Dumbed-down Populations Accept Outrageous Vaccine Logic

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

syringe and vaccine

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.

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.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Jon Rappoport of No More Fake News.

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.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Susan

    A babys liver is not fully developed so when they get the Hep B vaccine it can be toxic to them. Donot vaccinate you kids!! I wish Ihad know this years ago.

  • Good Grief

    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. This author knows nothing of science, but he pretends really well. Do we over-vaccinate? Yes. Do vaccines work? Yes, they do. How many children died or were permanently disabled due to Polio before the vaccine became available? Use your critical thinking here folks, and do your own research.

    • Manwhoiswideawake

      You are part of the dumbed down crowd he is referring.Vaccines DO NOT WORK AND ARE HARMFUL!!!

    • sniper


      You are so obviously another cia/big pharma SCUMGAG DEAD TROLL. Get ready to die in the coming revolution, after we get the IDs of ALL trolls, punk.

  • wolf

    Not much is ever mentioned regarding the heavy metal poisons they use in these vaccines as preservatives. Not to mention aborted fetal stem cells and other unmentionables in others. The bad clearly outweighs the good. The human body was designed to have a natural immunity. I for one will not allow these witch-doctors to practice on my kids or me.

  • Julie

    I think for the most part vaccinations a a pay off to the pharmaceuticals. My youngest is 23 ears old , when he was young he never received 55 shots . I’m told that children today are receiving more than that ! Why is that ? Follow the money . At citizenswell.com , I just saw an article from two years ago . One of Obama’s billionaire donors in pharmaceuticles had recieved a huge contract for small pox vaccines. Its. A pay back to BIG PHARMA and we are their lab rats.

  • Julie

    Sorry about the typos , this durn IPAD loves doing that !

  • Ken, your UK friend

    Money made, though zero dollar or dime enters your and my pockets LOL. We observe an Eternal Arms Race between Viruses and us Higher Life Forms LOL. Accept, dont try otherwise LOL. Same story the Elite vs everyone else who is described as a “Pleb” LOL. No Pleb admires his Overlords but as an Adversary who keeps the Underdog on his feet there is no equal. Same story your Immune System which needs to be kept ever on its feet to get efficient LOL. The “Arms Race” is one secret key to Life thou must accept my friends. No side will ever be defeated. Why not? You are 2 sides of the same cent you ‘nonchalantly toss to a bum on the sidewalk’. Peace and Prosperity!

  • ncjoe

    So true. And those who are dumbed down are those who have no scientific literacy so do not accept the established science behind vaccines.

    • joeschmo

      Its not the ‘established’ science behind the vaccines that most of us worry about you wanker. Its the other crap they keep adding to it that worries those of us that dont like the idea of being a test pool.

      Believing that all these corporations and government agencies have your best interests in mind is as dumb as you can get. They dont give one rats ass about you except in terms of profit and loss. You are disposable once they have your money.

    • Manwhoiswideawake


  • bubbleentity

    Vaccines are intended to speed up the responce of a body to an active infaction. nothing more. but to borrow a militery anaology, it is much easier to repel an invader, if you get them before they have estabished a foothold, than it is afterward. This is what Vaccines are attempting to acheive.

    I do feel that there is cause for concern about vaccine stabilisation and preservation substances, so I do feel that those who would decline vaccination for diseases that are not present are correct, however to not vaccinate against the more voracious diseases in local circulation is asking for trouble imo

  • Andy

    You are obviously not trained in real science. You can only get away with not vaccinating because the majority of the population do. You need to really understand how medicine works before you write totally misleading and wrong articles like this one.

  • Having taken immunology in college, I can say that “remembering” is very well defined and demonstrated and is the reason we don’t keep getting sick from the same germs over and over. On the other hand, babies’ immune systems aren’t really developed for six months so the efficacy of vaccines before that is very questionable. And it is not at all clear that the response to the artifical stimulus of the vaccine will be the same as the response to the natural stimulus of the disease. And it is very troubling that toxins are put into vaccines without strict long-term monitoring for adverse side effects.

  • Ken, your UK friend

    Do not forget the vast improvements in hygiene and the most welcome safe drinkable tapwater which improved our standard of living no end. Only recently has privitization of said resource reared its ugly head and threatened this important, relatively cheap, unsung hero of civilized society.

  • Ken, your UK friend

    Further personal info:- May 2000 last smoked a joint of MJ, happy to go the rest of my life never taking no non prescribed drugs. Happy to avoid vaccinations for the rest of my life and if certificates of vaccinations are required for jobs, visa’s etc then I will question what I really desire here. Alcohol? Unsure but many friends swear they are infinitely better off for giving up that vice. Facebook? Mixed feelings, come and see me 6 months L8r LOL. But vaccinations I draw the line. Arrest me to inject me because this is my body and I do not consent. Period!