Thread by @JoshWalkos

Mega Thread

The Religious Belief That Vaccines Saved The Human Race

We all hear ad nauseam the phrase “safe & effective” for all vaccines, it’s like a religious mantra designed to bypass critical thinking capacity, rendering the truth impotent.

It has worked so well and so often that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, it must be repeated.

This is why our so called leaders cannot and will not admit they are wrong, not even an inch can be given.

They can’t concede an inch because admitting the truth will cause a spark that will light their wicker man on fire.

The following quote which is often attributed to Nazi Propaganda Chief Joseph Goebbels, however hard evidence that he actually said it is hard to find.

Nonetheless, regardless who it’s attributed to, it is an excellent distillation of the propaganda concept of “The Big Lie”.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

To that end, there are millions upon millions of people who wake up every morning oblivious to what is silently happening all over the world. Death. Not normal death like old age or perhaps an accident, I’m talking about Iatrogenic democide.

The death of people who wouldn’t otherwise have died if it weren’t for our medical professionals, with state backing and funding, lying to them about the safety of their products. Safe and Effective, that’s the claim.

That was the claim from the very beginning, for almost all vaccines, they were always going to be characterized as “Safe and Effective”, no matter what the clinical trials said. Most vaccine trials are nothing more than theater, a manipulative way to use the public’s ignorance of science as a weapon to be used against them.

How can one expect HHS and it’s agencies who rubber stamp these products and then aggressively market them to spout any other line? Admitting that a vaccines that they have championed religiously is causing harm would open them up to all kinds of scrutiny and legal challenges. There are numerous examples of this behavior historically.

So once they are approved, no matter the obvious safety signals, the talking point must be “Safe and Effective”.

What does that even mean? It has been repeated so many times over the years that it has virtually no meaning anymore, it’s marketing speak.

The earliest mention of it in a headline, in the New York Tomes that I could find the phrase was November 1, 1935 and it was used to reject a claim that a new vaccine was effective against infant paralysis.



It should be noted that Flexner was the Rockefeller’s and Carnegie’s hired gun who helped them monopolize the medical industry. So his protest even if true should be taken with extreme skepticism. He was probably protecting his and Rockefeller’s own interests by speaking out.

See this report that started it all.

archive.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/p…

First, we must look at the difference between vaccine efficacy and vaccine effectiveness. There is similarity.

“Vaccine efficacy and vaccine effectiveness measure the proportionate reduction in cases among vaccinated persons. Vaccine efficacy is used when a study is carried out under ideal conditions, for example, during a clinical trial.”

“Vaccine effectiveness is used when a study is carried out under typical field (that is, less than perfectly controlled) conditions.” A vaccine may show efficacy in a clinical trial but be utterly ineffective when introduced at a societal level.

This description is straight from the CDC for those who want to quarrel over it. 👇🏻

In all cases, a vaccine can only be declared effective after widespread deployment at a societal level, and a risk/reward benefit has been determined. This is a rather convenient aspect of vaccine science.

Here is Dr. Rubin who is an FDA voting member spilling the beans. He is talking about giving COVID injections to children 5-11 years old.

"We're never gonna learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it, that’s just the way it goes."

For a vaccine against a disease such as COVID-19, where the risk from the disease is only to a segment of the population, and the overall risk to society is extremely low, there needs to be essentially no risk or adverse reactions from the vaccine.

It’s abundantly clear that the mRNA injections aren’t safe or effective but what about some of the other vaccines given?

What was their true impact of mortality rates?

Anytime you get into a discussion about vaccines with a “true believer” (and there is a lot of them) they will invariably say something like this.

“Without vaccines we would all have polio or measles and would be living in the dark ages, do you want your kid to be put on iron lung?”

Every. Single. Time.

Never mind the fact that less than 1% of Polio cases ended with paralysis. The way they speak you would think it was a virtual death sentence.

This isn’t happenstance we have been taught via a carefully controlled propaganda campaign by both industry and our governments who are tasked with protecting us from industry harms, that without pharmaceutical companies our civilization would be overrun by infectious disease.

Just look at the propaganda campaign in action for the COVID injections, everyone of these clips is a lie.

Yes, antibiotics were a miracle in fighting infections that before their discovery would mean certain death in some cases but we are told without polio, small pox, and measle vaccines the entire course of history would be changed. We’d all be dead by now the if it weren’t for “safe and effective” vaccines. It’s all for your health, there isn’t any profit motives involved.

This is a convenient narrative told by governments, doctors, and most of all drug companies love to tell. There is only one problem, they fail to mention that without exception, every single one of these vaccines were brought to market when mortality of these diseases had already declined tremendously.

Increased hygiene practices, clean water, and better living and working conditions are the main driving factor of infectious disease declining in the the late 19th century into the 20th. Needless to say, the cult of medicine and its flock hate this indisputable fact about of history, most of all because its true.

To them, without vaccination, a miracle created by the gods of science we would be be destitute, strapping our children into iron lungs, masking 24/7 and never leaving the house due to fear of disease.

Wait, aside from the iron lung those people are actually living that way in the 21st Century even though we do have Vaccinations for everything. Kinda of peculiar isn’t it?

At the turn of the 20th Century in June, 1999, the CDC published “Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Control of Infectious Diseases”.

cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/m…

They list these as the reasons:
1. Sanitation and Hygiene
2. Vaccination
3. Antibiotics and Other Antimicrobial Medicines
4. Technological advances in detection and monitoring of infectious disease

Just to be clear I am talking about mortality rates and how they are related to vaccines historically. There is some correlative evidence that some vaccines have contributed to decreased morbidity rates i.e. the rate at which a disease occurs. Three in particular, diphtheria, pertussis, and measles experienced declines in morbidity that could be ascribed to vaccination.

Although, for the rest of the diseases, their morbidity decline can also be correlated to the aforementioned factors as well. Advocates will no doubt use “correlation doesn’t imply causation” when it suits them but ignore that axiom when it counters their own beliefs. So let’s look at the evidence that vaccines are responsible for saving the human race from disease.

In the 1988 Book “The Cruel Deception: Use of Animals in Medical Research” author Dr. Robert Sharpe has this to say about the decline of infectious disease:

“Mortality for virtually all the infectious diseases was declining before, and in most cases long before specific therapies became available…The impetus to better health from the mid nineteenth century onwards can therefore be directly traced to public health measure and social legislation that improved living standards of working people…”

Quote continues: “Higher wages and welfare benefits made it possible for the poor to eat properly and public health measures radically improved conditions in the densely-populated urban areas, particularly with the provision of clean water, supplies, sanitation sewerage and new housing. Susceptibility to infections diminished radically as nutrition, housing, hygiene and general living conditions improved.”

The following diagrams reflect this view as it relates to Poilo. As you will see mortality was already in a state of free fall when vaccines were introduced. Are we to presume that the course of history would have been radically different if the vaccine wasn’t introduced? It seems quite illogical if one is being honest and simply using their own eyes.

A chart showing the mortality rate in free fall before the introduction of the vaccines and the subsequent increase before disappearing in the 1960’s

In fact there was a slight resurgence after the Salk vaccine was introduced in the late 1950’s, never mind the Cutter Incident in 1955.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

Or that Simian Virus 40 was discovered as a contaminant in the vaccines, potentially increasing the risk of cancer in the 98 million people who received it.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10472327/

Another overlooked piece of history is that Polio had an entirely different definition until 1955 when it was changed. Prior to 1955, Polio, Aseptic, Meningitis, and Coxsackie virus infections were recorded as “Polio”.

After 1955 those virus infections were recorded as separate diseases. It’s no wander polio was seen as such a pervasive disease in the first half of the 20th Century.

Another book written in 1988, “Immunisation: Reality Behind the Myth goes into the details of our understanding of Polio in the 1950’s:

"An even more interesting abuse of statistics becomes apparent when perusing polio statistics. The diagnostic criteria and reporting procedures for the disease changed. In the 1950s, the sophisticated virological techniques of today did not exist. And the technology that existed was rarely available to practicing physicians.”

Continued: “Therefore, most diagnoses were based upon clinical observation, not sophisticated virological studies. Since polio was epidemic, most physicians were cavalier in making a diagnosis of "non-paralytic poliomyelitis" in children presenting with vague symptoms of muscle aches, malaise, and fever. Since polio was "going around", such children must have had polio. Today, they might be diagnosed as having influenza, again in the absence of laboratory confirmation. And like influenza today, most cases of polio were self-limited. The cases progressing to the paralytic form got the publicity. Interestingly, as the number of polio cases decreased.”

It’s interesting to note that cases of Polio skyrocketed in the United States directly after the introduction of the Diphtheria and Pertussis vaccines.

This Figure is taken from the National Morbidity Reports taken from U.S. Public Health surveillance reports; Lancet (April 18, 1950), pp. 659-63. It shows this correlation quite clearly. Could they have increased susceptibility to polio?

This chart from Sharpes book shows the overall decline of Diptheria in 4 European Countries, following the same pattern as the United States.

The same for Whooping cough

Measles in England and Wales.

Measles mortality dropped almost 99% by 1963, the year measles vaccination commenced in the United States.

Diphtheria mortality rate, plummeted 87% from the start of the 20th century to 1930 in the United States. General use of the diphtheria vaccine did not begin until the late 1940s.

Mortality for pertussis, another component of the DTP vaccine, dropped by 50% before 1930.

Pertussis

The same with Whooping Cough

The fact of the matter is that mortality from the nine leading infectious diseases had already dropped dramatically by about 90% from the turn of the century to the late 1940s when the first vaccines came into general use. Again, with no significant contribution made by vaccines.

This has been verified independently by researchers such as Thomas McKeown in the 1970’s and again by a team of researchers in 2000 at Johns Hopkins University and the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics led by Dr. Bernard Guyer. They wrote:

“Nearly 90% of the decline in infectious disease mortality among US children occurred before 1940, when few antibiotics or vaccines were available. […] Vaccination,” they conclude, “does not account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century”

Link to the paper:
zero.sci-hub.st/3186/ceb0b014e…

This chart shows the cumulative overall rate of Infectious Disease Mortality from 1900-1996. All on a steady decline before any vaccines were in widespread use.

It’s also very noteworthy to point out the decrease in mortality in tuberculosis, which was the deadliest disease of the era. Tuberculosis mortality decreased by almost 50% in the second half of the 19th century.

Other infectious diseases whose mortality declined steeply in this era include typhoid, whose death rate dropped by close to 80%; scarlet fever, which also decreased by about 80%; and the bowel diseases dysentery and cholera, whose mortality had cumulatively dropped by approximately 30%. Again all before a vaccine was in widespread use.

Conclusion: The data is patently clear, medical interventions (i.e., medicines and vaccines) played only a marginal role in reducing mortality from infectious disease during the 19th and 20th centuries.

So why is it that we are inundated with messaging to the contrary?

Because it’s a religion and any dissent against the orthodoxy is considered blasphemy. There is too much money, power, and influence involved, any deviation from the “safe and effective” mantra cannot be tolerated regardless of the harms inflicted.

If you’ve found this informative please consider giving me a follow to keep up with future threads. Like these 👇

@Trinityaudiobot

@Trinityaudiobot Documentary version of this thread.

@Trinityaudiobot And for good measure, an article I made of it on my substack

wethefree.substack.com/p/vaccination-…