The Catch-22 of Vaccine Thinking

Image courtesy of -

Back in the late 1800's, there was an ideological tussle in the field of medical science. Two heavyweights, Louis Pasteur and Antoine Bechamp were weighing in with two contrasting theories of disease model. Pasteur's "Germ Theory" model - the idea that all disease is caused by external pathogens won the popularity bout and this thinking has dominated modern allopathic (western) medical thinking up until this day. However, it is the underdog, Bechamp's, ideas that could really provide a lot more insight into our Covid predicament than can germ theory.

Bechamp's model is commonly called "Le Terrain" (the soil) and it postulates that living organisms are constantly surrounded by an often hostile environment of microbes. When tissues become imbalanced (or diseased) in some way, then they become susceptible to attack from these belligerent microbes and can become breeding grounds for these "germs". So it is the imbalance in the soil (Le Terrain) of the tissue that is the root cause of disease rather than the pathogens themselves (pathogens are always present). Of course, this model was a hard pill to swallow for ill patients, because it had implications on their own conduct which may have resulted in the imbalance in their "soil", and meant they would need to change what they ate or how the behaved in order to improve their terrain (notwithstanding that there are genetic and geographic predispositions to factor in also). Pasteur's germ model, conveniently absolved the patient of any responsibility for their illness - placing blame on germs - and hence paved the way for pharmaceutical companies to sell the blameless patient a quick cure which purported to kill the pathogen.

When we combine Pasteur's thinking with the for-profit model of pharmaceutical companies, who have consistently funded that research which shows their own products in a favourable light, it is not hard to see why modern medical thinking is in the state that it is. After 150 years of almost exclusive germ thinking, we have arrived at the Covid crisis paradigm that this external pathogen is entirely to blame and that we need to find a quick fix external remedy to eliminate the pathogen, and then everything will be normal again.

We have to now ask the question - why does the virus effect different people differently? Some people experience no symptoms at all, while alongside them, others are losing their lives. Modern medicine has been forced to accept that there are those who are susceptible because their biome systems are more susceptible, more imbalanced (more DIS-EASED in the true sense of the word). We have come full circle and have had to realise that the health of the tissue (as Bechamp proposed) , i.e. the health of our biome system, is a major player in susceptibility to disease.

The other critical question to ask ourselves is why does the vaccine effect different people differently? Some people experience serious side effects - fevers headaches and a plethora of other symptoms. Others feel absolutely no ill effects. Some people are dying from taking the vaccine, while others carry on unaffected by virus or vaccine. Remember here that vaccine's are essentially just a weakened (attenuated) form of the virus - it therefore stands to reason that if people react differently to the virus, that they will also react differently to a weakened virus.

It is clear that every single human biome is different and unique, and responds to both virus and vaccine in its own unique way. Every tissue is in its own state of balance or imbalance. Of course the amount of virus or vaccine that we are exposed to also plays a part. If we stress a balanced tissue with a larger load of virus, it may behave similarly to a weaker tissue with a smaller viral load. Hence, we do still need to protect frontline workers like doctors, from over-exposure to Covid virus. But for the regular person in the street, the health of the biome is absolutely critical to the response both to the virus and the vaccine.

Most people in society will be exposed to the virus and their immune and other systems will be balanced enough to be able to cope with the virus without severe symptoms - that is, for most people this virus is not a threat. However, there is a significant portion of society, whose soil is not optimal and who are immuno-compromised - for these people, the symptoms of a virus are threatening. In order for vaccines to work, they require a healthy immune reaction to create antibodies - this immune reaction is likely to be weaker in immuno-compromised individuals.

Here's the rub - the vaccine catch-22. Those who most need the protection the vaccine offers are also those that are most at risk of suffering adverse reactions from vaccines!

Ironically, the group whose biomes are in a weaker state and more susceptible to the attack of a virus are also more susceptible to adverse reactions of having a pathogen and its associated chemical agents injected into their tissues in the form of a vaccine. Hence we see that vaccines are more likely to harm the very critical group that they are meant to protect!

The current global paradigm of McDonaldised, "one-burger fits all" thinking simply does not work in the real-world. We cannot have one uniform remedy that we can apply equally across a global population and expect uniform results - everyone, every biome is different and unique and needs a tailored approach. It is a fundamental law of nature that every living creature is unique and different. Trying to mass produce uniform solutions in a way that big, production-line Pharmaceutica loves to scale to, will never yield uniform results, and, in fact, it is yielding downright harmful results right now in that it is causing disproportionate harm to the susceptible group of patients.

The myth of a uniform herd-immunity only tramples the vulnerable underfoot. It's imperative that we think out-the-box, and change our worldview to include the myriad diversity of the planet, if we are to create a workable solution.

How could Prout thinking help us on this? Prout suggests that in the field of medicine we adopt a localised, co-operative, multi-pathy model. Under such a model, each local area would organise and co-ordinate its own medical care. So if we were to apply this to the pandemic, the response would be via local medical co-operatives that co-ordinated with local rersources, national and global bodies. Importantly, every individual could be given a choice of a number of different treatments that they could adopt in order to deal with the viral risk (depending on what is available locally). This might range from an array of vaccines (yes, they can still play an important role) to homeopathy, Ayurveda/Chinese medicine to naturopathy and holistic immune boosting and balancing treatments. Where people do not have sufficient knowledge of which treatment is best for them, qualified professionals should assist them in the choice.

I am not advocating that doing nothing is an option, merely, that when it comes to sticking substances inside your biome, that informed choice be mandated. It should be the responsibility of the local medical body to record and monitor responses to various therapies and adjust responses as appropriate. Am I pitching for quack solutions? Absolutely not! All therapies will need to have been scientifically proven to be effective, but perhaps we need to tweak our mass statistical approach which considers all patients as equals - as this scientific thinking has lead us up the garden path of uniformity dysfunction.

Oh, and perhaps Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, Astrazenica and GSK should run as patient co-operatives.....