What is a vaccine? / STRONG OPINIONS ON VACCINES / NSFW

Definition of vaccine in English:
An antigenic substance prepared from the causative agent of a disease or a synthetic substitute, used to provide immunity against one or several diseases.

Origin
Late 18th century: from Latin vaccinus, from vacca cow (because of the early use of the cowpox virus against smallpox).

In the Oxford Dictionary definition of the word vaccine, there is no mention of stabilising agents, preservatives, adjuvants or contaminants. I think it is reasonable to acknowledge that the content of vaccines, which have evolved over time, are no longer useful in defining a vaccine, regardless of whether or not they were ever intended to. What is of utmost importance is if they work as intended.

The idea of vaccination came from the observation that a person who had contracted cowpox, a mild disease, did not contract smallpox. The introduction of a relatively harmless pathogen caused a normal immune response and also provided immunity against a similar, yet much more serious pathogen. Inherent in this idea is the notion that something relatively harmless replaces something relatively serious which is therefore an important measure in qualifying a mix of substances as a vaccine. If a child is given an MMR vaccine with dubious efficacy and goes on to develop encephalitis and die, was that child vaccinated or poisoned? I would say poisoned.

Surely the vaccine that most closely represents it's definition is one that has total efficacy....meaning it works perfectly as intended and causes far less harm than the pathogen it is designed to protect against assuming a normal presentation of disease. Working perfectly in this case means that the person receiving a vaccine for measles would suffer side-effects that were far less harmful than the measles might itself cause and would provide completely immunity against the target pathogen forever.

How many vaccines out there presently fit the idea for what a vaccine should be? Who knows? I doubt it's any. Do you know of any vaccine currently manufactured that doesn't come with a terrifying list of possible adverse effects, many of which are far graver than the diseases which they've been design to protect against? How many require multiple doses in order to work satisfactorily?

I think the sad reality is that the word 'vaccine' has become so imprecise that it means many different things to people everywhere depending on their perspective. In general, everyone is either stuck in the idea of what they are generally supposed to be or in the process of rejecting the current definition in favor of something more precise.

What do we know about vaccines for a fact?

• Manufacturers are exempt from lawsuits
• There is a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
• Governments pay damages to people harmed by vaccines
• Vaccines have a huge number of terrible side-effects listed in their own documentation
• Vaccines contain known toxins beyond the antigenic material such as; mercury, aluminium, formaldehyde, MSG, human & animal material...
• There is virtually no research around the potential long term effects of vaccines (many of which are completely new mixtures) or vaccine schedules
• Vaccines have been found to contain contaminants...effects unknown
• Many common infectious diseases, for the majority of people, are harmless and provide life-long immunity

If these are accepted as facts. Then the only argument for or against vaccines can be based upon the perception of relative risk. It is very difficult to make an accurate assessment of risk when many things are stacked against you. The state, the pharmaceutical companies, the medical establishment and people who have not attempted to think critically about the subject.

There are a multitude of factors which have yielded the current supply of vaccines and vaccine schedules. The greatest influence is unquestionably money. We are told that they are safe, the schedule is safe and it is vitally important that everyone is vaccinated. Ok, how important is it really? Is it important enough to ensure vaccines are optimised for safety rather than profit? No. They're not that important. How much do we want the illusion of safety from disease? At what cost do we buy the lies and the false sense of security? At the moment it costs us billions in our taxes every year, an unaccountable industry with little incentive to change it's practices and ever-growing collateral damage measured in the lives of damaged children who had no choice.

Conclusion

If vaccines were optimised for efficacy and safety, I would be pro vaccine. If there was a greater amount of transparent, independent and favorable research that supported claims of safety and efficacy, I would be pro vaccine. I am pro the original idea of vaccines. Nothing that contains known, powerful toxins, like mercury or aluminium, to function should be called a vaccine. Nothing that contains contaminants should be called a vaccine. Nothing that causes the current level of harm and chronic degradation of health should be called a vaccine.

The number of victims for this grand, corrupt delusion should be intolerable to us all. Is it wrong to think we could do better? Make better vaccines? Care more about people than money? I'm sure someone somewhere will say we can't and what we've got is the best we can do. What do you think? Even if i'm completely wrong and the present vaccine system is the best we can do and the whole system is operating with integrity and as much compassion as possible, can anyone doubt that trust is rapidly disappearing and that there are very reasonable causes for that?

---

Sources

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vaccine