Conventional medical doctors around the world (and the drug companies that support them) want all children to be vaccinated against measles, mumps, HPV, chicken pox and literally over a hundred other diseases. Bill Gates even supports the effort to "eradicate" disease from our planet by vaccinating people in developing nations. It all sounds like a noble goal, but like any such effort, it is based on an assumption. Upon closer inspection, that assumption turns out to be nothing more than blatant quacksterism hidden behind the technical jargon of modern medicine.

What assumption am I referring to? The assumption that immune system intervention (vaccines) produces a better long-term result than immune system adaptation (allowing the person to conquer such infections on their own).

At first, it may seem like a no-brainer: Of course it's better to not get infected! Or, at least, that's the conclusion most doctors jump to without any real thought on the subject. In their minds, immune system intervention is obviously superior to immune system adaptation. And in fact they dismiss anyone who dares question this wisdom of modern vaccines. But is this assumption really true?

In other words, is it true from a scientific perspective? Do mass vaccinations for non-fatal diseases actually improve the health and lives of those who receive them?

Vaccines don't stand up to scientific scrutiny

I realize it may seem odd to invoke the laws of scientific reasoning on this issue. Vaccinations are supposed to be accepted without reason, without question by both medical professional and the public, right? Even daring to question vaccines is akin to questioning Darwinism in the minds of many.

But this, of course, reveals the fatal flaw of the pro-vaccine gang: They are afraid of being questioned. They fear scientific scrutiny so much that they have to reframe the entire debate as one made up of "doctors vs. quacks" rather than one of scientific evidence (which they don't have) vs. quackery (which they have lots of).

This is the strategy of the intellectually desperate. Truth does not fear investigation, and if vaccines are so provably useful for enhancing the health of children, then doctors shouldn't mind people asking questions or even openly debating the merits of vaccination programs. And yet what you see with vaccines today is a cult-like worship of vaccines that despises scrutiny or even solid science. Vaccines are good because they tell us so, and that should be sufficient reason, we're told.