We each share in the essential human emotion of personal fear, and also concern for others.
There is an image portrayed of the broad group being vaccinated as cooperative, brave, and elevating concern for others. The corresponding image is that the equally diverse group of people who do not support vaccination are selfish and free-riding on the actions of the other.
This portrayal works only from a narrow point of view. It assumes various things. One is a general point: that any motivation itself can be virtuous in absolute, in contrast to another.
More specific is the assumption that the process of vaccination is a valid vehicle for public health, both in the immediate and distant future.
In fact, if we expand the lens just a little, these assumptions begin to blur. In the process, those who would see themselves as brave, cooperative, informed, and concerned, begin to resemble the accused as fearful, selfish, and ignorant. This is actually a natural state of dynamic flow between any two poles.
One story being told is that the motivation of the vaccinated person is to save the lives of those they may come in contact with, in the process assuming some personal risk hailed as virtuous. There is truth here, yet what are the other motivations? There is the fear of guilt of feeling responsible for others. There is the fear of shame of straying from a growing pressure in society to be vaccinated. And there is an easy acceptance of a version of health being created by the same medical establishment that perennially repudiates its past methods and treatments (we’ll get more into this).
On the other side, those in the broad camp of avoiding vaccinations are subject to the same motivations for differing reasons. There is some degree of shared fear of the immediate effects of shots, and there is also a varied degree of awareness of longer-term effects and the role of vaccine-centered health policy on human immunity. Equated with this awareness is a real concern for the fate of humanity, the public at large, as well as loved ones and self. Out of this concern emerges a brave allegiance with what they see as human nature, as well as a courage to face the consequences of their own and others’ suffering.
Who is right? This question becomes absurd to argue, as it depends completely upon how and where one looks. And each view shares essentially the same motivations. In fact within each group are contained equally diverse viewpoints, and so on and so forth.
This same analysis can be applied to virtually any argument that casts one viewpoint in the dark, in contrast to one in holy light. The middle road, harmony, is the nuanced path that sees darkness and light as integral parts of the same reality. It requires a desire and willingness to become more whole, to embrace the spice of life. Perhaps in this way we may save life itself.
Now, let’s look a bit deeper.
The common beef many opposed to vaccines in general have, is the direct introduction of “toxins” into the body. By design, this is required for the vaccine to stimulate the desired response from the immune system, whether the “toxin” is an adjuvant (something assisting to stimulate a reaction, like formaldehyde or metals), or a weakened yet live version of the microbe itself. This is intentional, and is not debated. The debate is over what effect the toxins have on the body.
Most people who receive vaccines can relate to at least some level of felt toxicity, from sore swollen arms, to nausea, headaches, fevers, etc. There are also more rare documented severe reactions, from shock to nerve and circulation disorders to death. None of this is under contention.
The contention begins when links are created between actual numbers of ever more common conditions like anxiety and autism spectrum disorders, and the corresponding rise in number of vaccines given, and how they are given (in bundles, and starting in infancy). Again, the numbers of new cases and the timeline/pattern of vaccines given are not in contention, only the correlation between them. Certainly the patterns match up, and to date there are no other theories that completely explain the sudden rise in conditions like autism. There are many possible factors acting in concert that may explain autism, including other sources of toxicity in the food chain and environment, the poor nutritional value of modern agriculture food, the unbalanced diets of many Americans, etc. Yet among these factors, it is becoming clear that nervous system toxicity is at least part of the problem, and it is also clear that vaccines are at least one source of that toxicity, especially as they are introduced in infancy (when the body is ill-equipped to handle strong stimuli…you don’t give them quantities of liquor or hot spices, do you?) and in ever increasing numbers of injections.
Next let’s look into the effects of vaccines on immune function, a subject that is far less talked about. It is mostly assumed that vaccines will be either beneficial to immunity or at worst benign. It will be helpful first to have a rough idea of how the immune system functions.
Our innate immunity operates in stages, and there is an order to it. The first is a local response at the level of the mucous membrane involved, e.g., if it’s a respiratory viral invasion, the nose, eyes, or throat. Immune cells are always present, and respond immediately. If they are successful, there are no symptoms, and most likely no harboring of disease, as the invaders are literally ushered out, via excretions that are under your sense radar. If there is a struggle, these same immune cells contribute to the common symptoms of a cold or flu, namely a feeling of heat and/or chill, runny and/or stuffy nose, tickle in the throat, etc.. They literally create mucous and heat, and this activity may also block the body’s natural warmth from circulating, leading to chills. Modern medicine tends to label this activity “inflammation” and attempts to quell it with “anti-inflammatories” in the form of tylenol, anti-viral drugs, or even steroids. Traditional medical views such as Traditional Chinese Medicine see this activity as part of the body’s strategy to burn off the congestion, and the helping strategies are to encourage fluid and heat and an outward direction of the battle. To oversimplify, drinking fresh ginger and lemon hot tea accomplishes adding heat (the ginger and hot water) and fluid (the water and lemon) to open the pores and expel the virus.
We haven’t gotten to the level of action of vaccines yet.
Now let’s suppose this first defensive level did not expel the virus. The next stage of immunity, several days later, is in the local lymphatic glands. Here, the body’s strategy is to bog down the invaders, transform them, and drain them through the lymph channels. The common symptoms at this stage will then be swelling of the glands, perhaps alternating fever and chill (as the battle waxes and wanes), lung congestion, and just more of feeling lousy (tired, achy, etc). The response of modern medicine is essentially the same as in the first stage, to quell the activity. Traditional medicine again attempts to align its treatments with what the body is trying to do, namely transform and drain thick fluids, and continue to disperse the virus (toxin), yet not outward as in the first stage, rather “through the middle”, or lymphatic channels.
We still haven’t gotten to the level of vaccine action.
If the local lymphatics do not get the job done, the final stage of immunity is then called to action. This is the production of antibodies, and involves the whole body lymphatic and circulatory systems. If the body still has trouble at this stage, it may have symptoms of high or prolonged fevers, exhaustion, bleeding disorders, and organ damage. Traditional medicine calls this stage the blood level, and treats it by cooling and supporting the structure of the blood, and continuing to address the pathogen, yet more by subduing it than dispersing, as dispersal at this stage is further taxing to the body. Modern medicine is mostly limited to steroids (which can be viewed partly as very strong dispersing agents), and may also rely on antibiotics, yet mostly for anti-inflammatory effect and opportunistic bacterial co-infections, as they have no positive effect on viral disorders.
It stands to reason that a strong and specific antibody arsenal is quite important in avoiding serious complications and death. No doubt. That is the goal of vaccines, to directly stimulate antibody production specific to a virus (or bacteria, parasite, etc). Fair enough idea. The issue that muddles this approach is that the body has this hierarchy of immune responses we just talked about. The first is located relatively externally, at the surface. The next is midway between external and internal, the lymphatics. And only at the last stage does it really involve the blood. Now, consider the route of introduction of vaccines: an injection into the blood. This is by design, to directly engage this deepest level of immunity. The problem is that we are bypassing the first two levels.
So what, one may ask? Traditional medicine has always operated by careful observation of natural occurrences and behavior, and then by trying to go with the flow. The flow of dealing with pathogens [or really any stressor to the body or mind] is first to parry, brush off, sweat out, talk out, or otherwise externally direct it. This is the first level of immunity.
The fallback is to shunt the nuisance to the sides (where the lymphatics are located), out of the way of our direct interface with the world. Those lymphatics are the unheralded garbage handlers, mostly quietly dealing with whatever falls through the cracks (toxins, toxic thoughts or emotions, etc). This is the second level of immunity.
The last frontier is already inside. Any engagement at this level is by definition already a taxation to the inner body and circulation. Conditions that fester at this level are the world of chronic disease so prevalent in modern times. And conditions that begin at this level will tend to incite over-reaction.
Now, let’s go back to the injection. Some form of toxin is injected directly into the blood to directly engage the deepest level of immunity. This action immediately starts the antibody production. Think about this a moment. Relatively little first or second stage response is elicited, instead immediately stimulating the deepest and most sensitive aspect of our defenses.
Now consider for another moment the corresponding timeline of skyrocketing chronic immune disorders lumped into the moniker “auto-immune disease”. What is that? Well, in a nutshell, it is an over response of antibodies to a perceived threat, whether or not that threat is foreign/harmful to the body. Also consider the acute condition of “cytokine storm” prevalent in severe case of flu in recent times, leading to rapid accumulation of fluid and blood in the lungs.
Again, there are no answers coming from modern medicine as to why this is happening, and essentially no treatments other than steroids to temporarily squelch the “inflammation”. There’s that word again, and the usual response to it.
One could say that there are a growing number of people who are becoming savvy to this pattern of cause and effect, and are putting up some level of resistance, or “heat” upon the status quo medical system. And the response? Well you guessed it, squelching with anti-inflammatory propaganda, with the rigid message to tow the line in the name of care for others. The issue, really, is the level at which care is being expressed. Do we care to theoretically protect a minority of the populace from death at the expense of creating chronic disease for the majority? Do we care to spare the majority of chronic disease in favor of losing some to what may be called a natural death? Clearly, there is no “right” answer here; it is dependent upon one’s point of view.
Yet we can say this: one group’s point of view needn’t conflict with the other. In this case it is mostly a medical issue…if the public medical system is overwhelmed, there are options to change that system to adapt to modern disease patterns. The burden of change needn’t be forced upon people’s internal terrain. This should remind folks of historical precedents which are quite ugly and disgraceful. The alternative is to honor and encourage each person’s sense of personal compassion for their fellow kind, as opposed to coercion of any sort.