It has long been known that, in some illnesses such as measles, chicken pox and scarlet fever, one bout of the illness
usually provides lifelong immunity. A second experience with measles or scarlet fever is extremely rare.
The concepts of medicine formulated in the 19th century were partially based on the understanding by the ancient Greek
physician Hippocrates, who observed that an illness manifests signs and symptoms that travel from the inner vital organs
and blood circulation to the outer surface of the body. These symptoms would often be visible as a rash or as a discharge
of blood, mucus or pus. This "throwing off" of an illness was considered a natural healing response expected to return
the body to a state of balance or equilibrium. Hippocrates perceived this labor as a cooking and digesting (pepsis) of our
inner poisons during an inflammatory illness. It was also observed that immunity to or protection from an illness arose when
a person had that illness before. Today we consider a disease as being an enemy that we need to battle against.
Contrary to common understanding, an inflammatory-infectious illness does not begin when we become exposed to and are infected
with a virus or bacterium, but when our body starts its response. The magnitude of our body's response (severity of illness)
is not only influenced by the magnitude of the infection, but also by the stamina and inherent strength in us. The healing
force employed by the body depends on multiple factors, such as emotions, spiritual foundation, diet, lifestyle, environment,
etc. Our immunity certainly does not depend on whether we have been vaccinated against infectious agents.
The crucial factor of strong immunity is due to our immune system's ability to keep the germs at bay or fight them. If the
vigor of our immune response is weak, germs are likely to infect us. But normally, the majority of germ "invasions" occur
silently, without ever disturbing us. Symptoms of disease occur only at the time the immune system decides it is necessary
to aggressively defend itself against harmful influences.
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was the first researcher to postulate that diseases are caused by germs. Pasteur's germ
theory proposed that disease germs are after us because they need to prey on us for their own survival while contributing
nothing to us in return. He initially believed that infectious/inflammatory diseases are a direct result of germs feasting
on us. In microscopic studies of host tissues in such diseases, Pasteur, Koch and their colleagues repeatedly observed that
germs proliferated while many host cells were dying. These researchers concluded that germs attack and destroy healthy cells,
and thereby start a disease process in the body. Although this assumption turned out to be wrong, it had already made its
debut in the world of science, and the erroneous idea that germs cause infections became an undisputed reality. Today, this
idea continues to prevail as a fundamental "scientific truth" in the modern medical system.
Pasteur could have just as easily concluded that bacteria are naturally attracted to the sites of increased cell death, just
like they are attracted to decaying organic matter elsewhere in nature. Flies, ants, crows, vultures and, of course, bacteria
are drawn towards death. Why would this be different in the body? Weak, damaged or dead cells in the body are just as prone
to germ infection as an overripe piece of fruit. Pasteur and all the researchers that followed in his footsteps made the choice
of thinking of germs either as predators or scavengers. Had they assumed that cells die for non-apparent biochemical reasons
(such as toxicity buildup), our current thinking about illness and health would have been completely different than it is
today. We would all have grown up with the knowledge that the occurrence of inflammatory/infectious illnesses can ultimately
not be attributed to germs, but must be located in the various human frailties that necessitate the forces of decay and death.
Germs only become poisonous to us when confronted with the poisons we create; our body does not battle germs because they are
the enemy. An immune system reaction such as high fever or depletion of energy is meant to cleanse the body of harmful substances
that otherwise could lead to the eventual demise of the entire body.
In situations of extreme toxicity, the immune system may be so overwhelmed with the poisons it tries to eliminate that it
may or may not be able to save the person. In the third scenario, the immune system doesn't respond to the poisons and germs
at all, and no acute disease symptoms appear (no fever, inflammations, pain). The result then is chronic, debilitating illness
known as allergic or autoimmune disorders.
In the scenario where the immune system has successfully restored the body's functions, the body has acquired immunity
to the germs that initiated the rescue mission. Vaccine science has pursued the question of how we can bring about lifelong
immunity to an infectious-inflammatory illness without having to experience the illness first. Their assumption is that, by
having antibodies in the blood for certain illness-causing germs, you are automatically protected against them. However, no
proof has shown whether protection from the germs is due to the presence of antibodies or to a normal healthy immune response.
It is actually much more likely that the latter is true, unless vaccine poisons have damaged or even paralyzed the immune system.
Only when the germs number or rate of growth exceeds a certain threshold are they then recognized by the immune system,
resulting in the formation of antibodies specific to the particular provocative bug. A large presence of germs indicates
that the cell tissue has become damaged or weak due to the accumulation of acid waste. At that level of infection, things
get seriously out of control and a tribe of germs proliferates wildly and provokes the full defensive reaction of our immune
system. This is what doctors call an "acute inflammatory response." Symptoms usually include fever, release of stress hormones
by the adrenal glands, increased flow of blood, lymph, and mucus, and a streaming of white blood cells to the inflamed area.
The afflicted person feels sick and may experience pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, weakness and chills. The sweating out and
throwing off of the illness is a natural response by the body that reflects a healthy immune system. A really sick person would
no longer be able to come up with such healing responses.
Once we have successfully passed the challenge of a particular illness, it is less likely that we will experience it again.
Somehow the illness and our response to it have made us immune to its recurrence. It is more than doubtful, though, that
vaccination can do the same for us by forcing the body to make antibodies for some germs that appear to be causing an infection.
It has been shown over and over again that, despite the vaccination of a person against a particular illness, the person may
just develop that very illness he is supposed to be protected against, or even more so. The mere presence of specific antibodies
cannot protect anyone against any illness, only the cellular immune system can. Although it is true that science knows how
to bestow antibodies through vaccination, it mistakenly assumes that it is bestowing the immune strength that can only be
developed through the experience of a particular illness.
Antibodies alone are not sufficient to produce immunity. It is well known that several diseases, such as herpes outbreaks,
may recur repeatedly despite high antibody levels. Whether or not antibodies are present, immunity to these infectious
diseases can only be conferred by our cellular immune system. The theory that exposing the body to disease germs will
trigger an immune response similar to the one generated during an actual disease experience is seriously flawed.
More in the author's book,
Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation.
