From Chapter 1: Immunity, True and False.
The natural immunity acquired by coming down with and recovering from acute febrile diseases like the measles, resulting in expulsion of the offending organism from the body, are the formative experiences by which a healthy immune system is developed and maintained throughout life. This basic truth is reinforced by a large volume of epidemiological research to the effect that contracting and recovering from acute febrile illnesses in childhood provide significant protection against cancer and many other chronic diseases later in life.
Whatever good vaccines may accomplish inevitably falls far short of these goals. Without the acute illness, there is no priming of the immune system as a whole, no improvement in the general health, and no reliable mechanism for expelling the invading organism from the blood. Indeed, where that organism actually goes, how it persuades the immune system to continue producing antibodies against it for years or even decades, and what price we have to pay for the partial, counterfeit immunity that they represent, are questions that it seems we are not supposed to ask, and can expect anything from haughty contempt to righteous indignation when we do.
What haunts me is the probability that the production of specific antibodies throughout life entails the ongoing physical presence of these vaccines, or the highly antigenic substances produced by or from them, remaining deep inside the body on a chronic and indeed permanent basis, which seems to me a perfect recipe for eliciting autoimmune phenomena routinely and repeatedly in every recipient, whether or not they actually fall ill or develop clinical signs and symptoms at the time.
With the live-virus vaccines, it is simple to imagine how such a carrier state might be achieved, by simply attaching themselves to the DNA or RNA of their host cells. As for the other so-called “non-living” vaccines, we know that they cannot survive as antigens for long periods of time without the presence of various chemical adsorbents, fixatives, preservatives, sterilizing agents, and “adjuvants,” almost all of them highly toxic, and indeed that enabling such long-term survival is the only reason for their use; but precisely how these chronic phenomena are achieved has been allowed to remain a well-guarded trade secret, if indeed it is known at all.
It is dangerously misleading, if not the exact opposite of the truth, to claim that vaccines protect us from acute infection if they merely drive the organism deeper into our bodies and cause us to harbor them chronically instead, rendering us incapable of responding acutely, not only to them, but very probably to other antigens as well. In short, my fear is, and indeed my experience has been, that whereas acute infectious diseases produce genuine immunity through vigorous, acute responses, vaccine-mediated immunity is achieved by creating the equivalent of a chronic infection in its place.
So what is the alternative? Expose all young children to live virus infections in other children? We have experience that the consequences of that approach (i.e. do nothing) can lead to severe reactions in some children, and even death.
Thank you for starting the discussion Randy. I think what many people feel is that they personally should be able to have access to quality information and make an educated decision. For example, the flu shot. Here in MA the vaccination rate is low, I believe around 30-40%. Should it be mandated that everyone get the flu shot? If you are healthy, have a good life style, eat well, are in good healthy relationships (low stress) etc your immune system will probably be strong. I for one have not had a flu shot since my teens, and to the best of my knowledge, I have not had the flu. I have not been sick more than a day or two in a row. Am I lucky, genetics, lifestyle? Probably yes to all of them to some degree, but I do not want it mandated that I have to get a flu shot. Just my thoughts.