December 7, 2022

Life Science Course LESSON 66...

Life Science Course LESSON 66 – Contagion, Epidemics
13. The V@cc1nat!on Network
“Immunization” is based on the idea that it is possible, by chemical or biological means, to make a person disease-proof. If this were indeed possible, it would represent a suspension of the law of cause and effect.
People have been educated to be terrified of bacteria, to believe implicitly in the idea of contagion—that specific malevolent aggressive disease germs pass from one host to another. Even bacteriologists overlook the fact that, instead of the germ population being divided into specific “good” germs and specific “bad” germs, “good” germs have the ability to mutate into “bad” (proliferating and virulent) germs, when the soil is suitable for this change. Germs have the ability to modify their structure and function, according to the environment in which they find themselves.
The idea of v@cc1nat!on is that injection of a specific v@cc1ne of lesser virulence is supposed to confer immunity against a specific disease of greater virulence. Originally, it was maintained that one injection would confer lifetime immunity. After that idea failed, the idea of periodic rev@cc1nat!on was adopted. Read my book, Don’t Get Stuck! , for the history of the failure of v@cc1nat!on and the trail of tragedy it has left in its wake.
Dr. Robert Simpson of Rutgers University said (March 1976): “Immunization programs against flu, measles, mumps, and polio may invade the genetic makeup, and may actually be seeding humans with RNA to form pro-viruses, which then become latent cells throughout the body. These could be molecules in search of diseases, which may become activated and cause a variety of diseases later, such as multiple sclerosis, arthritis, or even cancer.” While this conjecture is in line with medical reasoning, it is blatant nonsense. Organisms do not work this way.
14. Immunity Vs. Toleration
Sometimes the injection of a poison into the bloodstream results in toleration of that poison, which is mistakenly labeled immunity. Toleration means the body hasn’t sufficient vitality to resist.
The dictionary definition of tolerance is “the power or ability to endure, withstand, or resist the effects of a drug or food or other physiologic insults without showing unfavorable effects.” Actually, this is contradictory. If the body endures the insult, it is because of lack of strength to resist. When it resists, it has the energy to institute defensive action: vomiting, sneezing, diarrhea, fever, or any crisis of cleansing and healing.
Dr. Shelton says that toleration is submission; it is broken-down resistance. “The warning voice of self-protection has gradually been put to sleep, while the organism is undermined and premature death comes as a surprise to everyone … Toleration for poisoning is established by loss of the vitality necessary to resist it. The body pays for this toleration (miscalled immunity) by general enervation and lowered resistance to every other influence. … It is a sad day for the body when it tolerates poisons. … If tolerance for tobacco were never established, there would be no tobacco users. The same for alcohol, opium, arsenic, and other poisons. … The repeated use of a poison gradually overcomes or decreases vital resistance.”
15. Inoculation Is A Disease-Producing Process
No v@cc1ne or other similar preparation can confer immunity against the effects of wrong living. On the contrary, more (not fewer) diseases are the inevitable result inoculation with serum and v@cc1ne, which exhaust the vitality and resistance. Inoculation is a disease-producing process, which results in injury to organs, the nervous system and the blood.
Serum inoculations and blood transfusions can dissolve red blood cells in the recipient and damage the central nervous system, which helps to account for the enormous numbers of servicemen discharged as insane. ( Dr. Shelton’s Hygienic Review , May 1977, page 200).
In an article published in the United States Naval Medical Bulletin , May 1, 1943, three naval officers (physicians reported that inoculations against typhoid, tetanus, and yellow fever are “epidemiological factors” of greatest significance in the history of meningococcic meningitis. They expressed the belief that “immunizing inoculations” may lower body resistance. The occurrence of seventy eight cases of cerebrospinal fever was reported among troops in a camp in Natal after the injection of typhoic v@cc1ne.
The purpose of such inoculations is to produce specific antibodies against specific diseases. Dr. Shelton says that if the body produces antibodies when v@cc1nes and serum are administered, these are the ones required to protect against the injected substances, and not the specific antibodies that would be required to protect it against the contingency of exposure or susceptibility to a specific disease.
The following report appeared in Vol. 93, No. 6, page 482, of the American Journal of Epidemiology (observations made by workers conducting a trial of “flu”v@cc1ne):
“The overall respiratory illness rates were unaffected by the v@cc1nes.
Infections due to agents other than the influenza virus accounted for a larger proportion of illness in the protected (v@cc1nated) than in the unprotected groups.”
16. v@cc1nat!on And Failure Of Defensive Mechanisms
In their book, v@cc1nat!on and Immune Malfunction (published October 1982), authors Harold E. Buttram M.D. and John Chriss Hoffman discuss the fundamental differences between the processes of “natural immunity” and so-called v@cc1ne immunity. They suggest that those who are honestly trying to weigh the pros and cons of v@cc1nes should become familiar with the existing evidence that v@cc1nat!on does indeed cause lasting damage to the defensive systems of children; and they urgently propose an immediate change from compulsory v@cc1nat!on programs to absolute freedom of choice.
They take the position that there is a fundamental difference between “natural immunity” (conferred by childhood diseases) and the attempts to confer immunity by introducing massive amounts of antigenic materials in the bloodstream, bypassing the primary defenses, and stressing the body in insidious ways which have previously been largely unrecognized. The body’s resistance is lowered through a subtle defensive malfunction and a drastic reduction of the body’s ability to defend.
On page 5 of their book, Buttram and Hoffman give an illustration of their concept. “According to the one cell one antibody rule, once an immune body (plasma cell or lymphocyte) becomes committed to a given antigen, it becomes incapable of responding to other antigens or challenges.” A hypothetical child passes through “so-called usual childhood diseases with relatively minor and uncomplicated illnesses.”
“Considering the extreme efficiency of ‘natural immunity,’ we may make an educated guess that permanent immunity was gained to these diseases by utilizing only 3 to 7 percent of the total immune capacity. In the case of the routine childhood v@cc1nes, in contrast, it is likely that a higher percentage of the total immune capacity becomes committed, perhaps something on the order of 30 to 70 percent. It should be emphasized that, once an immune body becomes committed to a specific antigen, it becomes inert and incapable of responding to other challenges.
“If the reserve immune, capacity of children is being reduced by current v@cc1nat!ons in this manner, what will be the consequences? No one knows for certain at this time, but it is possible that these consequences could be seen as an increased susceptibility to viruses, to other infections, and to various forms of allergies. A child could be reduced from an expectancy of exuberant, health to a middle state: never entirely healthy, never entirely well.”
One of the most extensively documented studies of the indirect effects of v@cc1nes is found in “The Hazards of Immunization” (Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, 1967) by Sir Graham Wilson, formerly of the Public Health Laboratory Service, England and Wales. Dr. Wilson cites documented historical examples of v@cc1nat!on against one disease seeming to provoke another; for example, fifteen cases of poliomyelitis following inoculation against diphtheria or pertussis.
Reports of twelve cases of multiple sclerosis following inoculations were reviewed in the article, “Multiple Sclerosis and V@cc1nat!ons,” by Miller and others, British Medical Journal , April 22, 1967, pages 210-213. Numerous other reports of apparent immune system-mediated diseases (including Guillain-Barre syndrome) have implicated v@cc1nes.
An overwhelming majority of American medical doctors approve v@cc1nat!on, on the grounds that occasional direct toxicities are an acceptable risk in terms of assumed control gained over infectious diseases. Although direct toxicities are uncommon (as a result ofv@cc1nat!on), the real danger of v@cc1nat!on appears to be the indirect effect of impairment of the immune system, first researched in the early 1970s by Dr. Arthic Kalorkerinos and Dr. Glenn Dittman (both of Australia) who uncovered the phenomenon of immune malfunction, lowering the body’s resistance as a result of v@cc1nat!on. The problem is that, because this effect is apt to be delayed and masked, its true nature usually escapes recognition.
Buttram and Hoffman maintain that, in view of the mounting evidence of immune malfunction following current v@cc1nat!on programs, there must be a public demand for investigation of v@cc1nat!on methods, and a discontinuation of compulsory v@cc1nat!on.
These authors say that we are now seeing an increasing social disintegration, with increasing nervous and mental disorders, and that these trends are thought to be related to a subtle biological deterioration of the health of Americans brought about by denatured, devitalized, and adulterated foods; chemical pollution of air, water, and soil; a medical research system oriented toward the use of synthetic drugs and chemicals, and childhood v@cc1ne programs.
“Nature … created the human biological system, including the immune system, as extremely adaptable so that it could cope with an ever-changing environment. We are now seeing vast numbers of our children who are unable to cope with their environment demonstrating allergic and/or toxic reactions to their foods, to chemicals, to common inhalants such as dust, pollen, and mold, and to environmental pollutants. If this is combined with an immune system which is compromised from the very first by our present compulsory childhood v@cc1nat!on programs, and in turn, compounded by devitalized and denatured foods upon which many of our children subsist, could we really expect to see anything other than the deteriorating health which is now taking place?
“It is possible that many of the nervous, mental, behavioral, and sociological problems occurring today among the younger generation in America may represent a counterpart of the malnutrition-immunization interaction observed by Dettman and Kalokerinos among the Australian aborigines.”
Barbara Ann Boruff, in an article, “Immunization: The Risk Factors,” says, “The thymus, spleen, and lymph nodes are the main components of the body’s immune system. Inadequate nutrition during the time in pregnancy when these organs are developing in the fetus can impair their growth and thereby affect a child’s susceptibility to disease, not only in childhood, but throughout his or her lifetime. A pregnant woman must insure that her diet includes the variety of wholesome foods necessary to the development of her unborn child’s immune system.
“Breast-feeding offers the newborn child protection against many diseases. The colostrum present in the first day or so of nursing contains disease-resistant factors.
“The long-term effects of breast-feeding are particularly rewarding. In one study at Northwestern University it was found that in comparing children breast-fed six months or longer to bottle-fed children, the bottle-fed children had four times as many ear infections, four times as many colds, eleven times as many tonsillectomies, twenty times as many diarrheal infections, and from eight to twenty-seven times more allergic conditions.” ( Nursing Your Baby , by Karen Pryor.)
“Another recognized guardian of health are the tonsils. A study by Rodrigo C. Hurtado of Georgetown University School of Medicine indicated that the tonsils protect against many diseases, including the common cold, herpes, measles, influenza, and polio.
It was also discussed that following the removal of tonsils, there is an increased incidence of malignancy.”
This paragraph from page 17 of the book, V@cc1nat!on s and Immune Malfunction , sounds as though it came straight out of the Hygienic body of literature. “The processes of Nature are always, or almost always characterized by two qualities: efficiency and economy. Attempts of modern science to reproduce or synthesize organic, biological substances and the life-processes of Nature are often grotesquely inefficient, wasteful, and frequently harmful. It is probably a truism that science succeeds only to the extent that it harmonizes with Nature’s laws and processes; it fails to the extent that it conflicts with these laws.”
17. The Body Cannot Be Protected From The Consequences Of Injurious Practices
The body will not conduct defensive crises when there is no need for them. Healthy bodies do not require detoxification. The body cannot conduct defensive crises if its vitality has been lowered to a point where it no longer has the energy and resources to initiate and conduct detoxification and healing processes.
The suppression of the body’s ability to heal itself (by drugging or v@cc1nat!ng) should not be mistaken for exemption from the consequences of wrong living. On the contrary, the drugs and v@cc1nes constitute additional attacks on the integrity of the organism. They impair structure and function, and hasten degeneration and death.

Share: