Flu Vaccine: Opposing Theories

 

There seems to be immense pressure on people this winter to get the flu vaccine. It amazes me how widespread its promotion is, from most media channels, to doctors themselves advocating it and more recently companies offering shots on-site. The flu vaccine is just 60% effective. It has not been proven safe. The governments receive data from the manufacturers of the vaccines, who have their own interests at stake. But where did the idea of a flu vaccine originate from and do we even need one? The best way to seek out the truth is to start at the very beginning.

Vaccines originate as a solution to the Germ Theory proposed in the mid 1800s, largely by Louis Pasteur. He introduced the hope that all infectious diseases could be prevented by vaccination. The Germ Theory considers that external germs invade the body and cause a variety of separate, definable diseases. In order to get well, you need to identify and then kill whatever germ made you sick. The germ theory is one philosophy or a way of looking at something. It’s not the only way of looking at disease but for a very obvious reason this theory gained momentum, and other theories faded into scientific obscurity. Money flowed from it as with the widespread acceptance of the germ theory, the solution of vaccines would generate huge wealth resulting in today’s $30 billion industry. The germ theory is the cornerstone of modern medicine and treatment of disease.

Another less well-known theory comes from the work of Claude Bernard and Antoine Bechamp. While their theory is a little more alternative, let me tell you they were no ‘quacks’. Bechamp was highly accomplished with a doctorate in science and a doctorate in medicine and was a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Strasbourg. He attributed disease to the existence of an unhealthy 'terrain' or environment, around which the disease was occurring in. According to Bechamp our bodies are in effect mini-ecosystems, or biological terrains in which nutrients, toxicity and pH play key roles. For example, weakened tissues or an acidic pH would allow the manifestation of germs and support their growth. Healthy tissues that are thriving with the correct pH balance and a non-toxic blood supply, would not support the growth of germs. Bechamp proposed that the biological terrain was a better focus for medicine than the pathogen itself.

What would it mean if everyone at the time accepted Bechamp’s ‘terrain’ theory? We would live in a world where this awareness would inspire everybody to take responsibility for their own health. We would need to consider that each nutrient we consume has the effect of imparting a thriving terrain upon our biological ecosystem, or a terrain that supports the multiplication of germs. It’s up to each individual choose the most nutritious food and optimum lifestyle that supports a thriving eco-system. Each person would take complete ownership over their own health.

There is no question that ‘germs’ are involved in certain diseases but the idea that they are the primary reason we get sick is not quite conclusive. At the very least, inhibiting or killing microbes and restoring tissue health are equally important to combating contagious illnesses. While looking into this topic, the part that made me saddest was that on his death-bed, Louis Pasteur recanted, saying:

 “the terrain is everything, the germ is nothing”.

Apart from the philosophical of reasons, that would cause me to question a flu vaccine, I would be wary of it's biological effect. It introduces live viruses to the body and if somebody already has a weakened immune system, the shot can actually bring about the full effects of the flu. The flu vaccine contains thimerosal which is a mercury compound. Mercury is a heavy metal that's known to cause memory loss, respiratory problems, cardiovascular disease and attention deficiency disorder.

Sometimes I wonder if people even want to know about the ‘terrain’ theory, because it means much more effort is required from them. The current solution of taking a flu vaccine is an easy option, but it doesn't sit right with me. The flu is not something that springs itself upon you for no reason. When you’ve been working too much, partying too hard or sleeping too little, your body is run-down and in this run-down state you become susceptible to the flu. It’s nature’s way of telling you to slow down, take it easy and sleep. Do you really want to over-ride the body's own healing mechanism by taking a flu vaccine? When within a few days, you’ll be better again and maybe a prolonged rest is preventing a more threatening illness from developing. The body is smart. It’s always trying to reach a state of equilibrium and full health. We just need to give it the opportunity and more sleep is a simple way to do that. If I start to get run-down, I sleep a minimum of 9 hours a night.

We're been fed much propaganda and it's important we seek out other perspectives so that we can get closer to the truth. I wanted to share Bechamp's less popular perspective that definitely deserves more attention. The story behind the flu vaccine makes me wonder in how many cases is the 'truth' simply the perspective that's most easily commercialised.