Visit our Re-post guidelines
Article originally published here
Millionaire vaccine inventor and mandatory vaccine advocate Paul Offit recently released a short video for doctors on medscape. Here is a transcript of the speech. Please read it before moving along. It is only one page long. This statement that outlines Offit's personal belief system could be a prelude to the legal removal of all philosophical and religious vaccine exemptions in the United States of America. This is something that Offit has been working toward for years, and the likely end-purpose of his series of books.
Paul Offit believes that exempting your child from vaccination is morally reprehensible. He considers himself an authority on autism, all infectious diseases, morality, history, every religious system, and infant immunology. You may also recognize Dr Offit as the one who says that all vaccines are perfectly safe and infants can tolerate theoretically 10,000 of them at once:
"A more practical way to determine the diversity of the immune response would be to estimate the number of vaccines to which a child could respond at one time ... each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time." 
The status accorded to him by the pharmaceutical and medical fields permits him to influence the opinions and practice of lower rung physicians regarding vaccine exemptions. Unfortunately, even doctors will simply believe the "expert"  without bothering to go and check their own medical literature, to see if the self-proclaimed expertise has a solid scientific foundation. Research shows that when people listen to the expert, the part of their brains that is capable of independent thought goes to sleep.
In Offit's video, he said that religious exemptions do not "make sense" and went on to inform doctors on the chronological age of three religious scriptures, and how they could not possibly have anything to do with vaccination because vaccines are so much newer than those tattered and outmoded scribbles of hundreds or thousands of years ago. Those "outmoded" books, including the Old Testament and the Koran, include specific passages containing principles which obliquely address many health issues. To many people, these scriptures place vaccines amongst may things which are not consistent with scriptural hygiene. Here are specific references from the Holy Bible and the Koran. Dr Katme's explanation of the Islamic problems with vaccination can be read here. Hindu faith also has restrictions on what is permitted in their bodies, the treatment of cows and monkeys etc. Vaccination is an affront to many Hindus who know the contents of vaccines. The Dalai Lama hopefully does not understand the full impact of his alliances.
God gave Moses core principles on Mt. Sinai that are held in high esteem by both Christians and Jews the world over. Offit misses out on the timelessness of God's words. God's principles don't wear out. Neither do they need continuous repeating and revising.
God could have instructed Moses on how to inoculate the Israelites in the desert when the diseases came upon them. If you take note of the Old Testament books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, you'll see that there were very specific guidelines handed down on everything from worship of God to disease management, with warnings as to what would happen if those guidelines were ignored. The Israelites had highly skilled metal smiths and very sophisticated craftsmen and oil production. They had access to all the tools that Edward Jenner used to invent the smallpox vaccine, which included cowpox (not smallpox) pus scraped directly from infected cow bellies, a crude filter, glycerine, and a sharp prong. Paul Offit may not realize how crude the highly praised first vaccine really was. Still, medical vaccination or inoculation of any sort, was never part of God's instruction.
Hospital-based doctors who consider any disease that is supposedly treatable by pharmaceutical medicine to have a spiritual component, are considered to be quacks. Lip service, however, is given through the tolerance of chaplains and religious representatives, so long as they don't interfere with the use of drugs, vaccines or "medical science."
In the New Testament, did Jesus, the greatest human healer of all time, ever turn to Luke, the physician-apostle, to do any of the healing work of people brought to him? No. Did any of the apostles and disciples ever call on Luke to do God's healing for them? No. Did Jesus instruct Luke to carry on with his old medical practices later? No. Jesus left the Holy Spirit here on earth for any and all to ask for, receive and gain wisdom from.
In medical school, doctors are taught to view the human body as a random mistake-ridden vessel, which is to be forced into submission with antibiotics, antihypertensives, antihistamines, anti-inflammatories, surgery, drugs etc. The natural extension of this paradigm over the past 100 years has been for the medical profession to condition human beings to not trust anyone but certified medical doctors to fix this defective mistake-ridden aberration of creation. Veterinary science has similarly conditioned humans to consider animals as defective, mistake-ridden creation prototypes. The number one successful strategy in creating this industry has been to always implant fear into people's heads. That increases cortisol, undermines the immune system, and creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Vaccines are the template for the fear-based belief system that those who don't know their history will easily fall for. The trajectory of fear removes God from the picture. A fear-ridden populace couldn't possibly credit God with any usefulness once the medical/pharmaceutical industry sets itself up in God's place.
Through the resultant lack of faith in the human creation and the God who does actually have the power to heal all through both the design of the body and miracles, seeps the arrogance (and ignorance) of doctors and scientists who think they can outwit God's nature. While sometimes it might look like it's possible to outwit nature, for example by using antibiotics, the law of "What you sow you will reap" often comes back with a vengeance. Drug-resistant bacteria like MRSA, VRE, and overgrowth of the colitis-causing Clostridium difficile, are prime examples.
Doctors like Paul Offit believe that the slowly maturing immune system of an infant is defective and that vaccinations, designed to put it into hyper-drive, will fix the defects. On the other hand, Dr Offit doesn't have much faith in his own laboratory creations, since he believes that the anti-vaccination movement "threatens us all," including presumably ... the vaccinated.
Paul Offit makes reference to the two states that have ruled that parents do not have a religious privilege to decide how their children's bodies are treated, citing US Constitutional amendment 14. The 14th amendment was designed to protect newly freed slaves. It is being used for a different purpose in Mississippi and West Virginia. Many people are unaware that the 14th amendment is the most controversial amendment ever proposed, and that according to some legal experts, it was never legally ratified. See also this PDF.
If corporate medicine is going to be permitted to over-ride parental philosophical and religious objections, and invade the bodies of our children with dozens of vaccine antigens, chemicals, animal DNA, aborted fetal tissue, and cancer cells, the source of these laws must come under scrutiny.
The impingement on Article I of the First Amendment of the Constitution should also be taken into consideration.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It would appear that the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation has made PLANS that would steamroll right over the protection of our free speech.
"An anti-vaccine surveillance and alert system Seth Kalichman of the http://www.uconn.edu/ in the USA will establish an Internet-based global monitoring and rapid alert system for finding, analysing, and counteracting communication campaigns containing misinformation regarding vaccines to support global immunization efforts."
Only time will tell what is going to be considered "misinformation" and "counteraction." If parents were convinced that vaccines are safe and effective, there would be no anti-vaccination movement. It shouldn't take military action or Internet surveillance to maintain the health of communities or global immunization efforts. This type of action is not new. It is reminiscent of policies found in National Socialist empires, Stalinist countries, or Communist China.
Those who push removal of philosophical and religious exemption should at least be free of financial conflicts of interest, and they are not. More importantly, in order to bolster the 30-billion-dollar-per-year-income vaccine industry they consider to be evidence-based science, they should not be proclaiming worldwide expertise in what it takes to have a personal relationship with Jesus, something they appear to have no experience in.
Dr Offit considers "evidence based medicine" to be separate from religion, or spirituality – yet the Christian scriptures, both old testament and new, make it perfectly clear that good health is solely predicated on a living relationship with God.
When it comes to vaccines, these flag bearers of evidence-based medicine use research protocols which involve tight selection and exclusion criteria for vaccine study entrants. They then recommend those same vaccines, assuring safety to concerned parents, to even the children who would have been refused entry to that vaccine safety study.
Instead of placebos, evidence based medicines uses vaccines, and calls them placebos, yet vaccines do not fit their own definition of placebo;
- A harmless pill, medicine, or procedure prescribed more for the psychological benefit to the patient than for any physiological effect.
- A substance that has no therapeutic effect, used as a control in testing new drugs.
Here are some examples of vaccine trial "placebos":
The hepatitis A vaccine was the placebo for the influenza vaccine in a well publicized study. The study's designer is quoted as saying that he didn't want to withhold a potentially beneficial treatment from the control subjects. "Hepatitis was not studied, but to keep the investigators from knowing which colonies received flu vaccine, they had to offer placebo shots, and hepatitis shots do some good while sterile water injections do not." So, if the placebo is supposed to have no therapeutic effect as the definition that was taken from an ardently pro-vaccine website that criticizes our criticism of their use of placebos, and the study used hepA placebo because "water does no good" ... where on earth is the match up with even their definition of science?