The vaccine debate is often oversimplified, serving as a prime example of mob mentality. The dominant narrative surrounding it functions as a passive — yet highly amplified — alchemical simulacrum, driving the conversation forward with sensationalized outbreaks. In response, the opposition struggles to present substantial arguments, as their points are framed within a false narrative. This approach reduces a complex issue to mere reactions, rather than fostering meaningful growth or understanding. There is little effort to address the genuine concerns about vaccines, explore their spiritual and long-term health implications, or consider the sociological shifts they might catalyze. The entire debate is a clear manifestation of media-driven narratives shaping public perception.

An Example of Arguments

Media-Driven Alchemical Simulacrum:

“Whooping cough is on the rise in our area. There has already been one death. Consider vaccinating, as you are putting others’ lives at risk.” This message is followed by an outpouring of affirmative comments, reinforcing the idea that the rise of the disease makes any opposition to vaccination ignorant or irresponsible.

Retrosynthetic Response:

Public figures often backpedal, accepting the premise that any outcome short of a utopia must be deemed evil. They shy away from affirming anything that could potentially cause harm. Commenters become divided, with some expressing anger, while others share their personal stories of vaccine injuries or deaths. Meanwhile, other sources present statistics highlighting the higher rates of adverse reactions to vaccines compared to the illnesses they are intended to prevent — such as MMR vaccines causing seizures more frequently than measles itself.

What this ultimately leaves us with is a “risk-for-risk” argument at best, still adhering to the underlying premise that the highest good is to minimize all risk as much as possible.

Philosophical Considerations from Within a Scientific Framework

The core of the vaccine debate revolves around the pursuit of utopian outcomes. This argument fails to consider the complexity of accepting preventing risk as the underlying moral valuation. When risk aversion is viewed as the ultimate good, no distinction is made regarding the direction or nature of that risk. Focusing solely on preventing risk, we ignore the significant consequences at every level of life, as utopian ideals inevitably lead to dystopian realities. Unrealistic utopianism, founded on the desire to eliminate discomfort, loss, or harm, ultimately rejects the human condition rather than seeking to improve it holistically. It also blinds us to the true nature of science, which thrives in its embrace of uncertainty and the continual integration of unknown unknowns.

The utopian, humanistic moral framework that places “no risk” as the ultimate good also elevates “scientific” progress to a secondary commandment, assuming that all scientific experimentation and augmentation inherently reduces risk for people. However, with cancer and chronic illness on the rise and numerous sociological issues compounding, it is clear that there is no real distinction between types of risk. Scientism turns vaccines into a blanket “scientific” position, treating them as an inherent end goal rather than a tool that we do not fully understand or, at worst, a method of understanding reality. Science is fundamentally about inquiry — seeking to understand how things work — not about applying instant solutions without considering the broader consequences. Many vaccines may offset certain risks in ways that could ultimately prove more harmful than the illnesses they aim to prevent while those offsets are not even tracked. In contrast, others, like the rabies vaccine, are highly effective at preventing domesticated animals from catching and transmitting the disease to humans. The real issue, however, is that the long-term effects of vaccines are not studied in any meaningful way.

We have traded robust, healthy living and overcoming common illnesses with extending mere existence in a culture of fear-driven madness.

Safety studies conducted on vaccines do not exist in the way most people believe. Many accept that vaccines are tested for safety at face value, along with other medications and treatments promoted by the pharmaceutical oligopoly. However, these studies are largely an illusion. They do not assess significant health markers, such as inflammation before and after vaccination, nor do they track long-term effects. The focus is on identifying only immediate, apparent reactions. This approach is not scientific; it is driven by the desire to use vaccines without proper consideration for their long-term epigenetic effects, role in cancer, autoimmune disease, and chronic illness, or the fact that not all immediate reactions are fully quantified. Toxicology is not linear — it fluctuates over time in a wave-like pattern and many SIDS deaths follow this wavelength from their vaccine schedule. Meanwhile, newer forms of mRNA vaccines, which have more pronounced short-term and aftereffects, are closely scrutinized, while vaccines like MMR (Japan outlawed this combination for a reason) are still widely deemed safe despite the fact that we do not even try to understand their long-term implications.

The inverse is also true: we have not adequately studied the long-term role that natural immunity plays in protecting against chronic illness. Viewing illness as inherently bad is a shortsighted extension of the desire to avoid all risks. In reality, some illnesses counteract other health issues, raising the question of how the risks of the acute illnesses we vaccinate against compare to the potential long-term benefits they may offer in preventing various chronic conditions. The immune system’s purpose is not solely to create immunity; another vital function is its purging effect, which clears out far more waste than just the pathogen causing the illness. This natural process of sickness, purging, and immunity is far more complex than simply administering toxic adjuvants and foreign immunity, which, in most cases, is not fully effective.

Natural immunity is the only way herd immunity is truly achieved. This is also why natural immunity allows mothers to protect their infants through breast milk, unlike vaccinated mothers, who do not pass on the same level of protection. Pushing vaccines into the mainstream adds an additional layer of risk when it comes to mild acute illnesses, such as whooping cough, because mothers without natural immunity cannot offer this protection to the most vulnerable or experience the infection with their babies. Therefore, the practice of widespread vaccination not only harms immune function — contributing to autoimmune diseases and preventing the full expression of immune processes — but also increases the severity of illness by depriving the most at-risk populations of immunity passed through breast milk.

Vaccines are often ineffective, which is why vaccinated individuals can still contract measles, while those with natural immunity cannot. Many of the indoctrinated individuals who defend vaccines carte blanche may claim that vaccinated people experience a lesser form of the illness, but they fail to acknowledge that a healthier lifestyle and traditional diets can significantly reduce the impact of these same common illnesses. We have traded robust, healthy living and overcoming common illnesses with extending mere existence in a culture of fear-driven madness.

Moreover, vaccines do not necessarily reduce overall illness. In many cases, reducing one strain or form of an illness leads to a rebound effect, with another, sometimes more severe, strain taking its place. For example, the decrease in chickenpox cases has been followed by a marked rise in Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease, which can be much worse and can occur multiple times compared to its close relative, chickenpox. There is a book that explores this and other important details on efficacy, rebound effect, and concerns with adjuvants (for example thermiseral safety levels are based off of oral consumption but used to inject directly into the blood), The Vaccine Book. I am only touching on these topics here to illustrate that, by its own premise, the Alchemical Simulacrum fails to be effective in what it claims to justify — it is always hypocritical and blatant. People are attached to the premise itself, not its validity, perpetuating a delusion rather than confronting harsh truths.

This is how the media-driven Alchemical Simulacrum works: it highlights issues for vaccine propaganda without providing greater context (notice that the rise in Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease is not sensationalized like chickenpox would be). It asserts an underlying moral framework that places those who oppose it in a defensive position, much like all retrosynthetic simulacra. The nature of the debate is about controlling what gets attention, and anyone who argues within that framework inadvertently reinforces it, becoming part of what legitimizes its hold on public perception. This is purposeful hijacking of the energy of our conscious attention. However, the true priority of the media is not concerned with preventing risk and disease as they want to seem, but it is a mouthpiece for international oligopoly interests. This same media pushes international migration and movement as another core tenet, yet completely ignores the diseases linked to mass migration from the third and developing world or tourism.

For example, tuberculosis, once eradicated in the U.S. without a vaccine, has resurfaced due to migration from the developing world, but this issue is largely overlooked. Tuberculosis is far worse than the whooping cough and measles in long-term outcomes, but there is no fabricated public outcry. The media also presents vaccines as an end in themselves, rather than a means to eradicate diseases. This aligns conveniently with globalist agendas because it shifts focus away from the health of specific populations, instead fostering an ever-expanding vaccine schedule to address the consequences of mass human movement, often with unknown long-term health side effects that benefit pharmaceutical companies. The goal should be eradicating necessary diseases in our lands through a varied, comprehensive approach, ultimately reducing the need for constant intervention. We are not responsible for the third and developing world, nor should their movement necessitate experimentation on our children to facilitate globalist agendas of homogenization and control.

Spiritual Considerations Come Full Circle

Blood is sacred; it carries the soul of the person. Every religion or belief system recognizes the sacred nature of blood. The extreme disconnect between body and soul in modern man is evident in how little many question the idea of surrendering their spiritual autonomy to the most corrupt international oligopoly in the world. This separation between the spirit and the body reflects a broader schism in our perception — viewing the physical as separate from the spiritual, or worse, something to escape from rather than a crucial element in the formation of meaning. Yet, in this very escape from the physical, the true desire to control it and solidify it is revealed. At its core, this desire is not life-affirming, but about usurping the gift of life — attempting to destroy the creator instead of understanding our responsibility as co-creators.

And so, we return to the beginning: the desire to eliminate all uncertainty, the utopian dream of no risk, and the pursuit of complete control. This is not a will to live but a fear of life — a shadow will to end the cycle of life by trying to hold it in stasis. The justification given is a simplistic argument for the greater good, but it carries the inherent assumption that all intervention in natural processes is beneficial for everyone in the long term — as if we are not subject to the laws of nature and can reject them instead of innovate to live better within our nature integrated in harmony with living absolutes. This is a narrow, linear way of thinking. What is needed instead is systems thinking, which is far more complex — especially when dealing with living processes. Every change we make offsets something else, and to become so dogmatic that we cannot even discuss these secondary implications is a significant hindrance to our advancement. We have reached a point of absurdity where reason has all but disappeared. The mob is driven by an alchemical simulacrum infused with humanist dogma, while the right continually fails to respond outside of this prescribed framework.

It is this inability to seek out the “unknown unknowns” that prevents us from achieving greater leaps in the sciences and living more authentically. Likewise, our inability to see what is outside the scope of science and most sacred, like blood, should not be given over to corrupt scientism without thought. What appears to be success on short timelines is not lasting success, but rather impulsivity and a blind desire to feel in control. It is disingenuous to pretend that there are no risks associated with vaccination, and even more so to ignore that this hypocrisy is fueled by the utopian belief that risk can be eliminated. In denying this very premise, we expose the future of our entire race and species to unknown long-term consequences. The real risk to society does not lie in the present but in the future. We owe it to our grandchildren and their children not to make them the sacrifice for our fear of risk or desire for comfort, clinging to mere existence. When people claim that vaccines are for the greater good, what they seek is the illusion of no risk, all while willingly sacrificing the future to unknown, compounding risk. This does not only apply to the recent mRNA vaccines, they are simply a more obvious example. We must not shirk the physical and spiritual costs of this to be borne by future generations — the foremost common good we are responsible for.

https://www.arktosjournal.com/p/vaccine-dogma-and-the-common-good