Posted by Dan Schultz, DC
Belief is a funny thing and I do find the whole idea very interesting.
I recently had a discussion that provoked new thoughts on the subject. A very casual conversation turned deep the moment this (previously unknown) person said that "everything either contained demons or God." "Everything?" I responded. "Yes, everything." As usual, I'm actually not very interested in WHAT people believe, but I much more interested in why they believe it -- so I quickly went to work to get to the bottom of it, where all the juicy tidbits are found.
"Can I ask you some questions?" I said and she was most obliging in agreeing and answering honestly. I asked if she had thought of this idea on her own and she said she did not. I asked who told her that and she admitted it was a preacher, from church. I asked if she had ever seen any demons or heard them and she confessed that she had never sensed them in any way. I asked if all churches believe this and she supposed that they did not. I asked if mathematics contained either demons or God and she scratched her head. No answer to that one. I summed it all up. "So your saying that someone at a church told you about this idea, not all churches say this but this one does, you hadn't thought it all through yet, but you're telling others about this idea, stating it as fact, and even saying others should be believing this, too.
Why? "Why did you choose to believe this?" I asked, and a few minutes later she was kind of fuzzy on the whole thing.
When I arrived home, the same kind of questions came to mind regarding vaccination. I've had countless conversations on the subject. The vast majority, say 99 to 99.999 perent, I'm estimating, throw out something like, "well, why would they recommend them, then" or "I trust my doctor" or "I don't want to catch these diseases" which is as valid of a responses as any other, but doesn't answer the question. Very few will actually answer the question and I can tell you from experience that when they do, the answer is... FAITH. They have faith in technology, their doctor, the "system" or the like. And I've never met anyone who has researched the topic of vaccination with an open mind (not vested or biased) that still chose to "believe" in vaccines.
Belief. there's that word again. It has religious connotations, doesn't it. So I conducted a search. Here's some of the things I found:"Vaccination is considered a sacrament of modern medicine," says Dr. Richard Moskowitz, Ph.D., M.D., a Harvard-trained doctor who has written extensively on the possible connection between vaccines and chronic diseases."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/3/22/152342.shtml?s=he"
As public health physician
I believe in vaccines. Those people who believe that vaccines like the flu cause the flu, I think they're wrong."
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/sa/content/2006/s2009522.htm
"There's an almost religious conviction that they must see this through," said Dr. Samuel Katz, an infectious diseases specialist at Duke Universityand co-inventor of the measles vaccine.
Associated Press; Experts weigh giving up on killing polio
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070303/ap_on_he_me/polio_problems
"British scientists are on the verge of producing a revolutionary flu vaccine that works against all major types of the disease. Described as the "holy grail" of flu vaccines."
Daily Mail; The vaccine to prevent every strain of flu
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=425227&in_page_id=1774
And then there was the doosey, the vaccine sermon, given, appropriately, in a church, where they all but pandered to the frightful that the end was near (an "impending influenza pandemic")
"The Episcopal church in Enterprise is taking a proactive approach to the upcoming flu season, serving as host site for an Emergency Preparedness Workshop and working with health and emergency officials to heighten the public’s awareness of what has been labeled an impending influenza pandemic."
http://www.eprisenow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=ENT/MGArticle/ENT_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173353221432&path=!news
Churches? Sacraments? Holy Grails? Religious convictions? Beliefs? All have become the common lexicon of what can only be called the Church of Modern Medicine. I didn't coin this phrase. Robert Mendelson, M.D. did -- a renowned, respected, celebrated authority within the profession/church of medicine. I implore anyone who wishes any kind of light to be shed on the subject, the seekers of Truth, to divorce themselves of faith and belief when it comes to what we put inside our bodies. Something else must be embraced here; logic, common sense, anything but faith. Even the state of our scientific community, corrupted by profit, politics, and special interests as it is, will show the seeker that vaccination, in the vast majority of cases, is a really bad idea.
by Dan Schultz, DC
People come to me essentially expressing concerns that symptoms have become unbearably uncomfortable and inconvenient. The average person will tolerate unbelievable amounts of the body’s distress signals. After weeks, months, or years of suffering and drugging themselves into other disease processes, they come to me, mostly, as a last resort.
What’s seems odd to me is that there is often no regard whatsoever for their health and only a distant worry about accumulating permanent damage -– only the short-sighted desire to be symptom-free. The fact is that the average American hasn’t any tangible idea of what health really is, nor do they have the time or inclination to consider it in the busy, overwhelming lives they have chosen. It is unfortunate and it is true. Ours has become a culture of convenience and comfort.
Examples of this are varied and plentiful. Pain, muscle spasm, inflammation, and fevers are well known to be an integral and necessary part of the reparative, healing process, but they are fearfully avoided like the proverbial plague. For example, instead of actually restoring a healthy cardiovascular system, people take a pill to lower their blood pressure when they know perfectly well that they could lower it naturally making better lifestyle choices. But that might be uncomfortable. And the pill is so convenient.
In the same way, the entity of disease is a good and necessary cog in Mother Nature’s natural machine. Scientists know full well the benefits of disease in priming and maturing the human immune system. Immunity is learned by an intelligent system and it was designed by Nature or God or Evolution to do so with all of the symptoms and conditions that we pejoratively label “disease.” Vaccination is merely an attempt to cheat the body of this process in the name of comfort and convenience.
Even death from disease has an undeniable benefit to humanity, although it may be unfashionable to say it. I’m saying it. In the same way that we now understand that forest fires are necessary to sustain healthy forests, we must also accept that disease is nature’s means to pare away the genetically susceptible with disease. Microbes maintain a healthy gene pool for humans just as wolves pick off sickly moose and leave the herd with strong survival qualities. There is no other way.
Diseases, like the symptoms of joint pain, are there for a reason and are not meant to be “eradicated.” This is a larger perspective of what happens, microscopically, within us. Microbes are always there, but only begin replicating (and creating symptoms) when we lack life-force; they eat up dead or dying cells when true health or vitality is diminished.
Mankind tends to be extremely arrogant in dismissing this truth. I’ve heard it said, “if our vaccine can just save one human life, it’s worth poisoning entire generations.” They didn’t use those words exactly or emphasize the deaths and mass-scale suffering caused by their artificial, invasive experiments -- but that’s what they say.
Our culture is most definitely one of comfort and convenience. Vaccination is merely one example. Just as mankind has created nuclear and biological weapons, vaccinationists have unwisely asked "can we?" before we have asked "should we?"
Vaccination is man’s futile attempt to avoid the unpleasant processes of life at any cost. It is our foolish effort to dominate nature in yet another way. It highlights the feeble idea of regarding educated intelligence over innate intelligence. It is, in the end, stupidity.
by Dan Schultz, DC
Vaccination, since it’s formal inception in 1796, has been a subject of violent controversy. Controversy, by it’s very nature, maintains some degree of rigidity in it's opposing views. Debate follows: Are the risks worth the benefits? Is the disease worthy of mass or forced vaccination policies? How do we measure efficacy or long-term adverse effects?
For many people, just following the crowd is good enough for them. Others simply abdicate their responsibilities to a “professional.” They “trust” another to know and decide for them. The underlying question lingers, “Is the crowd mentality or popular medical opinion worthy of our trust without further individual analysis?”
The baby boomers broke loose from blindly following authority as their distinct generational signature and succeeding generations have continued this trend. Increasingly, as a result of this new, independent thinking paradigm – and regardless of generation or demographic -- parents are questioning the value of vaccination. But, who and which information does the individual trust to make decisions?
To avoid feelings of doubt, guilt or remorse, two methods can be used to arrive at solid conclusions; induction and deduction. Recruiting the perspectives of both are necessary to arrive at certainty -- and certainty is what people are looking for.
Inductive thought
Inductive reason gathers data from multiple sources, then tabulates and evaluates their interrelated meanings. This means doing your homework. This site (www.novaccine.com) is designed to redress the balance of information and provide you with a comprehensive palette of resources available for your study. Even after one has made their decision, educating ones’ self allows them the ability to competently educate others and explain or justify their position.
We induce from both empirical (experiential) and the scientific sources understanding that there is significant bias involved in forming nearly everyone’s conclusions. The ever-changing popular opinions and flip-flopping conclusions of poorly designed "studies" can be frustrating. For example, 20 years ago the newspapers and magazines touted with certainty that butter was bad for you. They highly recommended margarine, instead. This position was abruptly followed by the authoritative belief that just the opposite was true. But people who educated themselves in a broader sense – from other than headlines and hearsay – gained the perspective and foresight to choose responsibly.
Personally, I have never met anyone who objectively and thoroughly studied vaccination from both sides and nonetheless chose to inject their children with vaccinations. In fact, many studies show that the more highly educated a parent is, the less likely they are to vaccinate.(1) My experience also has shown me that ignorance, it seems, is the breeding ground for the irresponsible to point, blame and to become victims.
Deductive thought
The deductive process is entirely different.. As opposed to looking outside yourself for the answers, it means looking inside. What lasting principles or truths have you come to rely on? Deep philosophical tenets of natural principle, tradition, religion, or metaphysics can guide you. Possibly you have come to trust axioms like "Natural is always better" or "God doesn't make mistakes." Some choices need no structured knowledge and come in the form of intuition. Indeed, relying on inner wisdom can be a freeing experience. Deducing means utilizing timeless or trusted truths -- and it's every bit as valid as inductive reason -- sometimes more so.
May your journey with both processes bring you a degree of wisdom, peace and health into your life.
1. Children’s Immunization Status Worsens as Mothers’ Income, Education Rise. NewsWise January 5, 2007.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/526333/
by Dan Schultz, DC
Every day I’m at the office about a hundred people breath in my face as I check their cervical spine (I’m a chiropractor). I smile at them. I like to shake people’s hands, too –- all kinds of people -- in the grocery store, at the dry cleaners, and at my daughter’s basketball games. I rarely wash my hands afterward. And, I don’t shower every day, either.
I’ll stop there before somebody calls to have me quarantined.
Should I be wearing a surgical mask to keep out all these germ-bearers’ disease-harboring bacterial flora? Should I ask them to keep their germs to their self? May be I should wake up every morning and suit up in Mission Oriented Protection Posture gear (MOP suits)? How much of a bubble should I be living in?
Nawww. The fact is ... I love germs.
Have a cold? I’ll drink from your cup. Mine runneth over. We were the first to scurry our children across the street for a chicken pox party. I welcome germs for the very opportunity they are.
Am I a nut? The medically indoctrinated/fixated usually think so. However, the proof, as my grandfather used to say, is in the pudding (but the actual proverb goes "the proof of the pudding is in the eating and proof").
I haven’t had a cold or flu in 26 years. It was the fall of 1981. I’m afraid it’s true. Am I superman? I don’t think so. I believe, to a significant degree, that my lack of fear for germs may be one of my best defenses. May be we're all supermen and superwomen and fear is some kind of kryptonite.
All the while, obsessive-compulsive, germophobia is nearing mass hysteria proportions in the United States. Antibacterial soaps are best sellers at the supermarket. Anti-septic wipes are everywhere. There’s a new $60 device out that sprays a hospital-grade disinfectant on doorknobs every 15 minutes.
We’re so clean that scientists now believe that the increase in asthma and allergies may be caused, in part, by too little germs, dust, and dander. Are "individuals are losing their bodily ability to fight off certain diseases" due to germophobia?
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002421.html
http://www.mercola.com/2002/jul/10/clean.htm
Is there any other evidence supporting the idea that germs may be good for you? Actually, there is.
"The creation of a sterile environment through excessive cleanliness may potentially be harmful to the immune system."
Sherriff A, et al Arch Dis Child. 2002 Jul;87(1):26-9. Hygiene levels in a contemporary population cohort are associated with wheezing and atopic eczema in preschool infants.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12089117&dopt=Abstract
One of the central themes to Jared Diamond’s excellent treatise Guns, Germs and Steel (http://dannyreviews.com/h/Guns_Germs_Steel.html) was that civilizations effectively survived, flourished, and conquered by densely populating and sharing all their germs. It matures and evolves the human immune system, it seems.
This study “consistently revealed a lower cancer risk for patients with a history of FICD (febrile infectious childhood diseases).
Albonico HU, et al Med Hypothesis 1998 Oct; 51(4) 315-20 “Febrile Infectious Childhood Disease In The History Of Cancer Patients And Matched Controls”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9824838&dopt=Citation
But what about HIV? I read Duesberg’s work and, whoa, he demonstrates that HIV doesn’t even cause AIDS. The vast majority of AIDS patients were immune compromised from chronic use of recreational or prescription drugs (like AZT), or suffer from malnutrition. It’s a good read.
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/pduesberg.htm
One of the ironic and interesting things about germophobes is that they're often the ones who are sick most often. May be they have more germs than the rest of us? I’ll take their germs, too, just to be kind. And I'll continue to actively cultivate long-lasting health and vigor with a healthy lifestyle.
Got germs? Bring’em on! I look forward to meeting you and your germs some day.
by Dan Schultz, DC
The germ and vaccine theories caught on quickly because really healthy ideas are never big sellers. Health is rarely a valued commodity in western culture, and usually only in those who have lost it. Health doesn’t sell because no one profits from health. Breastfeeding is a good example.
As probably the single most beneficial gift to an infant’s health, it’s 100% safe and absolutely free. Yet it falls in an out of favor with American mothers like fad clothing and doctors certainly don’t strain themselves to emphasize it.
If breast milk were something corporations could mass produce and profit from, surely there would be studies aplenty and massive marketing campaigns. The legislature would be lobbied for subsidies and mandates and the government would likely succumb. There would be pressure to create breastfeeding registries and social services would probably remove children from non-breastfeeding homes. Formula use might be outlawed or restricted. Profitability, it seems, generates more popularity than truth.
The primary selling point? Fear. Marketing advisors know this all too well. Fear sells -- even better than sex. People stop thinking when fear enters the mind. Reason, science and truth are non-issues. Fear consumes them.
My question for you: Do life-decisions made out of fear usually turn out well?
by Dan Schultz, DC
The vaccine theory is an idea that one can circumvent contracting a "disease" by stimulating the immune system in an indirect way. When one is evaluating the importance or validity of medical interventions like vaccines, it may be wise to first evaluate the merit of its fundamental principles.
History tells us that vaccine theory developed soon after Pasteur popularized germs and the germ theory of disease, of course. If germ theory is inappropriate to explain illness or health, then the foundation of vaccine interventions may be a poor one indeed. It could be predicted, then, that such a house of cards might soon fall, and from my study of this subject, I believe that this is the case. We will see the end of the vaccine era in my lifetime.
The classic argument against the simple idea of germs causing disease is one that Bechamp and Bernard, Pasteur’s contemporaries and philosophical rivals vigorously promoted. Unlike Pasteur, they claimed that changes in the soil, or internal environment, were responsible for illness, not the seed (germs). It can be effectively argued that if the internal environment is strong, clean and functionally up to the task, no germ can take hold – and there is ample evidence to support this. In short, truly healthy people don’t get sick. Even today, scientific minds proclaim that “if the germ theory of disease were true, there would be no one left to tell about it.”
But before examining the science -- or lack of science – in respect to this topic there is great value in understanding why Pasteur succeeded in winning over his contemporaries and how vaccination became accepted so quickly then and so readily today.
First and foremost, it's simple. The germ theory of disease is easy to understand. It necessitates a specific germ is responsible for each specific disease. Is it too simple?
Promulgating health -- executing a balanced, harmonious lifestyle -- can be confusingly complex. It’s an inward journey and all journeys take time and effort. There can be numerous factors to consider like designing and following healthful dietary regimens, managing mental and emotional stresses, avoidance of toxicity, and maintaining structural integrity. It’s much easier to believe that microscopic germ cause disease. This seems to make perfect sense because technology has allowed us to see the germs, and they’re almost always present with disease. It’s simplistic thinking that requires little thought. Flies, crows and buzzards are present at every road kill, but they’re not the cause of death. It’s easy to accept that illness is caused as a single entity outside oneself -- and it’s convenient, too.
If one has been so unfortunate as to find himself or herself on a path of overindulgence, dysfunction, or illness it's difficult to make changes. Change is hard. The simple explanation of why one might be sick absolves responsibility. Human beings tend to dislike admissions of fault. Being unwittingly misled or unwisely unaware is embarrassing. Blaming it on an invisible, single-celled, brainless, faceless organism of which there are countless numbers to spread the blame is easy.
Yet simplistic thinking often misses. This doesn't mean that one may be dim or unintelligent at all. Descartes was a brilliant man of knowledge and science, yet he concluded that body heat must be produced from man's central cardiovascular center, the heart. He was completely incorrect, but the idea held favor for quite sometime. Simplistic thinking may be wrong most of the time.
|
