Philosophy of Immunization

by Mark Moyers, D.C
From Number 59 - December 1992

By the time that the year 1984 came and went, the powers that be had convinced the "masses" that George Orwell's prediction of "Big Brother" had been nothing but fantasy. Orwell had said that the State would control people by controlling their thoughts-by way of language destruction, language pollution, and word-meaning reversals. Orwell painted the future with definition changes such as "Ignorance is strength," and "Freedom is slavery." I don't believe he ever focused on the contradictions inherent in compulsory immunization, so I would like to do so now.

The word "immunization" is used to describe an injection of a substance which is intended to make a person free from the necessity of fighting a disease. "Immune" was borrowed by the scientific community from the political community. A Latin word, derived some 4000 years ago, immune meant "free from obligation or duty to the city or public". "Immune" was a political word used to describe a particular status of an individual.

When the scientific community began to use it, it had a similar basis with regard to disease, yet no thought of a political reference was apparent. Within a hundred years after the development of immunizations, they became compulsory (as a matter of law) for all children attending public schools. Here was "compulsory freedom" long before Orwell ever thought of mind control.

As in many cases, the State has successfully obtained the sanction of the victim. The most sacred of all ownership rights is your freely granted permission to do to your body or your property what someone else wishes to do with it. By discouraging a person to reflectively think about, and therefore understand, the meaning of compulsory immunization laws, the State has kept from that person (better known as the victim) the simple fact that this form of "freedom" - compulsory immunization - will be done to him over his objection and against his will. In other words, it will be done whether he likes it or not. Moreover, the State has so arranged circumstances that nearly none of the victims object. Ninety-eight percent of all persons immunized under compulsory immunization laws never object! They don't know how! They don't know that they can! They don't know that they might want to, or why!

When people object you need to have policemen there to force them and/or build jails to coerce them. Hence, obtaining the voluntary sanction of the victim through proper psychological warfare techniques is by far the most cost-effective method of controlling people or, as the State likes to refer to them, "political animals".

There rages in the medical community controversy over the effectiveness of vaccines, yet they are still compulsory. The argument of compulsion saving any life, anywhere, ever, can be nullified with the same simple fact that it was not the medical community with its state-of-the-art technologies, medicines, or vaccines which has made a significant difference in the lives of mankind as a whole. It was not even the advent of chiropractic or any of the other alternatives which mankind has found to help, that have made the greatest difference. All of these things help individuals, and therefore mankind as a whole, when needed, to some degree or another.

These accomplishments, while very important to the affected individual, pale when viewed first from a global perspective, and second when viewed in comparison to what has been done for individuals and mankind as a whole by the free market. Only once in recorded history have men tried to live free and for only a short time at that. But when they did and to the degree that they did, their standard of living skyrocketed, concomitantly so did their health, life span and numbers (population).

In the words of a noted scientist and developer of one of the vaccines in question, Dr. Albert Sabin is quoted as follows:

"Life expectancy at birth jumped from 36 years in 1776 to 72-plus in 1976. Most of the change has occurred since 1900. We have determined that medical advances have not really caused this great change," he remarked. "It's the tremendous advance in our standard of living in the United States which has improved housing conditions, sanitation, hygiene, diet and agricultural production. Give me a choice between providing everybody with sufficient nutritious food and giving them fancy medicines and vaccines, and I would take the sufficient food."

While there are often paradoxes within the paradigms which are presented in order that the universe be understood, this is not such a case. Either men will live better and longer through compulsory vaccination programs or they won't. Conversely stated either men will live better and longer as a result of freedom and liberty or they won't. No room for paradoxes here: men live and die as a result of which philosophy they choose, the correct one leads to all the wonders of human life, the incorrect one leads to all the pain, suffering and ugliness of dead and dying humans.