The Catch-22 of Vaccine Thinking

Image courtesy of Medium.com - https://medium.com/our-new-nature/self-simulating-nature-96ae8b452016

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 "La Terrain" (the earth) and it postulates that living organisms are constantly surrounded by a sometimes 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 (La 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, and meant they would need to change what they ate, their lifestyle etc in order to improve their terrain (notwithstanding that there are genetic predispositions to factor in also). Pasteur's germ model, conveniently absolved the patient of any responsibility for their illness, and hence paved the way for pharmaceutical companies to sell the blameless patient a quick cure which killed 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 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 others are losing their lives right next to them. 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. 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.

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 / susceptible state to the attack of a virus are also susceptible having a pathogen injected into their bloodstream in the form of a vaccine. Hence we see that vaccines are most likely to harm the very critical group that they are meant to protect! Another irony is that for the majority of people, with balanced biomes, they are at very low risk of succumbing to the virus, and are hence less likely to benefit from a vaccine (but probably will not be significantly harmed by the vaccine)

The current global paradigm of McDonaldised, broad-brush thinking simply does not work in the real-world. We cannot have one 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.

What would Prout advocate? Prout suggests that in the field of medicine we adopt a localised multi-pathy model. Under such a model, each local area would co-ordinate its own medical responses to the pandemic in supported co-operation with national and global bodies. Importantly, every individual should be given a choice of a number of different treatments that they could adopt in order to deal with the pandemic risk (depending on what is available locally). This might range from an array of vaccines (yes, they can still play a part) 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 rational 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 not necessarily in double-blind studies with random control groups - as this scientific method had lead us up the garden path of uniformity dysfunction.

Oh, and perhaps Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, Astrazenica and GSK should run as Not-For-Profits.....