by John Jones, a.k.a. Biko Boulware, Vaxxter contributing author
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny has long-warned us that various economic interests and public office-holders are pushing for “mandatory vaccines” for all – including adults. (To see their legal rationale, reread the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts  – where the justices presumed that any smallpox vaccine was safe and 100% effective).
Despite constant news reports urging us to take the shots, individuals and small groups are resisting. Occasionally we hear of doctors who refrain from giving vaccines, individual nurses refusing to take the flu shots, and there are demonstrations of parents and informed readers against forced or coerced vaccination policies. But in the face of institutional momentum, economic power, and near religious-devotion to the fraud of vaccination, small and uncoordinated moves will not be sufficient. We can and must do more.
The purpose of this article is to: (1) highlight the power and function of the human drive to conform, in promoting vaccination madness; (2) relate this drive to vaccination – as a faith-based practice; and (3) offer guidelines for taking action.
Real Scientific Insights: Solomon Asch and Conformity
The pioneering researcher, Dr. Solomon Asch, taught us much about human psychology and the tendency of individuals to conform to the dictates and beliefs of a peer group. Namely, he found that under certain conditions, most people will outwardly agree with or support ideas that one does not believe. Years later, Stanley Milgram, building upon the findings of his former professor, demonstrated the conditions under which individuals would be obedient to the point of inflicting harm upon and torturing innocents. Milgram concluded that when a person can justify their behavior as an act that is in accord with an existing or perceived hierarchy or is part of a set of cultural expectations, unspeakable horrors will ensue.
Of course, all aspects of conformity are not seen as suspect or dangerous. Benign acts on a mass or national level, are called culture. Tolerated differences are called mores or folkways. But what of religious acts, or those acts undertaken in the name of divine purpose or calling?
When the action is something as horrific as child rape, we denounce the participants as being part of a cult. But what shall we call it when a sub-culture of a quasi-priest class, medical doctors, who are supposedly the best and brightest of a society, are endowed with the power to save lives? And what shall we say when this class unquestionably follows protocols handed down by their professors, corporate pay-masters and politicians? Should we wholely accept their directives or are we obligated to resist them? If we do not resist, are have we become part of an obedient group of misguided and mindlessly trusting cult members?
Vaccine Science, a Grounded Theory?
“Science, as a dominant factor in determining the beliefs of educated men, has existed for about 300 years; as a source of economic technique, for about 150 years …” ~Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society)
Most medical doctors and the general public believe that vaccine science [sic], like other aspects of what they call pathology, adheres to established principles within the domain of physical sciences, akin to matters of stoichiometry or the ideal gas law. But generally, medical judgments about what constitutes “health” are merely discussions about symptoms and pharmaceutical management of these symptoms.
Modern medicine is known for repeatedly introducing new names for old diseases. A long head directive is this: “Just because your doctor has a name for your condition does not mean that he/she knows what it is.” Arguably medical evaluations are simply qualitative analyses dressed up as scientific certainty. And as the evidence shows, allopathic treatments, aimed at eliminating symptoms, rather than addressing a cause and them restoring health, are a common cause of death.
Vaccine science is not what Glaser and Strauss (1967) would call, a Grounded Theory – a tool of explanation based on objective facts. For sociologists Glaser and Strauss, any scientific theory grounded in facts should provide a practitioner with “usable applications for prediction and explanation.” Guided responses of data suggest avenues for further research or experiment. Testing a theory, to verify or reject it, should be a basic practice in any field of science and medicine (cf. Glaser 1967). But is anyone testing modern theories and beliefs about the safety and efficacy of vaccines?
One canon for judging the usefulness of a theory is to consider how the theory was contrived. Recall the modern theory that drives the catechism and proselytism surrounding vaccination is derived from the barbaric experiments and unverified claims made in 1798 by Edward Jenner himself.
For example, in paragraph 68 of his Inquiry (1798), Edward Jenner reported:
“Elizabeth Wynne, who had the cow-pox in the year 1759, was inoculated with variolous matter, without effect, in the year 1797, and again [sic] caught the cow-pox in the year 1798 …”
But if an infection with natural cow-pox illness did not prepare the immune system to defend against future infection, how could inoculating a person with pus from cowpox blisters stave off smallpox contagion?
Over the course of 20 years, Jenner presented shifting and contradictory ideas about the safety and efficacy of his cowpox inoculation (aka vaccination),. His ideas were summarized by his biographer, and fellow vaccinator, John Baron. At the core of his argument, Jenner pushed the idea that direct exposure via inoculation to pus and lymph from a cowpox pustule, would have the following effects:
- (1) an immediate, illness resembling a mild case of smallpox, though sometimes it would be more acute for those with a poor constitution;
- (2) leave the inoculated with a “high probability” of future immunity against smallpox, but not absolute; and yet,
- (3) leave the person susceptible to cowpox infection.
Was the theory of the safety and efficacy of vaccination based on a systematic analysis of data? Or was the Jennerian faith in inoculation like that of today’s vaccination, established a priori, and constantly repeated despite contrary facts?
Current Day Proselytizing
In the 1960s, a team of sociologists argued that too often researchers let preconceived ideas shield them from important facts and discoveries. In the pro-vaccination world, nothing could be more obvious.
At no time did Jenner or other vaccinators and governmental officials of that era ever concede that the practice caused harm, disease, or death. Instead, if death or injury followed inoculation, Jenner and other inoculators found fault with technique or the substance (matter) used in the procedure.
Additionally, starting in the late 1800s and continuing through the 1970s, there were reports of post-inoculation illness, called serum sickness. Serum sickness can range from a mild reaction, such as a rash and a fever, requiring a period bed rest to recover, to something much more debilitating: paralysis, cancer, gangrene, or death. But serum sickness was never related to vaccine injury or vaccine failure.
In sociological terms, the modern theory of vaccination, which has been built on Jennerian notions and expanded to include terms such as antibodies, titers, macrophages, lymphocytes, T-cells, dendritic cells, etc.) is not grounded in facts.  Rather than engaging in rigorous scientific inquiry, pro-vaccine adherents seek to identify events which affirm their a priori assumptions – namely that: (a) vaccines are safe and effective; and (b) without vaccinating 95% of any given population, an infectious disease will spread and kill both the unvaccinated and vaccinated.
That the latter point contradicts their own logic (vaccination = immunity) does not give them pause.
Vaccine science is a de facto experiment. This is the primary reason mainstream medicine cannot see the harm being caused by this medical product. This is an artifact of how they categorize data and their misunderstanding of cause and effect. When practically no vaccinator will concede that any vaccine can cause the condition they are vaccinating against and cause untoward injuries including death, they are blind to the data. Thus they cannot connect the cause to the resulting effects of injecting aluminum, human and animal proteins, glyphosate, formaldehyde, and more into the human body.
Stand Your Ground, Share Your Wisdom
The United States, Canada and many countries around the world are moving to mandate vaccination for school children. (First, they came for the children …). At a September 23, 2019 meeting of the Toronto Board of Health, scores of parents, many of whom were from Nova Scotia a province with a “no shots, no school” regime, testified. They came to warn others about how vaccines had harmed their own children.  From allergies to asthma to neurological impairment and autism, witness after witness offered accounts of family tragedies, real harm caused by vaccination. After about an hour, the Board simply ignored the real people. Instead, the government panel gave their attention only to licensed allopaths, “experts” who waxed on about the looming public health threats [sic] from measles outbreaks if vaccination rates fell below 95%.
Such scenes will be repeated in the coming months. But we need to attend, we need to speak, we need to warn others. We need to show others we are not afraid. Like young Ms. Catherine Condinho told the world – she will never submit.
Returning to reflect on the findings of Solomon Asch and Stanley Milgram: as long as a person senses that they have an ally, they will not cave to peer pressure. Such is especially true for those in public office, licensed physicians, and pharmacists who know they are backed by the pharmaceutical industry.
We must stand with parents of vaccine-injured children, those who will never allow their loved ones to be harmed again. Thousands of us need to rally together and educate the unassuming, innocent new parents who may blindly trust the propagandists, which could result in irreversible harm to their children. We must help those who are asleep to wake up and break free from the multi-generational programming.
Like what you’re reading on Vaxxter.com?
Share this article with your friends. Help us grow. Join our list.
 197 U.S. 11.
 Cherry, Kendra. 2019a. “Biography of Psychologist Solomon Asch.” September 24, Very Well Mind.
 Cherry, Kendra. 2019b. “The Asch Conformity Experiments.” September 29, Very Well Mind.
 Cherry, Kendra. 2019. “Biography of Psychologist Solomon Asch.” September 24, Very Well Mind.
 McLeod, Saul. 2017. The Milgram Shock Experiment. Simply Psychology.
 See Russell, Bertrand. 1953. The Impact of Science on Society, p. 1.
 Union of International Associations. “Limitations of Allopathy.” Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential.
 See discussions of iatrogenic (physician-caused) disease/illness. Union of International Associations. “Iatrogenic disease. Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential. http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/139439; see also Death by Medicine (2010) by Gary Null; Carolyn Dean; Martin Feldman; Debora Rasio; and Dorothy Smith. Online at: http://www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf
 Cf. Glaser and Strauss (1967), 3.
 Cf. Glaser and Strauss (1967), 5.
 See Jenner (1798), paragraph 69, where he wrote: “the virus [sic] … [induces] in the human constitution symptoms similar to those of the variolous fever, and … which for ever [sic] renders it unsusceptible of the variolous contagion.”
 White (1885) The Story of a Great Delusion. http://www.whale.to/vaccines/white_b_h.html. See section II on vaccination reviewing the writings and experiments of Edward Jenner.
 See Jenner (1800) A Continuation of Facts and Observations Relative to the Variolæ Vaccinæ, or Cow-Pox, paragraph 8, http://www.bartleby.com/38/4/3.html
 See Baron (1827) at 279. “there are, on record, more instances of persons suffering severely, nay fatally, from … a second attack of small-pox, than from smallpox after … perfect [sic] vaccination.”
 See Jenner (1798), paragraph 67. “It is singular to observe that the cow-pox virus, although it renders the constitution unsusceptible of the variolous, should nevertheless, leave it unchanged with respect to its own action.”
 Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory.
 See the many references in White (1885) and Eleanor McBean (1957), The Poison Needle. http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean.html
 See Jenner (1798) Inquiry, paragraphs 74-77. (1799), Further Observations on the Variolæ Vaccinæ, or Cow-Pox, paragraphs 12, 35, 84-90 http://www.bartleby.com/38/4/2.html; and Jenner (1800) A Continuation of Facts and Observations Relative to the Variolæ Vaccinæ, or Cow-Pox, paragraphs 5, 29 http://www.bartleby.com/38/4/3.html
 See reports from McBean (1957), The Poison Needle, especially chapter 7.
 See McBean (1957), chapter 10, and her discussion of the injuries and deaths caused by the polio vaccine.
 See de Vries RD, de Swart RL (2014) “Measles Immune Suppression: Functional Impairment or Numbers Game?” PLoS Pathog 10(12): e1004482. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1004482 (See their discussion of various physiological processes which they presume as essential to immune function and largely determined by the presence of measles virus).
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySq5QUb3ya4&feature=youtu.be&t=3536 (start at minute 59)
Like what you’re reading on Vaxxter.com?
Share this article with your friends. Help us grow. Join our list.
Biko Boulware is a researcher who holds a Ph.D. and JD with expertise and interests in the philosophy of science, medical rhetoric, vaccine case law, and statistics. Since 2003, he has been investigating vaccines and helping people to heal and recover their vaccine-damaged children. He is the proud father of a healthy, vaccine-free daughter.
Photo credit: ID 102180792 © Arloofs | Dreamstime.com
Be the first to comment on "The Lack of Vaccine Science: Then and Now"