In particular, RAND is funded by and works closely with both GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Merck & Co. Merck in particular manufactures the MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella) vaccine that has found itself at the center of growing controversy.
Almost immediately, commentators and detractors skipped past the entirety of the report, and based only on a cursory glance of the headline, began repeating their respective political opinions regarding vaccines. Not surprisingly, yet another false discourse was revealed – a false discourse that either by design or coincidence will leave big-pharma the winners in the end – that is – if the debate is not put back on a more honest and constructive course.
What the Vaccine Debate Is and Most Certainly Isn’t About
The science behind vaccines – teaching the body to recognize and produce antibodies to defend against certain pathogens – is fairly sound. While vaccines are archaic compared to more cutting-edge techniques including gene therapy, where the immune system is re-engineered to eliminate disease including cancer, rather than “taught,” the basic concept behind them is sound. This is not what the debate regarding vaccines is about.
The debate truly centers around huge pharmaceutical monopolies – big-pharma – who control the production, distribution, and even promotion of vaccines. Their product, like the methods they use to promote them, is highly suspect. The addition to their vaccines of adjutants including mercury and other harmful substances done allegedly to cut costs raises legitimate concerns regarding the health of those subjected to what is essentially poisoned versions of vaccines people may or may not need.
The promotion of vaccines such as the “flu shot,” is also highly suspect. The flu may threaten the immunodeficient, but the flu itself is not a serious danger to the vast majority of the population. While the immune system may be taught to recognize certain pathogens, certain pathogens can also learn to recognize and adapt to certain vaccines. Vaccinating the population against the otherwise harmless flu could end up producing a super-virus just like the abusive overuse of antibiotics has produced super-bacteria. No one would argue against the use of antibiotics, but their overuse or abuse, and certainly the addition of harmful ingredients added to “cut costs,” most certainly should be argued against.
Poisoned and unnecessary vaccines peddled by criminal corporate monopolies jeopardize civilization’s need for clean vaccines targeting serious diseases. But even these vaccines are merely stop-gaps until cures and more advanced immunotherapies can be developed. The debate regarding vaccines should focus along these lines – not the dismissal of proven concepts of vaccines and their role within immunology, nor the unsound, unwarranted placing of blind trust in big-pharma and their clearly compromised, dishonest “papers” and “studies.”
What to Do About Poisoned and Unnecessary Vaccines
A blanket argument against all vaccines will grant big-pharma victory, because it is divorced from science – driving away most potential allies while undermining others who attempt to make reasonable, logical, and scientifically sound arguments against the current state of vaccination under big-pharma.
Instead, a clear delineation must be made between the science of vaccination within immunology and biotechnology and the current state of vaccination as it is practiced. Poisoned and unnecessary vaccines must be separated from the science of vaccination itself, just as healthy organic food must be separated from big-agriculture’s genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Even within the GMO debate, biotech itself is simply a tool, and its perception of being “evil” is drawn from the fact that it is currently monopolized by the ill-intentioned. Biotech in the people’s hands, be it for agriculture or human health, can yield immense benefits for our communities and our own personal health.
The diving costs and simplicity of modern biotechnology is opening doors to make it as accessible and affordable as personal computing. The “killer app” for personal biotechnology will surely be health care cooperatives that give the masses a truly appealing alternative to the variety of big-business “solutions” being offered now by immense pharmaceutical corporations (costly, ineffective drugs – tainted and/or unnecessary vaccines), insurance providers (Obama care, rationed care in the EU), and others parasitically profiteering from the misfortune of others.
For readers today, looking into the world of DIYbio and finding a local laboratory (or starting one) can be the first step on the journey toward health care liberation. Like the media monopolies now crumbling in the face of advances in IT, pharmaceutical monopolies will likewise fall. Building bridges to the many dedicated professionals lining these industries will be essential in establishing alternatives that truly serve the best interests of the people.
Remembering that biotechnology is a double-edged sword, able to cut in any direction depending on the hands that wield it, should encourage us to pick it up and ensure it stays in our hands. Technological disparity breeds injustice, and the only true means to reduce this disparity is to put technology into as many hands as possible.
From this perspective it is clear why the debate surrounding big-pharma’s vaccines should not be for or against biotechnology itself, but whose hands this powerful tool rests in and how it is used.