vaccinations will have to be abandoned, or at least you can stay free of them.

The only thing you need to do is to state that vaccines are a religion and the government is constitutionally banned from mandating a religious practice.

Then sit back and let the other party try to find reasons why vaccines are based on science and not on beliefs. It’s obvious that they won’t find any. And as long as they can’t come up with scientific arguments you win, for then it’s obvious that they only have beliefs.

So why hasn’t this argument been in court yet? I don’t know. But as far as I know nobody has tried it. Nowhere in the world. If you can explain that, please let me know.

Original Source. Reprinted with Permission.

See Also:

Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.

In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.

One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.