I wake up each morning, And get into my range
I open the windows, And I see there’s no change.
Then I light up my computer, It hums just like before
And you know what it tells me? Yeah the battle it still roars.
I got the no-change blues, Yeah, I got the no-change blues
No matter how hard I try, Those folk they just won’t lose.
Well, I’m not really a gnarled old blues singer but I do think that the wars of words have dragged on for a good two hundred years and there really should be a move towards consensus by now. Instead there is less agreement than ever and the medical-industrial complex, MIC, establishment is simply attempting to crush out any signs of opposition to their supremacy. Total domination would be their only acceptable outcome, it seems, rather than a reasonable and wholly objective assessment of the multifarious and lifelong outcomes of this never tested hypothesis now used unquestioningly on countless millions of the global human and livestock populations.
The hypothesis is that injecting live bacteria/virus particles or their denatured derivative products into a potential sufferer’s bloodstream allows his/her immune system to develop an ability to fight off that infection without suffering the disease symptoms in the future. Vaccination to instil immunity.
You couldn’t make it up, really. It just sounds too far fetched to be true. Surely there have been controlled trials of these supposed medicaments, these prophylactics that are so freely offered to everyone. The truth is that there have never been such trials and the effectiveness of the process is just derived retrospectively and indirectly.
Twenty years later they will say “Look, numbers suffering that ailment decreased”. They will not count “other conditions” which arose concomitantly nor will they consider decreased diagnosis of a condition. “You can’t be suffering from that – you’ve been vaccinated against it”.
Anyway, I recently was taken to task for stating in public that I was, indeed, anti-vaccination. The critique was that I should only be pro-SAFE-vaccination and not close out the possibility that such pharmaceutical constructs might be achieved one day. It wasn’t clear whether s/he thought any such were available now. I answered that I saw the problem when maniacal pro-vaccinators dispensed vitriol and hatred against any and all who even questioned the process.
Yes, I have been the target of such attacks and it is most unsettling. They use the concept, the inane concept, of “herd-immunity” to thrust moral indignation and shame upon those who do not vaccinate. “You put my young child at risk by allowing the measles virus to continue to exist – my young child is too young to have been given the measles jab so far so if s/he catches measles then it’s your fault and I’m gonna kill you if anything happens to my child”.
Ouch. This is the visceral, Andy, this is where it hurts. There’s no cool, clear and rational discussion to be had here. It’s the same logic as found in the support of a football team. “Celtic?” “No, Rangers – and you??”
Yeah, I’ve got all the science, all the logistical discussions. I understand biochemistry, immunology, genetics, bio-medical-ecology, nutrition and bacteriology. I’ve studied them, researched in them and have built up a very clear derivation of illness, protection mechanisms and optimal health strategies. They are a detailed hybrid of all those disciplines and some others too. But it does not distil down to a simple, reassuring phrase or two to pacify such ingrained aggression – rational or otherwise.
Truth is that the aggression is of exactly the same intensity when it emanates from a highly educated medical practitioner. Highly and incorrectly I would suggest but it’s the only mould they have. The doctor who vaccinated his own son who then became profoundly autistic is an obvious case. How could he ever say “My God, son, I did this to you”?
It used to be, in the mid nineties when we started this trip of discovery, that one would not directly say to a new parent “Don’t have your child vaccinated”. You would talk them through information sources, give your own interpretations and calmly leave the other to make up their own mind. I feel the same now but am wholly clear as to my own, personal conclusions. I think people who go through with the catalogue of jabs for their newborns are dumb.
However I clearly cannot have a complete grasp of all the possible ramifications of our integral homeostatic mechanisms. It would be wrong of me to be so openly critical of the established practice and not leave windows open for new enlightened methodologies to be introduced and for a vast range of health maximisation processes to emerge. I have many firm ideas on these fronts myself and long to pursue them towards the greater human good.
At this present moment my conclusions are that we are wasting so much energy on this eternal bickering. I grant that there are many noble goals apparent in the wish to eradicate illnesses but am more aware of the deceit in a system that continues to ignore the damage resultant from it. I can even see that to be more open will profoundly damage public faith in the operation but feel that this a bullet that must be bitten, an issue that must be addressed in order that we can then progress to a far healthier population maintained at far lower cost in both the short term, through childhood illness, but also in the long term as so many degenerative conditions are eliminated.
We should establish a wholly objective trans-disciplinary centre of cognisance, of interpretation, back-research and progressive investigation, to pursue all the elusive outcomes of our clearly deficient current “immune system interventions” carried out to derive improved health outcomes in terms of resistance to certain infectious conditions derived from viral or bacterial proliferations leading to sickness (Yeah, “vaccination!”).
Yes, I’d love to be the first Director and to help guide the project towards such beneficial outcomes as I have outlined. The approach is, indeed, revolutionary and many regimes may be overturned. I envisage that quite soon though we would develop the twin outcomes of greatly improved health, including the elimination of chronic conditions that have recently so proliferated in children and now adults, and also huge financial savings in terms of far lower pharmaceutical bills and far less loss of time due to chronic illness.
Shall I start the fund raising now? It’s never been a particular strong point for me, raising capital, but the need is so apparent I’m sure that we can draw the funds together. Where shall we start the bidding? Anyone got a spare Institute we could use? Couple of dozen staff should suit pretty well, built up over a year or so, so we’ll have to fund that, too. £1000000 for the first year – then it’s self supporting.
Chris Hemmings August 15th, 2011. email@example.com