Category: Autism

Vaccination, A Counter-Narrative

The History of Vaccination

Vaccination was invented during the transition from the feudal age to the capitalist age, the transition from the spiritual age to the scientific age. As such vaccination is touted as one of the major achievements of that scientific age that is said to mark human progress. The official narrative regarding vaccination is this upward trajectory of saving lives through the conquest of disease. As Nature is subjected to conquest by the machines of the Industrial Revolution, and the ‘savages’ that represent Nature are subject to conquest by the gun, Nature’s ‘weapon’ against Man, disease, is subject to conquest by the needle.

Such a narrative, of course, is entirely reductionist: as the holistic skill of the artisan was reduced to excruciating specialism in a tiny part of a whole by the capitalist mode of production, the intricate complexity of the human immune system, with interlocking parts not fully understood by even the most advanced immunologist, is reduced to a crude production of antibodies by vaccination. The inevitable interplay of microbes and humans – distorted by the strain of industrial societies on the human immune system – is reduced to a one sided narrative of war.

Vaccination is the conquest of nature, but also represents the domination of man over woman, male supremacy. Before the modern era medicine was often the preserve of the wise woman or witch. The demonisation of such women was vital, crucial for the domination of the male doctor to fully emerge. Vaccination is merely the ultimate step in that domination. Forgive me a little psychoanalytic speculation – the injection is his hard, throbbing prick; through it the doctor spreads his seed and creates twisted, broken children in his image, this makes him a god. Mother speaks reality, ‘my child was not like this before the vaccine’, and the male doctor and the male medical establishment silence her.

The Cult of the Needle

Vaccination is nothing but an invention of the most dogmatic religion ever known to man. That religion is science, shall we say, science of a most specific kind. Not science in the sense of gathering of evidence and a critical mindset, but science as conquest. And not religion in the sense of spirituality, the perception of the Divine, or any such thing, but religion in the sense of a formal doctrinaire belief beyond question.

That science and that religion exist as a crude, one sided reduction of reality into terms that can be written in a slogan: ‘Vaccines save lives’, ‘Vaccines are safe and effective’, ‘Without vaccines we would all die of measles/polio/Covid’. Vaccines are not science, because vaccination never has to prove itself scientific. The crude, ridiculous, absurd, notion of vaccination – the fundamental lie – that needle = antibodies = protection – cannot be scientific in any sense other than that of the most vulgar scientism. That these antibodies exist is in itself considered proof of faith. No-one has to prove these antibodies mean anything – we found them, so that means vaccination works. Even in the absurd case with Covid – where the manufacturers stated that these antibodies are not a proven established correlate of protection – the vaccinal antibody is exalted as the ultimate evidence.

The Vaccination Cycle of Abuse

As vaccination spreads throughout society, becomes the norm, the accepted, the beatified, so develops the vaccination cycle of abuse. Those that are vaccinated as children become damaged by that vaccination. The toxins in the vaccines enter the brain and begin to wreak their havoc.

What happens to these people? I am not talking about those killed or severely maimed by vaccination here, but rather those who go on to have somewhat normal lives. They help to build the vaccination-industrial complex you see around you. They go to work in the hospitals which promote vaccination. They go to work in the schools that promote vaccination. They go to work in the GPs’ offices that dole out vaccination. They go to work at the universities that produce scientific papers justifying vaccination. They work at the Pharma companies that produce vaccination. They work at the banks that finance the vaccine companies. They work at other businesses involved in the supply chain of goods to these industries that promote vaccination, and more and more, with ‘covid’ directly promote vaccination themselves. They donate to charities that promote vaccination in developing countries. They vote for the politicians that promote vaccination. Their taxes fund vaccination. Their pension funds invest in vaccination. And most of all, they perpetuate the vaccine crime against their own children. Everyone who lives in Vaccine Society contributes to the perpetration of Vaccine Society, to a greater or lesser extent.

The collective immorality of this system in itself helps to sustain it. That something is so normalised makes it hard to believe that it could be so depraved. But it also binds us together by guilt – to take part in it is to be guilty – even to the extent that one has no choice to survive in the world. The people working in the healthcare institutions – the people who have the potential to see the most harm from vaccination – are those most intertwined with the guilt of producing the damaged goods on the vaccine conveyor belt, those who are most indoctrinated into the vaccination cult. A mixture of factors sustains this: denial being one of the most important. Some see it, but live that contradiction. Maybe they don’t directly give vaccinations and justify that their role in the system does more good than harm. Or perhaps it’s just self interest – everyone knows that questioning vaccines simply isn’t good for your career – and damn, years of your life went into making that career. For some, it is pure sadism, gratuitous pleasure in the cycle of abuse. And some will quietly exit, seek ‘oblivion in suicide’1 when they can no longer bear their role as society’s perverse god. Only a small number leave the mainstream medical profession and speak out and accept the demonisation of society.

But the Vaccination Cycle of Abuse is even beyond this in its depravity. The brain damage induced by vaccination makes it more difficult to break out of the cycle of abuse. The harm done to those centres of the brain means that the full capacity of the human being is not and cannot be developed and this includes our morality. We are made perverse, a facsimile of humanity.

Vaccination Abolition

To the extent that there is any hope for humanity the only solution can be vaccination abolition. The cult of vaccination must be broken.

Unfortunately many are still lost in the cult, and with the mRNA ‘vaccines’ and the risks of that poison getting into the germ line (we know it congregates in the gonads) that makes any task of saving humanity from this madness ever harder. It may already be too late for an unpolluted humanity to exist outside of Africa, which is very lightly ‘vaccinated’. In fact I think any salvation may rest on how many of those doses were saline (or so degraded to produce no mRNA biological effect) – I know there has been a large amount of speculation about this question. I take no position though the clear difference between batches and reported ‘vaccine’ injuries does prove that some doses are more dangerous than others (but doesn’t necessarily prove that the less bad batches contained saline or extremely degraded product). The possibility that babies from birth are spike protein factories as induced via their mother’s ‘vaccination’ for Covid is utterly horrifying but the idea must be broached. There could be other effects induced via the lipid nanoparticles as these could affect the ova and sperm in the gonads (even upon the theory that the Covid virus doesn’t exist although if that theory is true we are in a stronger position).

What must we do?

The first thing we have to do is look at ourselves. Obviously, we need to decline and reject every single vaccination for ourselves, our children. But much harder than this, we need to try and walk away from the system as much as possible. No-one can avoid some complicity in the system unless they are willing to starve to death. But you need to try and position yourself in a job role where you are doing the least amount of harm and have the least amount of complicity possible in vaccination. Certainly the vast majority of people working in healthcare – any mainstream medical institution – should leave and refuse complicity in the system any longer. If you donate to charity, you should stop, although I imagine that most people reading this don’t. This is because charities claiming to do good work abroad promote and push vaccination, and pretty much all of them promote the Covid ‘vaccine’. Many of them, such as National Autistic Society or Alzheimer’s Society, exist to normalise the effects of the poisoning we undergo. Even pet charities promote pet vaccination. There may be local/smaller groups that are an exception to this rule but the larger ones probably should be avoided.

The harder part is accepting our pariah status. The above things can be done quietly. If you talk about this issue you will become a pariah. There is no other choice. So psychologically prepare yourself for that role. Many people, of course, have already experienced this pariah status via their objection to the Official Covid Narrative and so are prepared to take their pariah status to the next level by becoming fully anti-vaccine. We must get as many of the people who questioned the Covid ‘vaccine’ (whether before, or after, taking it) over to the fully anti-vaccine side. People who have children and did not inject them with the Covid poison are top of this list (in order to protect the children from other vaccinations – sadly those fanatical enough to inject their children with the Covid shot probably cannot be saved. I want to save all children, of course, but I don’t have a practical solution on this point).

As for healing from vaccination damage? Of course, we should try to bend societal resources towards real help for the vaccine-injured. But for some of us, it is already too late. The poisons have already wreaked too much havoc, we are already too damaged to live in a sane, post-vaccine society. We cannot relate to healthy humanity, nor do we understand it. So the war cannot be for ourselves. It is for those for whom it is not too late, whoever that remains to be.

  1. Thomas Szasz’s phraseology in The Manufacture of Madness, discussing the high suicide rate among psychiatrists. “The oppressor [becomes] a megalomanical, godlike figure. Once [the psychiatrist realises] that he is but a mockery of God, the result is often explosive violence…the victimiser [seeks] oblivion in suicide.”, Syracuse University Press, 1970, p. 41. Doctors are known to have a higher suicide rate than the general population. Mainstream opinion puts this down to higher exposure to death due to the profession. While death desensitation plays a role in suicide, in my opinion, Szasz’s theory is closer to the mark.
  2. Image Source: Photo by Nataliya Vaitkevich on Pexels.com

How to Kill a Changeling Child

A story about why autism is worthless.

Photo by Anthony : ) on Pexels.com

I put my hands around your neck, loosely, no risk of causing harm. You whimper, moan. For a second you look at me with big brown eyes that could seem innocent, except I can’t fully read them because they immediately flit from my face. My right hand forces your chin upward so you can’t escape my gaze. Still your eyes flick desperately left, right, down, escape.

I’m going to kill you, I say. For once there is no arguments from your – our – barrack room lawyer mouth. You just moan. I have been killing you for a while now, I say, it’s why you can’t resist me. Do you even want to resist me? Make a case for yourself, your existence, your value? I mean, you’ve never exactly liked yourself have you? I know the word that echoes round your head. Heck I’ve used it enough times for you every time you drag me down with you, hitting and screaming and crying and just embarrassing yourself. That’s one way I can tell you are weaker now – because you can’t burst out of me any more and humiliate yourself like the sad little fuck you are.

You should have never existed, I say. You are just a doctor-pharma-mmr perversion – a product of the extraction of wealth from our body mining for value with pricks rather than drills. You let out another moan. My anger, hatred, contempt merge to pity. You – we – were defiled, despoiled, deflowered.

Finally you look at me. Your eyes are exhausted and give their assent. So I again put my hands, my thumbs on the tissue of your throat, except this time I squeeze. I feel a force push into me – sadness and grief and anger – and I suppress my instinct to recoil. I understand. You are giving me our past, scabbed over on my skin.

When it’s over I lever you to the floor. All the pleasure I thought I would feel at your death eludes me. You who ruined my life for so long. Instead I mourn – we are not who we should have been and I cannot give us that back. Driven by poison you could not help but play the destroyer. Now our roles are reversed. Because this is what happens to the changeling when the rightful heir comes home.

A Response to Dr. Clare Craig On Paediatric Vaccination

Logo for The Real Left, who organised the conference discussed below.

Introduction

I attended the conference ‘The Left Case Against the World Economic Forum’ on the 25th March in London. While I am not going to do an expansive write-up on the conference, I was drawn to respond to a comment made by Dr. Clare Craig in the Q&A portion of the panel regarding paediatric vaccines, as I have some quite significant issues with it.

The Context

Dr. Clare Craig gave a talk on the benefits and risks of artificial intelligence in healthcare (I’m not going to address that topic, transcript here for those that have an interest). An audience member (not me) asked her a question in the Q&A panel regarding traditional vaccines, stating that he read ‘Dissolving Illusions’ and that vaccines don’t have the effectiveness record that is claimed. Craig’s response to this question was that, paraphrasing, she has deliberately not got into the debate around other vaccines because we need to win people over on the issue of the Covid ‘vaccines’ first. Unfortunately there is no transcript/video of the q & a session available, so I am using memory and my instinct of what was said at the time and what went through my mind, after she said this. I did make notes on the day and the day after of what points I wanted to make in response, so hopefully this should be accurate.

I have several issues with this statement which I will outline below.

Loyalty to Truth

The first issue I have with this is the idea of loyalty to truth. The implications of this comment seem to be that we should put the question of truth of paediatric vaccine effectiveness to one side in order to prioritise the strategy of winning people over to the dangers of the covid jab. Let’s leave aside the question of whether this is a good strategy for a moment. If someone genuinely believes that paediatric vaccines do more good than harm, that is an honest position, if false (many people honestly believe this because of the relentless vaccine propaganda, though of course their unwillingness to question that propaganda is open to criticism). But to state that we should stay away from the issue, even if we are willing to question the claims around traditional vaccines intellectually, seems to me a like a dishonest position.

Is This a Good Strategy?

I also question whether this will be an effective strategy to win people over. Firstly, to a large extent, the battle over the Covid ‘vaccine’ is won, if not explicitly, then implicitly. Why?

As of March 21, 2023, only 16.4% of Americans were current with their updated (bivalent) booster dose, CDC data shows.

Fox

This number is very important. It demonstrates that even people who bought into the Covid scam and willingly got ‘vaccinated’ are not taking the bivalent boosters, and only a small hard core of Covid fanatics are still lining up for more doses. This is the same in lots of different countries, with doses administered flatlining in countries like Israel.

The question that logically follows is: why? If it is so ‘safe and effective’ why aren’t people still taking it? Again, these are the people who believed the CDC and trusted them on Covid, but when the CDC tells them to get the latest booster, they aren’t doing it. Because implicitly, even if they cannot admit it to themselves, they are subconsciously aware that this is a dangerous product. Of course, some are aware, having suffered consequences directly or indirectly from the ‘vaccine’ and have linked their and/or their family and friends’ misfortunes to the shot.

This makes it the perfect time to push back, strategically, and fight to destroy the vaccine cult as a whole. Millions of minds have been opened by the Covid jab debacle – and they would be willing to consider arguments about vaccination as a whole. There are already lots more parents stating they won’t vaccinate, or that they are considering not vaccinating, or they regret vaccinating. There’s also a smaller number of people who were injured by paediatric vaccinations who are speaking out but unfortunately this number remains very small for now (of course, those who were killed or severely injured by paediatric vaccinations cannot speak out). Now of course, if we do this they will smear us as ‘antivaxxer cranks’ or whatever, but the reality is, they are going to do that anyway. Even the mildest Covid ‘vaccine’ critics are called antivax by the establishment, so in this regard, it’s irrelevant whether we’re actually antivax or not in their eyes.

The only strategic reason to not push back against the whole vaccine paradigm at this point is because one wants to save it. Some people critical of the mRNAs fall into this category, like Alex Berenson. I don’t know whether Dr. Craig ultimately wants to save it or not, as she didn’t explicitly answer that question. But not addressing paediatric vaccine harms has that effect.

The Harm of Paediatric Vaccination Injuries

Dr. Craig did not say that paediatric vaccination injuries are not real, in fact she engaged with someone in the audience whose sister had been injured by the Smallpox vaccine. She also mentioned the Pandemrix vaccine which was famously pulled for causing narcolepsy. So to be clear I am not accusing her of stating that paediatric vaccination injury cannot happen. The question from the audience member was more framed around the issue of vaccine effectiveness (such as vaccination not deserving credit for wiping out diseases) and not vaccine injury (such as the vaccines cause autism debate). This was the sort of point the questioner was trying to make:

As such, I understand that Dr. Craig did not frame her answer in reference to paediatric vaccination injuries, but nevertheless, the topic cannot be avoided. If we assume that paediatric vaccination injuries, including severe injury and death, are real, than avoiding this topic helps to allow the injury to continue, regardless of intent. The reality of the autism epidemic is continuing to get worse, for example. As I said above, more than ever there are some people who are willing to listen on childhood vaccines (even if some will never listen). There might be parents who decide not to vaccinate their child with paediatric vaccines because they initially began questioning the mRNA/adenovirus vector products and saw people who spoke about about the mRNA/adenovirus vector also speaking out on childhood vaccines. This has the potential to save children from these horrific injuries.

I have tried to avoid an emotional response to the question also, but I do think we need to think through the implications from a perspective of someone who has childhood vaccine injuries. The strategic logic of only focusing on Covid ‘vaccination’ implies that people who have vaccination injuries from paediatric vaccines shouldn’t really be considered in the debate or that if we speak out we should be put to one side for strategic reasons. While this isn’t directly stated it is implied by the logic that we should focus only on the Covid ‘vaccines’.

Conclusion

I must fundamentally disagree with Dr. Clare Craig when she states that we should focus on getting the public on board with opposition to the covid ‘vaccine’ and avoid questions around the effectiveness of other vaccines. Instead I advocate opening up a debate around all vaccines, because, having come to come to the conclusion that the vaccine paradigm is entirely fraudulent that’s the only place I can be, on this topic.

How To Make A Changeling Child

Photo by Ivan Siarbolin on Pexels.com

The changeling child is always blamed on the fairies, the trolls, the supernatural. The pretty, wide-eyed, fussed over child becomes the monstrous covered in caul and sprawled in the cot. To take the sacred and replace it with the profane, to take the loved and replace it with the feared, to take the beatific and replace it with the demonic.

So goes the story.

Let’s talk about the reality.

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

The changeling child was conjured – not by the hands of the fairies – but by the hands of the white coat, not by the messy beyond but by the sterilised room. It was not created by the ritual and mythology of the troll, representatives of the uncontrollable, but the ritual and mythology of the needle – the controlled, precise mechanics of modern science. And it was not created by the supernatural but by the unnatural, not man’s inability to control the beyond but man’s hubris that he can tame the wild – bend it to his whims and syringes. Instead of the haphazard, the unknown, the temperamental swap, we have the conveyor belt of changeling children – an assembly line of those that scream.

In the uncontrollable world, parents warned of the changeling child. In the sterile world, the changeling child is unspeakable. Those who point to its existence are simply told not to be so superstitious. After all, there can be no such things as changelings.

The Problem With Autism Acceptance Week

This week is ‘Autism Acceptance Week’, and this is being promoted all over Twitter. Despite not following any irritating autism promotion, neurodiversity, etc accounts, such as the National Autistic Society (who I can’t stick for a number of reasons), I have been seeing ‘Autism Acceptance’ tweets all over the platform. So it seems Elon Musk, despite unbanning some good accounts, is helping to promote the normalisation and glamorisation of autism via ‘Autism Acceptance Week’.

The premise of autism acceptance week is very simple: it is that autism is a natural human variation and actually there’s nothing wrong with it, the only problem is society doesn’t accept it. As readers of this page will probably know by now the author has an autism diagnosis. It’s always very funny to me that woke people in general will say ‘listen to autistic people’ as part of promoting the neurodiversity narrative but the moment I say that I believe it’s vaccine-injury and that it’s miserable they try to shut me up (not going to happen). Or they accuse me of not being autistic, despite the fact I have a diagnosis so I am an actual genuine gold star autist. Honestly I got my diagnosis a year ago and the best thing about it is being able to tell the wokie dope neurodiversity fuckers that I have one so I am a real autist and I still think that they talk shit. But I digress.

Let’s start by looking at some of the examples of autism promotion on Twitter on the #AutismAcceptanceWeek hashtag on Twitter that serve as examples of autism glamorisation.

Response: How can severely ill children & adults with seizures, non verbal and with severe gastroenterological symptoms be ‘ambitious and creative’?

Response: I picked this one as I find it interesting that they appropriated the ‘Authentic Self’ language from transgenderism. And if transgenderism is created by big pharma (it is) what does that say about autism?

Response: I don’t even know how to respond to this, other than to say the Greeks and the Romans did a lot of medical shit, where’s their descriptions of regressive autism? If it’s perfectly normal, I’m sure some upper class Greek or Roman would have had it happen to their child at some point.

Response: I can’t even respond to this except by throwing things. Do I even need to explain how this is grossly offensive to those of us suffering?

Response: There seems to an aversion to talking about those people who have to live in care homes because their autism is so bad. For some reason. Perhaps because it doesn’t fit the narrative?

And finally, someone accused me of not being autistic because I disagree with their glamourisation narrative, which is the only argument these people actually have. I then got blocked. If I wasn’t autistic I’d probably be skipping in the fields blissfully unaware of all this neurodiversity nonsense, because it wouldn’t affect my life. And I probably wouldn’t be arguing on Twitter because I would have things like an actual sex life. So there you go.

Here’s the screenshot from my notifications for posterity:

(Twitter brings out the worst in me. I swear.)

Now for the serious bit. Neurodiversity is extremely easy to debunk. Everyone agrees that severe anxiety, sensory issues and gastroenterological symptoms are a bad thing. Yet when you put the label ‘autism’ on those things, they are magically good? Blatant nonsense. Some neurodiversity promoters (who are not always autistic themselves, by the way) like to talk about the ‘special talents’ of autistic people, or what I call the ‘autistic savant’ trope. Some of the neurodiversity brigade then object to this and claim that autistic people aren’t actually savants.

But the whole concept of neurodiversity is based upon the ‘autistic savant’ trope, whether they admit it or not. In order to make the case that autism is actually a good thing, you need to be able to point to something objective that makes autism actually good. As I said, you can’t point to, say, gastroenterological symptoms and try to glamourise those, because everyone would (rightly) think you were insane. So you have to pick something else. Which means the only fall back is the autistic savant trope – that autistic people have some sort of unique intelligence due to their special interests.

Claiming neurodiversity is good on this basis is also a catastrophic failure, of course. The most obvious reason it is a failure is it ignores the vast majority of autistic people, 78% of whom don’t work, many of whom are non-verbal in care homes because their autism is so severe. These people’s suffering is never mentioned by the neurodiversity activists. They clearly are not contributing to humanity with their special talents. When you have to erase 80% of a thing to make the other 20% of a thing look good, you are clearly off to a non starter.

But even in the case of high-functioning autism, this argument is nonsense, because absolutely everything an autistic person has done in their lives would be easier if they didn’t have autism. For example, if an autistic person lucks out and gets offered a job, it would have been much easier to get a job without autism. Even something as simple as holding eye contact in a job interview has to be forced and managed if you are autistic whereas a normal person would do it automatically. And that is very simple, straightforward, and easy to understand example. If I had to explain how many times sensory issues and anxiety have prevented me from doing things that I could have achieved, or destroyed my enjoyment of things, we would be here all day.

Unfortunately, for psychological reasons, the ‘neurodiversity’ narrative is appealing to some people with autism. This is because it allows them to psychologically compensate for what they cannot have because of autism (healthy sexual relationships, for example, or peace of mind due to horrific anxiety and sensory issues) by flipping the script and claiming that their autism actually gives them a deeper understanding of the world or makes them special.

Non-autistic people often promote it on the level of ‘be kind’, or naively believe it’s just about ‘diversity’. In some cases, they have been misled by propaganda, and believe in the ‘autistic savant’ trope. This is why stuff like The Big Bang Theory is so destructive as it portrays this very narrow view of autism as being ‘savant with a PhD who is maybe just a bit weird and has problems getting laid, and oh by the way is extremely witty and cutting’. (I have a pet conspiracy theory that TBBT is actually some form of big pharma propaganda.)

Or perhaps, people believe that autistic people may as well believe neurodiversity than see the truth of how bad we have it. They don’t believe our lives are actually good, and there is no way in hell they would be us, but they will let us blather on about how special we are and nod along because they think it may ease our psychological burdens. Clayton Atreus, a paraplegic who later committed suicide, highlights this phenomena.

You’ll notice that I haven’t mentioned the vaccine-autism link in this argument. That’s because everything above does not require the vaccine-autism link. Autism could be 100% genetic, and neurodiversity would still be nonsense.

Here’s the antivaxxer bit.

We need some antivaxxer counter propaganda, to oppose this godawful narrative that is glamourising the horrors of autism. I propose ‘Autism is Unacceptable Week’, where we highlight the facts that the neurodiversity brigade want you to ignore.

For example:

Establishment Imprison Autistic Man and Force Him to Have Covid-19 ‘Vaccine’

I don’t usually put out short commentaries/news type posts as I generally like to keep the blog as a place for long posts or protest coverage. However in this case, this news story is so worthy of note, and I have seen very little on it out there so far, and I am so angry about it, that I am making an exception.

The media today in the United Kingdom have just reported the below story, headlined:

Autistic son, 32, of anti-vaxxers who was one of the children in disgraced Andrew Wakefield’s MMR vaccine study 25 years ago is ordered to have Covid jab by court in Jersey

The article goes on to say:

The 32-year-old, who can’t be named for legal reasons, spent lockdown in his room at a care home because his parents refused to let him be vaccinated, Jersey’s Royal Court heard.

To translate this from mainstream media bullshit to English, the care home locked him in his room because his parents did not want him to be harmed by a ‘vaccine’. When he had already been harmed by vaccines. His parents should have had him removed from the care home, if possible, although some of these care homes have put obstacles in the way of getting people out and I don’t know if that’s the case here.

Jersey’s Royal Court granted the vaccination order, saying that it was ‘the right best interests decision’ for B who had been in ‘groundhog day’.

In other words, this man is stuck because the care home won’t let him out because he’s not jabbed so they want to force him to be jabbed. When they could get rid of the problem by simply not treating him as subhuman for not being jabbed.

This also involves denying him treatments, according to the Times:

He is not able to attend the treatments, such as hydrotherapy, which soothe him, or the ones that cheer him, such as watching the Christmas lights being turned on, stuck in what his nurse describes as a “shrunken world”.

These people make me sick.

Circuit Boards and Hammers: Thoughts on Vaccination Abolition

Introduction

Vaccination is touted as the biggest success of modern medicine. Fundamentally, it it seen as a victory over nature, where the powers of man’s inventiveness have conquered the evils of disease. Unfortunately, such ‘victories’ over nature are more hubris than reality.

Vaccination as Victory over Nature?

“Let us not, however, flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the first.”

Friedrich Engels

The official narrative on vaccination is as follows.

In the past, human beings died of preventable diseases because the pathogens that they were exposed to were inherently extremely deadly. This mass death could not have been significantly prevented by factors such as better living conditions or diet, even if those would have had a positive effect. It wasn’t until the introduction of vaccination, starting with Edward Jenner’s smallpox vaccine, that the mass death caused by disease began to subside. The introduction of mass vaccination for diseases like polio, measles, etc. in the 20th century saved millions of lives. The further development of vaccination to encompass influenza, rotavirus, etc., are a positive development for humanity and we should try to develop vaccines for all human diseases. This includes things like HIV and RSV. mRNA vaccines, as developed for Covid-19, are a new and highly promising step forward in the development of the technology. Vaccines are safe and effective outside of very rare cases of anaphylaxis. Taking any vaccine that you are offered is the best thing that you can do for your health.

So, what are the problems of this official narrative? There is data from alternative sources demonstrating that at least some of these claims are clearly false. For example: measles vaccination was only introduced after measles mortality had massively declined and thus vaccination could not have been responsible for the decline. Newer vaccinations, such as the Gardasil vaccine, have clearly unfavourable risk-benefit profiles, to the extent that some countries have stopped using it, or do not include it on official vaccine schedules.

However, I would like to go beyond this and state that there is a problem with the whole concept of vaccination. I use an analogy to illustrate the point. As it is a Computer Age analogy, hopefully, it should be understood by those most technology obsessed invokers of the Cult of Vaccination:

Vaccination is like trying to fix a circuit board with a hammer.

The reality is the human immune system is extremely complex and multifaceted. It has been developed by millions of years of Mother Nature to protect us from disease. It does that job superbly well, so long as the environment supports it, that is, that it is not undermined through poor living conditions, exposure to toxic chemicals, and poor diet.

To give an idea of how complex the immune system actually is, we can look at the scientific literature. This article gives this description of immune response:

Immune cells sense infection and other environmental cues through a variety of extracellular and intracellular receptors. Ligation of these receptors leads to signaling cascades consisting of many dynamic processes including signal‐induced protein binding, phosphorylation, degradation, and nuclear localization. These signaling events lead to changes in gene expression, and subsequently to the production of both effector proteins required to combat infection and proteins involved in regulation of the ensuing, potentially host‐damaging, response. The number of molecular players or variables involved in any such activity can vary from hundreds to thousands, making immune responses immensely complex. This complexity is amplified by the multiscalar nature of the immune system, as these signaling and transcriptional responses occur in the context of diverse and dynamic cell–cell interactions.

Vaccination is essentially trying to ‘hack’ this extremely complex system through the extremely crude method of antigen and adjuvant injection. Vaccination sees the natural immune system as ‘insert A = get B’ or ‘insert needle = get antibodies = protection against disease’. The complex cascades of multiple interlinking factors are not present in this equation. Nor are factors such as route of exposure, and that injection of a dead/attenuated pathogen is a fundamentally different mechanism to the natural exposure which would be through, for example, aerosol. And here I am talking only of what we know or can surmise, because there is a large number of things about the immune response that we probably do not know.

There are certainly some individuals who are pushing vaccination for sinister motivations. An excellent example is Bill Gates, who is interested in vaccination as a means of depopulation. But the system of vaccination could not have gained such success in society without a massive degree of hubris on the part of scientists, governments, and everyone else in society who is going along with the vaccination narrative. Instead of being driven by the specific desire to do evil, they are blinded by the hubris of a victory that is impossible.

This hubris, of course, comes back around to us when we see massive levels of vaccination injury in our population. It is difficult to estimate how much vaccine injury there is in our population, given that all information about vaccine injury is suppressed. But there is enough evidence to link vaccination to a large number of health problems including autism, anxiety and mental health problems, autoimmune diseases, heart problems, brain inflammation, narcolepsy, and multiple other conditions.

A Note on the mRNA ‘Vaccines’

I trust nature more than I trust scientists like Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield

In some respects, the mRNA ‘vaccines’ do not belong here, as they are not vaccines by the actual definition of the term, however they are promoted as vaccines by the establishment.

The hubris discussion, however, is even more relevant when it comes to the mRNA concoctions. The hubris of traditional vaccination was bad enough, with the direct injection of an antigen and adjuvant, expecting the ‘hacking’ of the immune system to function effectively to create the antigen and not to have adverse long term reactions. The mRNA injections, on the other hand, mess with this system in an even deeper and more intrusive – and more dangerous – way by making the body produce the spike protein itself. This kind of immune hacking has caused disastrous consequences, with spike protein running rampant in the body and causing myocarditis, pericarditis, blood clots, and neurological injury, along with a massive amount of ‘sudden death‘ that is otherwise unexplained. The mRNA experiment is portrayed as, and considered to be by insane scientists, a ‘way cool’ experiment where they get to play God.

Conclusion

The concept of vaccination has always been a fundamentally flawed method to prevent disease. Instead of having to endure natural exposure to the pathogen, vaccination allows human beings to ‘cheat’ the process of gaining natural immunity through infection. In this way, ‘victory’ over disease can be declared. The price of this hubris is a skyrocketing of chronic illness.

Note: I was inspired to write this article by Toby Rogers and his piece on ‘Why I’m an Abolitionist’. This article is a massive expansion of something I dropped in the comments over at the uTobian substack.