Why have vaccines become a religion?

18 0

The story at a glance

The more people become aware of the dangers of vaccines, the more they discover a problem that has plagued vaccine safety advocates for decades: talking to vaccine fanatics is like talking to a brick wall. Regardless of the evidence presented, they cannot be reached – sometimes it feels like talking to religious fanatics who are unwilling to consider the “blasphemy one is spouting.”

This is intentional, as vaccines are revered as holy water that baptizes one into the faith of Western medicine and have become the “miracle” on which the superiority of modern medicine is based.

Because of this belief and the relentless propaganda that accompanies it, a number of absurd and contradictory arguments have been put forward to claim that vaccines are “safe”, something that would never be accepted elsewhere.

As a result, all vaccine research is based on the assumption that vaccines must be safe, and all regulatory decisions share this bias – making it almost impossible to prove the harmfulness of a vaccine, regardless of how many people it kills or injures.

This article addresses the absurd misconceptions used to defend mass vaccinations, the unhealthy mindsets they generate, and the opportunity we have to finally transform this dysfunctional dynamic.

Introduction

Once people are made aware of vaccine problems, a question arises: Why does medicine cling so rigidly to its ideological commitment to vaccinations? This phenomenon reflects three interacting factors.

Firstly, human society has always been characterized by competing groups vying for status and wealth, and it is a very recent development that doctors enjoy the prestige and salary that this profession brings. This has been achieved through:

  • Market monopolization (via the American Medical Association) and technological developments that created an astonishingly profitable medical industry, generating the financial resources to market a newfound trust in it worldwide, and requiring physicians (and trust in physicians) as the cornerstone of the industry.
  • Medicine created a mythology that it saved us from the dark age of disease and therefore deserves its pre-eminence in the current social hierarchy.
  • Since “vaccines that end infectious diseases” are a central part of this mythology, those within the conventional medical system, in order to maintain their existing prestige, are essentially forced to emphasize the absolute primacy of vaccines, regardless of the evidence against them or the fact that, as Secretary Kennedy brilliantly demonstrates, there is no actual evidence that vaccines were responsible for the decline in infectious diseases for which the medical industry has falsely claimed responsibility.

Note: The evidence for the most ‘revered’ vaccines (smallpox and polio) is quite weak. For example, the effectiveness of the smallpox vaccine was never proven; it caused outbreaks rather than preventing them, and smallpox was only eradicated after an English town rejected the vaccine in favour of improved public hygiene and smallpox quarantines.

Secondly, as the Dunning-Kruger effect shows, less competent people significantly overestimate their competence because they lack the knowledge to recognize their incompetence.

In medicine, there is a vast amount of information that needs to be learned, so in most cases doctors are forced to take shortcuts during their training, repeatedly assuming that if A is true, then B is also true, without fully understanding why A leads to B, how provisional this relationship may be, and in which situations it does not apply.

Similarly, when evaluating medical information, the public (especially media representatives) tend to accept an expert’s (e.g., a doctor’s) statement that “A always leads to B” as the only possible statement on the subject, rather than trying to understand how A becomes B.

Since A often does not actually lead to B, and people do not like to admit that they were wrong (especially if, like doctors, they had to invest a huge amount of personal energy to achieve their social status), they usually react to inconsistencies in their beliefs by defending their position even more strongly, rather than pursuing to critically understand the additional data.

Note: The cognitive dissonance that arises from acknowledging that the vaccines they prescribed have harmed their patients also leads doctors to be psychologically interested in ignoring evidence of vaccine harmfulness.

Thirdly, it can be convincingly argued that societies cannot function without some kind of unifying belief or spirituality (especially since people without one often seek one they can adopt). In our culture, a rather peculiar situation arose in which religion was rejected by large sections of society and replaced by science (in the belief that this would lead to a more just and rational society), while the underlying need for a widespread belief was never addressed.

For this reason, science gradually morphed into the religion of society, leading it to claim to be an objective judge of truth, but in reality often being very dogmatic and irrational as it tried to establish its own monopoly on truth (leading many to describe the current social institution of science as “scientism”).

When science is discussed, its proponents therefore often use religious terms (e.g., “I believe in science”, “I believe in vaccines”, “Anyone who denies climate change is reprehensible and should be silenced”).

The religion of medicine

Over the years, many have observed that medicine, by claiming dominion over life and death, has become the new religious foundation of science. Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn declared: “Modern medicine cannot survive without our faith, for modern medicine is neither an art nor a science. It is a religion.”

In his 1979 book Confessions of a Medical Heretic, Mendelsohn argued that medicine was a dogmatic institution that placed authority and ritualized practices above the well-being of patients. He subsequently appeared on numerous influential television programs, including a 1983 debate on the dangers of vaccines.

Note: 55 other previously broadcast news reports about the dangers of vaccines, which would never be broadcast today, can be viewed here.

Mendelsohn highlighted how doctors compulsively prescribed new drugs before their side effects were known, that many routine practices caused more harm than good, that medicine’s compulsion to “do something” was based on belief rather than reason, and that doctors who questioned this belief were treated as heretics and ostracized – all of which we have experienced together decades later during covid-19.

Mendelsohn also highlighted certain techniques that medicine had adopted from religion: doctors replaced priests, white coats replaced priestly robes, hospitals functioned as temples, health insurance resembled religious indulgences, medications were treated like communion wafers, and vaccines became holy water that baptized one into the faith. I would argue that the last point is the most important because:

  • Medical students and healthcare workers need to be fully vaccinated – thus weeding out those who don’t conform to the dogma and forcing vaccine manufacturers to push vaccines on patients. As covid-19 has shown, many segments of the public will now ostracize those who are not vaccinated.
  • Vaccines significantly increase the likelihood of chronic diseases (usually by a factor of 3 to 10), causing recipients to become lifelong drug addicts.
  • The trauma of vaccination alters the nervous system, making it less connected to the environment, which makes it much easier for the individual to be drawn into a controlling materialistic paradigm.

For a long time, the religious nature of vaccinations was a relatively unknown and taboo subject, but thankfully that has started to transform recently. Here, for example, Tucker Carlson and Cheryl Hines gave millions of viewers one of the most compelling explanations I’ve ever seen of why vaccinations are ultimately a religious ritual:

This is the mural that Tucker referred to when he spoke of veneration of vaccination:

Vaccines Amen

Aaron Siri recently published Vaccines, Amen, an excellent book that makes the best comparison between medicine and religion since Mendelsohn’s 1979 work, repeatedly showing how:

  • The pronouncements of a small number of trusted authorities (funded by the pharmaceutical industry) are accepted as dogmatic truth, which everyone adopts – even though there is no evidence or logical justification for them. Siri dethroned the “godfather” (“high priest”) of the current American vaccination program and exposed critical flaws in his duplicitous argumentation that defined vaccination practices.
  • Illogical and blatantly contradictory positions are being presented, arguing that vaccines are safe and effective, while accepting identical types of evidence when they support this belief but rejecting it when they refute it. Siri highlights countless instances of blatant contradictions with the phrase “vaccines, amen” which also reflects the censorship of questioners and forced vaccination by vaccine fanatics instead of logical persuasion.
  • Vaccine safety research is riddled with endless assumptions that vaccines are absolutely safe, thereby obscuring actual harm. Nevertheless, this research – which (due to these assumptions) has never actually proven safety – is presented as irrefutable proof that vaccines are both safe and effective.

Note: I recently corresponded with a CDC staff member who told me that he read a 2021–2022 project proposal that discussed how the first girls to receive the HPV vaccine had a higher rate of cervical cancer as they got older. Instead of drawing the obvious conclusion that this disproves the central [but never proven] justification for HPV vaccines, they simply said: “We know the vaccine works, so something else needs to be causing the increase in the disease it was supposed to prevent.”

The absence of evidence is not proof of non-existence.

Due to the high toxicity of vaccines, genuine studies inevitably reveal significant harm. The strategy of the medical community has therefore been to prevent studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children from the outset.

Therefore, placebo-controlled vaccine trials are vehemently rejected as “unethical” because they withhold a “life-saving” vaccine from children (placebo) – even though it is far more unethical to inject every child with vaccines of unknown safety. However, when “ethical” trials show that vaccine injuries are real, they are rejected as “uncontrolled” and met with demands for “controlled trials” (which are prohibited for “ethical” reasons). This absurdity continues because:

  • If “uncontrolled” data sets suggest security, they are not questioned but widely disseminated.
  • There are large datasets that could be used to compare “ethically” vaccinated and unvaccinated persons, but despite extensive efforts to obtain them, they are never made available to the public.
  • When some independently conduct such studies that demonstrate harm, the studies are retracted and the researchers are often targeted by medical associations.
  • Recently, a doctor agreed to conduct a study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated people to prove the safety of vaccines and to publish the results regardless of the outcome. However, when the data clearly showed that vaccines are extremely dangerous, he refused to publish the study and apologetically admitted on hidden camera that he had done so to protect himself.
  • Many other incriminating datasets are routinely suppressed. For example, a CDC whistleblower testified that the CDC suppressed data it had collected showing that vaccines cause autism. When the CDC was finally compelled by a court order to release the covid-19 vaccine safety tracking data, it revealed significant harm, and that previous releases of this data had concealed this harm.

In short, an illogical status quo was established, in which the “lack of evidence” for the harmfulness of vaccines is falsely accepted as “proof of their harmlessness.” Building upon this, evidence-based medicine (the guiding principle of modern medical practice) was founded on the premise that clinical decisions should be made based on the “best available evidence.”

Unfortunately, the industry has redefined this and understands it to mean “large (expensive) double-blind studies” (RCTs) published in prestigious (industry-funded) medical journals and endorsed by (corrupt) “experts”, rather than the best available evidence on a topic.

Note: The FDA also strictly requires costly RCTs for drug approval, making it impossible for non-patented (non-monetizable) therapies to ever be approved. RCT fundamentalism (the refusal to consider anything other than randomized controlled trials) is particularly misguided, as smaller observational studies usually produce the same results as large RCTs (demonstrated by a definitive 2014 Cochrane review), especially when the effects are significant.

Although the best available evidence (retrospective comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated children) suggests significant harm from vaccines, it is rejected because it does not come from RCTs (even though vaccine placebos are considered “unethical”), rather than being seen as a sign that “better” research needs to be done to refute the harm shown by the best available evidence.

When Siri attempted to obtain data proving the safety of vaccines (e.g., in affidavits, court cases, or petitions to the federal government), no one could produce a single study supporting the claim that vaccines for infants do not cause autism, even though everyone is convinced that there is “mountain of evidence” that vaccines are safe.

Conversely, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports from 1994 and 2012 (which are regarded by many as definitive proof of vaccine safety) found that there is in fact no sufficient evidence to definitively confirm or refute a link between vaccines and serious adverse health effects, and that this research should be urgently carried out.

Furthermore, Gavin DeBecker’s excellent book Forbidden Facts focuses on how the IOM regularly covers up the proven harm caused by toxins in which the government has a financial stake (e.g., Agent Orange), and, as DeBecker explains below, provides leaked documents showing that IOM members were told at the outset that their final report must not contain any evidence of harm from vaccines.

Concealing evidence

Because RCTs are so expensive, the pharmaceutical industry has developed a number of reliable methods to manipulate them, which are used continuously. This data manipulation is particularly blatant in vaccine trials. For example:

  • In clinical trials, vaccines are only monitored for very short periods of time (e.g., in the studies of hepatitis B vaccines, which were administered to every newborn, side effects were only monitored for a period of 4 to 5 days), making long-term detection of the multitude of chronic diseases caused by vaccines impossible.
  • The “placebos” used in vaccine trials typically cause significant harm, thus masking the vaccine’s harmfulness, as the harm observed in the trials “corresponds to the placebos.” Consider, for example, this data from the HPV vaccine trial (in which a harmful aluminium adjuvant was used as a “placebo” to disguise the fact that 2.3% of trial participants developed a life-altering autoimmune disease):

Similarly, in the first Gardasil trials, out of 21,458 subjects, 10 vaccine recipients and 7 placebo recipients died, including 7 from car accidents (which can be triggered by POTS – a common side effect of Gardasil – by causing the driver to faint).

Although the mortality rate for Gardasil (8.5 per 10,000) and for “placebo” (7.2 per 10,000) was almost twice as high as the background mortality rate for girls and young women (4.37 per 10,000), the FDA, similar to the unprecedented increase in autoimmune diseases, was not concerned because it was consistent with the “placebo” rate.

Even more remarkable is that, as Siri has shown, most vaccines use another vaccine (often one for a completely different disease) as a “placebo,” which in turn makes it possible to mask any harm observed from the vaccine. Similarly, in many cases, if you look at the individual vaccine trials one after the other, you will find that the very first vaccine in the pyramid structure was simply never tested against a placebo, but was considered “safe” (despite the harm that occurred in those trials).

In many cases, the studies are not conducted in a blinded manner. For example, the principal investigators of the covid-19 trials have stated (and published data show) that the study was not blinded, which resulted in vaccine recipients with covid-like symptoms not being PCR-tested for covid-19 (thus reducing their covid cases and overstating the vaccine’s effectiveness), similarly to how adverse events in vaccine recipients were not recorded.

In studies, it is almost impossible to report side effects that are not among the “expected responses” that are monitored (usually minor side effects such as fever or fatigue) – something we have seen in the covid vaccine trials and within the CDC system set up to monitor vaccine safety.

Pharmaceutical companies are allowed by the FDA to reclassify injuries that occur in order to make them appear less severe (e.g., covid trial participants reported that a serious cancer was reclassified as enlarged lymph nodes and a permanent disability as “functional abdominal pain”), and the principal investigators (PIs) have the authority to decide whether the reaction is related to the vaccine – inevitably concluding that it is not.

Unfortunately, as mentioned, these problems are not limited to vaccines. For example, Secretary Kennedy recently shared a post pointing to decades of suppressed evidence that SSRIs can cause violent behaviour:

One comment in this thread particularly caught my attention, as it illustrates how reluctant PIs are to link an injury to a drug, even when they can clearly see that this is the case:

Regulatory appropriation

Vaccines are the only consumer product that:

  • Are prescribed “for your own good”.
  • People are not allowed to view the security data and need instead to rely on the assessment by “experts”.
  • You cannot sue the manufacturer if a poorly designed vaccine causes you serious harm.

Taking a step back, this is completely absurd and only possible because of the almost religious belief in vaccinations and the fact that drug regulatory authorities are criminally neglecting their fundamental duty to protect the public. This failure results from:

  • The almost religious zeal for vaccines that has permeated the health bureaucracy and prevents any genuine review of vaccines before or after they are launched on the market.
  • The federal government (which pays compensation for vaccine injuries) is given a strong incentive to suppress any scientific evidence suggesting that vaccines are unsafe or ineffective. For example, if a single HHS study were to find that one in five cases of autism is linked to vaccines, it could result in liability of approximately $1.3 trillion – for comparison, the entire federal budget for 2017 was $3.3 trillion.
  • A revolving door motivates health bureaucrats to maintain the lie that every vaccine is “safe and effective.” For example, the FDA and CDC fought for years to cover up a flood of reports of serious harm from the HPV vaccine, after which the CDC director took a senior position at Merck and received over $30 million from the company.

Similarly, Peter Marks, an FDA director who consistently worked to cover up harm from covid vaccines and to bring the vaccine to market without sufficient testing so that it could be mandated, recently left the agency and became an executive at Eli Lilly pharma giant.

Similarly, Aaron Siri shows in Vaccines Amen:

  • Emails released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show that the head of the CDC’s Office of Vaccine Safety regularly communicated with the pharmaceutical industry to determine national vaccine policy, while citizen initiatives advocating for vaccine safety were stalled.
  • CDC reports undergo rigorous internal review to ensure that only data supporting the notion that vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary are published.
  • CDC members and advisory boards regard the authorities of the vaccine industry with such reverence that their claims are rarely subjected to basic scrutiny, no matter how absurd they may be.
  • Because there are only weak standards to ensure vaccine safety (no placebo trials due to “ethical” concerns), the proposed solution is post-market surveillance. However, since this is at the discretion of the CDC and the FDA, and they “know” that vaccines are safe, evidence of harm is almost always dismissed – best illustrated by what we saw during covid-19.
  • When there are undeniable examples of vaccine injuries, the typical priority is to cover up bad publicity rather than address the problems (e.g., UNICEF worked with the CDC to cover up the backlash to data showing that its vaccine program was killing children, rather than modifying the program itself).

Conclusion

Because vaccines have such a high rate of harm (and conversely such a low benefit), the existing paradigm can only be maintained by convincing the majority that vaccines are “safe and effective” and by prohibiting debate, since the moment a debate arises, nonsensical contradictions that justify the paradigm immediately become apparent.

Covid-19 has finally transformed this, as vaccines were not only mandated despite their abysmal failure to prevent infection, but have also caused serious harm to millions of recipients, as shown by reliable surveys since 2022 (in detail here), which consistently found that one-third of recipients experienced side effects, one-tenth experienced serious side effects, and half the population believes that the vaccines have likely caused a significant number of unexplained deaths.

For example, the most recent survey found that 26% of vaccine recipients had “mild” side effects, 10% had “severe” side effects, and 46% of Americans believe that the covid vaccine is “likely” to kill a significant number of people – with 25% believing this is “very likely”.

Because the vaccine brand was used to sell experimental covid-19 gene therapies, it has also damaged the reputation of the entire brand and given many others the opportunity to speak out about similar serious harm they have suffered from other vaccines (e.g., Tucker Carlson recently told millions that his son contracted Guillain-Barré syndrome from an [unnecessary] flu shot). As a result, trust in vaccines is eroding, leading lawmakers to finally denounce the absurdities used to market vaccines to everyone.

Furthermore, thanks to Americans’ vocal criticism, the completely unjustified hepatitis B vaccination for newborns was removed from the immunization schedule – something many of us who have fought against it for over thirty years never thought possible. Such an opportunity has never presented itself in our lifetime, and it is crucial to spread this message and support those doing outstanding work to transform this issue.

Analysis by A Midwestern Doctor

Sources:

 

yogaesoteric
January 16, 2026

 

You might also like More from author
Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More