“The word immune was given medical currency as an adjunct to the vaccination game which has long been a big moneymaker for pharmaceutical interests.” — T.C. Fry, The Great AIDS Hoax (Austin, TX: Life Science Institute, 1989), 139.
by Steve Halbrook
Not to say that we don’t have certain bodily defenses (for detox, etc.), but is what we call the “immune system” — at the very least, to the extent it means we generate immunity from viruses via antibodies — real, or a fabrication to trick us into vaccinating?
After all, atmospheric changes were once considered to be the cause of such things as the cold and flu. But then came in the late 1800s the popularization of germ theory, as well as the idea that antibodies provide protection against viruses.
Interestingly, vaccination by this time was long shown to be a lucrative practice, so, hmmm … do these “discoveries” follow the science, or the money? Were they truly scientific — or a means of vaccine marketing?
Even before exploring whether or not immunity is a scam, it is indeed beyond any doubt that those who frame the vaccine narratives are willing to employ deceit to make us think that viruses (we can’t consider immunity without also considering virology) are undoubtedly the cause of particular disease symptoms –even when it is clearly not in fact the cause.
I can get into a lengthy discussion about how the “polio epidemic” was by and large the effect of pesticides, how the “Spanish flu” was to a large extent chemical weapons (as suffered by WW1 combatants), and how HIV might be any number of things. But for now, just think of it this way: there are a great number of things that can make us sick, and yet, have you found it interesting that the elites don’t want us to entertain practically anything as the cause save a virus?
Because, for the psychopaths at the top, the concept of immunity from viruses is the means to vaccinate us — for money, depopulation, and perhaps human sacrifice. And those with such goals would surely have no qualms about lying about the means to achieve such results.
Honesty is clearly not the forte of the vaccine establishment. When it comes down to it, what we think we know about vaccination, virology, and immunity (in terms of official narratives) is a matter of trust (trust that we are being told the truth) — and yet such trust has long shown (through repeated breaches) to be undeserved and unwarranted.
Is the idea of immunity logical?
Just asking questions at this point. If there is something in nature analagous to immunity as framed in the pro-vaccine paradigm, then I’m all ears. On the other hand, T.C. Fry writes on the word “immunity,”
In nature there is no such thing as being immune. All acts have consequences. All acts have effects. Nothing that humans do will suspend the laws of our existence. The idea of immunity in the physiological world is pure myth. …
Just as wrong acts of mechanics will cause an airplane to malfunction, even crash, so, too, your wrong acts will cause your body to malfunction and “crash” with some debilitating illness.
T.C. Fry, The Great AIDS Hoax (Austin, TX: Life Science Institute, 1989), 139.Elsewhere he writes,
Immune derives from the word immuno which means that we are exempt from consequences if we transgress the laws of life. Of course, we can’t be made “immune” to anything. Vitality can be suppressed so that the body cannot act, but this is debility rather than immunity. If lack of body action is to be labelled immunity, then death makes us immune to all diseases. …
Let’s look at immunity another way. If you give a jigger of liquor to a three-year-old, the child will spit and sputter until it frees itself of the vile stuff. Give it to an alcoholic, and there is absolutely no resistance. The alcoholic has lost the vital powers of resistance. The medical community would say that the alcoholic
has immunity because he is not affected, whereas the healthy, vital child does not have immunity!The vitality or lack of vitality of the body’s defensive mechanisms is not something that can be acquired by intimate contact with someone else. Vitality is a characteristic of health, and its lack is a characteristic of someone who has lost their health due to unwholesome practices. Thus, in the case of the alcoholic, he has not ‘‘acquired’’ his ‘‘immunity.’’ Nor is it ‘‘immunity.’’ The alcoholic is a ‘‘boxer’’ who no longer can defend himself due to exhaustion of vital energies and faculties. He’s had too many bouts with alcohol—he’s slowly poisoned himself into insensibility and functional debility.
T.C. Fry, The Great AIDS Hoax (Austin, TX: Life Science Institute, 1989), 109, 110.
One, then, might see how in vaccine history, some were incredulous that the notion that a “small amount” of a disease can prevent illness via the disease in a “greater” form. William White writes in 1885,
The rationale of vaccination is that it communicates a mild variety of smallpox, and that with a little of the devil we buy off the entire devil.
William White, The Story of a Great Delusion in a Series of Matter-of-fact Chapters (London: E.W. Allen, 1885), xxxix.
And just a few years earlier, in 1881, prolific vaccine critic Mary C. Hume-Rothery writes,
Pro-vaccinators attack the healthy infant, break down the harmony of natural action, infuse filth into the blood, and set up inflammation or fermentation in the system, the consequences of which it is impossible to foretell or estimate; in a word they disease a child, and weaken, inevitably, its vital powers, in order to strengthen it to resist disease or to recover from it if attacked. Talk of common sense! This is positive imbecility. …
The whole theory that a milder or weaker disease can possibly protect from a severer and more dangerous one, is as utterly foolish and irrational as to affirm that a weak man is more powerful than a strong one. As well might the feebler light of the moon shut out the stronger sunlight. The folly, from their own point of view, of those who affirm the contrary-who affirm that the milder vaccine disease undergone at any period, can for years afterwards protect from a far more severe and dangerous one, namely, small-pox, would be positively incredible were it not that those who turn their back upon enlightened reason and common sense, let go of the very standards by which men are enabled to gauge their own absurdities; so that darkness for them becomes light, and they place in the “inventions” themselves have sought ought out, the faith they have withdrawn from higher and better objects.
Mary C. Hume-Rothery, “Modern Devil-Worship,” The National Anti-Compulsory-Vaccination Reporter, Vol. V, No. 12, September 1, 1881, in National Anti-compulsory-vaccination Reporter, Vol. V, October 7 1880 – September 1, 1881, 202.
Inconsistent antibody narratives
One must ask, if the concept of the immune system is true — at least to the extent that we generate immunity from viruses via antibodies — then why are antibody narratives all over the map? We are told that all that we need is to produce antibodies (ideally, they say, via vaccination) to prevent catching a disease in the future; and yet,
- Naturally-acquired antibodies and vaccine induced antibodies are not the same.
- Injection with antibodies is insufficient to prevent disease
- HIV antibodies do not combat HIV
- Antibodies can, at least regarding some viruses, increase disease severity.
- Antibodies are “neither needed nor sufficient for protection” from neurotropic vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV)
- There are those who can develop immunity to measles who are genetically unable to produce antibodies.
And so we return to our original question. Is what we call the “immune system” (in the sense we mean it here) real, or a fabrication to trick us into vaccinating?
If we can’t truly isolate viruses, if we can’t prove viral contagion via testing, if the antibodies narrative is inconsistent, if those at the top of the vaccine pyramid have the means, motive, and opportunity to lie, then perhaps …
Dr. Sam Bailey: Is Immunity Real? (source)
If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting our work.
