Vaccination no longer makes any sense. Or did it ever? The much-acclaimed benefits of the latest vaccine against Hib meningitis also seem to be unfounded. In a pro-vaccine study published in 1993 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the children in the control group who didn't receive the vaccine also experienced a drastic reduction in the cases of Hib infection - from 99.3 to 68.5 per 100,000.

The latest problem arising from the use of vaccines is that they can cause the body to develop viral "mutants" and even spread the newly created disease to the population at large. Since viral mutants are rarely detected in blood donor screening, they can easily be transmitted through donated blood. This way, the original vaccines may be able to wipe out the strains of virus that are known to cause these various diseases, but in the same stroke they cause other mutant strains of virus to thrive.

Research also showed that a single injection of any kind could increase the risk of paralysis fivefold. Polio, for example, is more common in developing countries where children receive more injections than in developed countries. A study published in 1995 by the New England Journal of Medicine showed that injection of the polio vaccine actually caused outbreaks of the disease.

A 1993 report released by the American National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine concluded that virtually all nine vaccines given to children have at some time been proved to cause damage, including such complications as shock, convulsions, or paralysis. The problem is that a child's body is expected to cope with not just one type of poison contained in one vaccine, but with several different ones contained in as many as nine vaccines. Many children have died or become permanently and severely brain damaged within days after immunization. In many cases, however, the adverse effects from vaccination are less devastating but still serious enough to take a good look at the reasons why parents haven't been informed. In many countries, parents are actually forced by law to immunize their children.

Unfounded Vaccination Hysteria

It has long been known that, in some illnesses such as measles, chicken pox and scarlet fever, one bout of the illness usually provides lifelong immunity. A second experience with measles or scarlet fever is extremely rare.

The concepts of medicine formulated in the 19th century were partially based on the understanding by the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, who observed that an illness manifests signs and symptoms that travel from the inner vital organs and blood circulation to the outer surface of the body. These symptoms would often be visible as a rash or as a discharge of blood, mucus or pus. This "throwing off" of an illness was considered a natural healing response expected to return the body to a state of balance or equilibrium. Hippocrates perceived this labor as a cooking and digesting (pepsis) of our inner poisons during an inflammatory illness. It was also observed that immunity to or protection from an illness arose when a person had that illness before. Today we consider a disease as being an enemy that we need to battle against.

Contrary to common understanding, an inflammatory-infectious illness does not begin when we become exposed to and are infected with a virus or bacterium, but when our body starts its response. The magnitude of our body's response (severity of illness) is not only influenced by the magnitude of the infection, but also by the stamina and inherent strength in us. The healing force employed by the body depends on multiple factors, such as emotions, spiritual foundation, diet, lifestyle, environment, etc. Our immunity certainly does not depend on whether we have been vaccinated against infectious agents.

The crucial factor of strong immunity is due to our immune system's ability to keep the germs at bay or fight them. If the vigor of our immune response is weak, germs are likely to infect us. But normally, the majority of germ "invasions" occur silently, without ever disturbing us. Symptoms of disease occur only at the time the immune system decides it is necessary to aggressively defend itself against harmful influences.

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was the first researcher to postulate that diseases are caused by germs. Pasteur's germ theory proposed that disease germs are after us because they need to prey on us for their own survival while contributing nothing to us in return. He initially believed that infectious/inflammatory diseases are a direct result of germs feasting on us. In microscopic studies of host tissues in such diseases, Pasteur, Koch and their colleagues repeatedly observed that germs proliferated while many host cells were dying. These researchers concluded that germs attack and destroy healthy cells, and thereby start a disease process in the body. Although this assumption turned out to be wrong, it had already made its debut in the world of science, and the erroneous idea that germs cause infections became an undisputed reality. Today, this idea continues to prevail as a fundamental "scientific truth" in the modern medical system.

Pasteur could have just as easily concluded that bacteria are naturally attracted to the sites of increased cell death, just like they are attracted to decaying organic matter elsewhere in nature. Flies, ants, crows, vultures and, of course, bacteria are drawn towards death. Why would this be different in the body? Weak, damaged or dead cells in the body are just as prone to germ infection as an overripe piece of fruit. Pasteur and all the researchers that followed in his footsteps made the choice of thinking of germs either as predators or scavengers. Had they assumed that cells die for non-apparent biochemical reasons (such as toxicity buildup), our current thinking about illness and health would have been completely different than it is today. We would all have grown up with the knowledge that the occurrence of inflammatory/infectious illnesses can ultimately not be attributed to germs, but must be located in the various human frailties that necessitate the forces of decay and death.

Germs only become poisonous to us when confronted with the poisons we create; our body does not battle germs because they are the enemy. An immune system reaction such as high fever or depletion of energy is meant to cleanse the body of harmful substances that otherwise could lead to the eventual demise of the entire body.

In situations of extreme toxicity, the immune system may be so overwhelmed with the poisons it tries to eliminate that it may or may not be able to save the person. In the third scenario, the immune system doesn't respond to the poisons and germs at all, and no acute disease symptoms appear (no fever, inflammations, pain). The result then is chronic, debilitating illness known as allergic or autoimmune disorders.

In the scenario where the immune system has successfully restored the body's functions, the body has acquired immunity to the germs that initiated the rescue mission. Vaccine science has pursued the question of how we can bring about lifelong immunity to an infectious-inflammatory illness without having to experience the illness first. Their assumption is that, by having antibodies in the blood for certain illness-causing germs, you are automatically protected against them. However, no proof has shown whether protection from the germs is due to the presence of antibodies or to a normal healthy immune response. It is actually much more likely that the latter is true, unless vaccine poisons have damaged or even paralyzed the immune system.

Only when the germs number or rate of growth exceeds a certain threshold are they then recognized by the immune system, resulting in the formation of antibodies specific to the particular provocative bug. A large presence of germs indicates that the cell tissue has become damaged or weak due to the accumulation of acid waste. At that level of infection, things get seriously out of control and a tribe of germs proliferates wildly and provokes the full defensive reaction of our immune system. This is what doctors call an "acute inflammatory response." Symptoms usually include fever, release of stress hormones by the adrenal glands, increased flow of blood, lymph, and mucus, and a streaming of white blood cells to the inflamed area. The afflicted person feels sick and may experience pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, weakness and chills. The sweating out and throwing off of the illness is a natural response by the body that reflects a healthy immune system. A really sick person would no longer be able to come up with such healing responses.

Once we have successfully passed the challenge of a particular illness, it is less likely that we will experience it again. Somehow the illness and our response to it have made us immune to its recurrence. It is more than doubtful, though, that vaccination can do the same for us by forcing the body to make antibodies for some germs that appear to be causing an infection. It has been shown over and over again that, despite the vaccination of a person against a particular illness, the person may just develop that very illness he is supposed to be protected against, or even more so. The mere presence of specific antibodies cannot protect anyone against any illness, only the cellular immune system can. Although it is true that science knows how to bestow antibodies through vaccination, it mistakenly assumes that it is bestowing the immune strength that can only be developed through the experience of a particular illness.

Antibodies alone are not sufficient to produce immunity. It is well known that several diseases, such as herpes outbreaks, may recur repeatedly despite high antibody levels. Whether or not antibodies are present, immunity to these infectious diseases can only be conferred by our cellular immune system. The theory that exposing the body to disease germs will trigger an immune response similar to the one generated during an actual disease experience is seriously flawed.