I think you mix causes and consequences a bit, don't you?
It is true that in some cases the distinction is not easy. This is why, depending on the subjects, it requires peeling them to the heart!
Vaccination has saved more people than it has killed, it is a fact that cannot be questioned, there are side effects which can be serious or chronic (allergies) and it has saved a lot of people a lot of money but it was, overall, for the good and the evolution of humanity! When the body no longer has to fight disease, bin it has the energy to do something else ... to speak thermodynamically as some like here!
Here are two typical examples of unverifiable postulates that are more dogma than reality on the ground (see the subject smallpox)
In fact, the vaccinations which began in the West with Jenner in England corresponded to a request from populations frightened by the mortalities caused by epidemics and where medicine had no mass solution. Vaccination therefore appeared as a kind of non-religious messianism that would offer salvation to these populations and their justified anxieties.
So you should never remove the context that leads to health or political decisions. Now Jenner had obtained results only
on a single case (he will recognize, it seems, at the end of his life his error, but whatever). In the same way Pasteur obtained results only on
a single case, the child Meister. However, the dog was known to bite everything that came within its reach without a declaration of rage in bitten people. On the other hand, the postman, bitten too, was vaccinated and died of rabies precisely. At that time, given its results, scientists laughing at its failures said "
pastor does not cure rabies, but gives it »In view of the increase in victims in terms of statistics at the time.
So apart from its inevitable victims, vaccination appeared to be the solution of the future and politically effective to reassure frightened populations who were not aware of the statistics (no more currently) hence its indisputable placebo effect given the power of suggestion. Furthermore, the majority of populations, under conditions of sufficient hygiene, have an immune system capable of getting rid of various external aggressions (sores, microbes, viruses and bacteria) and therefore there is and will be only a very few victims vaccinated or not. However, we will attribute the victory to mass vaccination as for smallpox, which is biological nonsense in addition to inaccurate information.
Last point: the money, the money that leads the world! At the start of vaccination, the financial aspect plays only a minor role, it is not a question of vaccinating 95% of a population but only a few individuals here and there. But gradually, this financial aspect will take more and more importance and it is now numbered in billions, in an important economy, in thousands, millions, of professionals all over the world and therefore of jobs. The situation has therefore changed and the economy, business and profitability dominate all industrial sectors including this one.
Skepticism over Meister's vaccination
The evidentiary value of the famous Meister vaccination leaves some specialists skeptical. What made consider that the dog which had bitten Meister was rabid is the fact that "this one at the autopsy, had hay, straw and fragments of wood in the stomach16". No inoculation of the substance taken from the dog was made. Peter, Pasteur's main opponent and great clinician, knew that the diagnosis of rabies by the presence of foreign bodies in the stomach was obsolete. He pointed this out at the Academy of Medicine on January 11, 188717. Victor Babeș, a disciple of Pasteur, confirmed in 1912 that “the autopsy is, in fact, insufficient to establish the diagnosis of rabies. In particular, the presence of foreign bodies in the stomach is almost worthless18 ”. The diagnosis of rabies in the dog that had bitten Meister is also considered uncertain in a treatise on rabies of 199119. In a book of 200120, the author notes that Pasteur decided the treatment without being certain that the dog was rabid. In 2012, in an article in Frontiers in immunology, the dog was described as “supposedly rabid” 21. In a 200822 book201323, Professor Hervé Bazin said: "The animal was rabid, at least it had been declared as such by the man of the Art. In fact, a simple autopsy never made it possible to specify, with certainty, a diagnosis of rabies. "In XNUMX, the same author expressed himself as follows:" (...) when a nine-year-old boy, Joseph Meister, attacked by a dog most probably rabid under the circumstances of the drama. "
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_MeisterLike everything, their abuse is harmful (but as powerful groups are behind and they would like to grease themselves even more bin here is ... "we" abuse it) ...
It's just ! But who will decide where the abuse begins and stops?
Religions, to repeat another theme that is dear to you, I am not sure that they have such a positive effect ... ah but they have given humanity (at least for the 3 monotheistic religions) a "post mortem speculative hope" so don't do too much bullshit down here otherwise pan pan ass ass up there!
Religions and I do not mix well on a theological level and I cannot therefore take a position on this point. The rest is culture, traditions in shambles. However you fall into an excessive simplicity by this image of Epinal which is hardly shared by these 3 religions.
So this is the story of the priest who advises you not to do bullshit when he rapes your child or the Bishop who asks to give the little you have in church to save your soul (in reality it is for brown the places of worship and that he eats better) .... But that was before ... Sorry I'm going a little hard ... but there is that!
It is not too strong! Priests and other religious are humans like all others with the same sexual or emotional needs, but misdirected because of dogmas and perverted doctrines over the centuries. However, not all of them are rapists or ogres. The money of worship (for the little I know) is voluntary now and the priests are very poorly paid.
When the body no longer has to fight disease, bin it has the energy to do something else ... to speak thermodynamically as some like here
I return to this doctrine or dogma. We confuse fighting against and learning the necessary survival. vaccination is supposed to encourage this learning to face a targeted aggressor in the event of encounter with a wild virus for example. But it does not work like that in biology as in everyday life. Indeed learning against an adversary diminished by attenuation does not make an individual able to fight well against an adversary in full possession of his means (practice a martial art and you will understand why!) and it is even worse if this adversary is made dead by pharmaceutical preparation because who fears a dead enemy and how will that prepare him for the meeting with a very alive adversary?
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
).