Why Has Being Vaccinated Become a Religion?

Written by Need To Know Publications on January 20, 2026. Posted in Current News

During a recent good natured conversation with an Australian cardiologist called Paul I was gobsmacked when he said, and I quote “What do you need to know what’s in the vaccines for…”

I tried explaining that I wanted to know what was being put into my body but to use an Aussie expression he wasn’t having a bar of it.

I hope he gets to read this because Paul you are a closed minded disciple of the vaccine religion referred to in this article, where informed consent be damned.

Once people awaken to vaccine issues, one question emerges: why does the medical field maintain such rigid ideological attachment to vaccination? This phenomenon reflects three converging factors:

•First, human society has always been defined by competing groups vying for status and wealth, and it is a very recent development that doctors have attracted the prestige and salary the profession commands.

This was accomplished through:

• Market monopolization (via the American Medical Association) and technological developments birthing an incredibly profitable medical industry that generated the funding to market a newfound faith in it to the entire world and required doctors (and faith in doctors) to serve as the keystone for the industry.
• Medicine creating a mythology that it rescued us from the dark ages of disease, and hence deserves its supremacy in the current social hierarchy.

As “vaccines ending infectious diseases” is a central part of that mythology, to maintain their existing prestige, those within the conventional medical system are essentially forced to double-down on the absolute supremacy of vaccines, regardless of the evidence against them, or the fact, as Secretary Kennedy brilliantly shows, there is no actual evidence vaccines were responsible for the decline in infectious disease the medical industry falsely claimed credit for.

•Second, as the Dunning-Kruger effect demonstrates,² less competent individuals vastly overestimate their competence because they lack the knowledge to recognize their incompetence.

In medicine, there is a massive amount of information that needs to be learned, so in most cases doctors are forced to take short cuts throughout their training where again and again they assume if A is true then B is true without understanding exactly why A leads to B, how tentative the link can be, and in which situations it does not apply.

Likewise, when the public (especially members of the media) appraises medical information, rather than try to understand how A becomes B, they typically take the pronouncement of an expert (e.g., a doctor) that “A always leads to B” as all there is to say on the subject.

Since A often does not actually lead to B, and people do not like admitting they are wrong (especially if, like doctors, an incredible personal investment was required to attain the social status they hold), when confronted with inconsistencies in their beliefs, the typical response will be to double-down on their position rather than try to critically understand the additional data.

Note: The cognitive dissonance created by acknowledging vaccines they prescribed harmed their patients also makes doctors psychologically invested in dismissing evidence vaccines cause harm.³

•Third, a strong argument can be made that societies cannot function without some type of unifying faith or spirituality (particularly since in the absence of one, people will frequently seek out one to adopt).

In our culture, a rather peculiar situation emerged where religion was cast out by broad swaths of the society and replaced with science (under the belief it would create a fairer and more rational society) while the underlying need for a widespread faith was never addressed.

Because of this, science gradually morphed into the society’s religion, resulting in it claiming to be an objective arbiter of truth, but in reality, frequently being highly dogmatic and irrational as it sought to establish its own monopoly over the truth (which has led to many labeling the current societal institution of science as “scientism“).

As such, when science is discussed, religious terminology is often used by its proponents (e.g., “I believe in science,” “I believe in vaccines,” “anyone who denies climate change is reprehensible and must be silenced”).

The Religion of Medicine

Over the years, many have observed that medicine, by claiming dominion over life and death, has become science’s new religious foundation. Dr. Robert S. Mendelsohn stated:

“Modern Medicine can’t survive without our faith, because Modern Medicine is neither an art nor a science. It’s a religion.”

In Mendelsohn’s 1979 book Confessions of a Medical Heretic, he argued that medicine was a dogmatic institution prioritizing authority and ritualistic practices over patient well-being.⁴

He then made numerous highly impactful television appearances, including a 1983 debate on vaccine dangers.

Note: 55 other previously aired news segments aired on vaccine dangers that would never air now can be viewed here.

Mendelsohn highlighted how doctors compulsively rushed to prescribe new drugs before side effects were known, many routine practices caused more harm than benefit, that medicine’s compulsion to “do something” was faith-based rather than rational, and that doctors challenging the faith were treated as heretics and cast out — all of which we collectively witnessed decades later throughout COVID-19.

Mendelsohn also highlighted specific techniques medicine appropriated from religion: doctors replaced priests; white coats replaced priest robes; hospitals functioned as temples; medical insurance resembled religious indulgences; drugs were treated like communion wafers; and vaccines became the holy water baptizing you into the faith. I would argue the final point is the most important as:

•Medical students and healthcare workers are required to be fully vaccinated — filtering out those not aligned with dogma and forcing submitters to push vaccines on patients. Likewise, as COVID-19 showed, many segments of the public will now excommunicate those who aren’t vaccinated.

•Vaccines significantly increase chronic illness likelihood (typically a 3-10X increase), causing recipients to become lifelong medicine adherents.

•The trauma of vaccination repatterns the nervous system to be less connected with one’s surroundings, thereby making the individual much easier to pull into a controlling materialist paradigm.

For a long time, the religious nature of vaccination has been a relatively unknown and taboo topic to discuss, but fortunately, in recent days that has shifted. Here for example, Tucker Carlson and Cheryl Hines gave millions of viewers one of the most poignant explanations I’ve seen for why vaccination is ultimately a religious ritual: x.com/MidwesternDoc

Note: This is the mural deifying vaccination Tucker was referring to.⁵

Vaccines Amen

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

•The words of a small number of (pharmaceutical-funded) trusted authorities are taken as dogmatic truth everyone copies — despite lacking evidence or logical support. Siri deposed the godfather (high priest) of America’s current vaccine program, showing critical gaps in his duplicitous reasoning that defined vaccination practice.

•Illogical and blatantly inconsistent positions are taken arguing vaccines are safe and effective with identical evidence types accepted if supporting that belief but rejected if refuting it. Siri highlights countless instances of glaring contradictions with the phrase “Vaccines, Amen,” something that also captures vaccine zealotry’s censorship of questioners and forced vaccination rather than logical persuasion.

•Vaccine safety research is layered with endless assumptions that vaccines must be completely safe, concealing actual harms, yet this research — which never actually proved safety (due to those assumptions) — is presented as ironclad proof vaccines are both safe and effective.

Note: I recently corresponded with a CDC employee who shared that he “read a 2021-2022 project proposal which discussed how they were seeing the first girls that got the HPV vaccines were showing higher rates of cervical cancer as they got into older ages. Instead of making the obvious observation that this disproves the central [but never proven] justification for HPV vaccines, they just said, we know the vaccine works so something else must be happening to cause the rise in the condition it was meant to prevent.”

The Absence of Evidence Is Not the Evidence of Absence

Due to the high toxicity of vaccines, real studies inevitably show significant injury. The medical community’s strategy hence has been to block studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated from ever being produced.

As such, placebo-controlled vaccine trials are vehemently rejected as “unethical” because they deny (placebo) children a “life-saving” vaccine — despite it being far more unethical to inject every child with vaccines of unknown safety. Yet when “ethical” studies show vaccine injuries are real, they’re rejected as “non-controlled” and met with demands for “controlled trials” (that are banned for “ethical” reasons). This absurdity continues as:

•When “non-controlled” datasets indicate safety, rather than be questioned, they are widely publicized.

•Large datasets that could “ethically” compare vaccinated to unvaccinated exist, but the public is never given access despite extensive efforts to obtain them.

•When individuals independently conduct such studies demonstrating harm, studies get retracted and investigators are often targeted by medical boards.

•Most recently, a physician agreed to conduct a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study to prove vaccines were safe and then publish the results regardless of what they showed. Once its data irrefutably showed vaccines were immensely dangerous,⁶ he refused to publish the study and apologetically admitted to a hidden camera he did that to protect himself.⁷

•Many other incriminating datasets are routinely buried. For example, a CDC whistleblower testified that the CDC buried data they collected showing vaccines cause autism,⁸ and when a court order finally forced the CDC to release the data used to track COVID-19 vaccine safety, it showed significant harm and that past publications of this data had hid that harm.

In short, an illogical status quo has been enshrined where “the absence of evidence” for vaccine harm is erroneously accepted as “the evidence of absence.” Building upon this, evidence-based medicine (the guiding principle for modern medical practice) was founded upon the premise that clinical decisions should be made with the “best available evidence.”

Unfortunately, industry redefined this to mean “large (expensive) double blind trials” (RCTs) published in top (industry funded) medical journals and positions endorsed by (corruptible) “experts,” rather than the best evidence currently existing on a subject.

Note: The FDA also rigidly demands costly RCTs for drug approvals, making it impossible for off-patent (non-monetizable) therapies to ever be approved. RCT fundamentalism (the refusal to consider anything besides randomized controlled trials) is particularly misguided as smaller observational trials typically yield the same results as large RCTs (proven by a definitive 2014 Cochrane Review⁹), especially if effects are significant.

As such, while the best currently available evidence (retrospective comparisons of vaccinated and unvaccinated children) shows significant harm from vaccines, it is dismissed for not being from RCTs (despite vaccine placebos being “unethical”) rather than taken as a sign “better” research needs to be conducted to disprove the harm the best available evidence currently shows.

Likewise, when Siri tried to obtain data proving vaccine safety (e.g., in depositions, lawsuits or Federal petitions), no one could identify a single study supporting the claim that infant vaccines don’t cause autism, despite all being certain “mountains of evidence” exist showing vaccines are safe.

In turn, the Institute of Medicine (IOM)’s 1994 and 2012 reports^10,11 (considered by many the definitive proof of vaccine safety) actually stated insufficient evidence existed to definitively support or disprove a link between vaccines and serious injury, and that this research should be urgently done.

Furthermore, Gavin DeBecker’s excellent book Forbidden Facts, focuses on how the IOM routinely whitewashes proven harms of toxins the government has a financial stake in (e.g., Agent Orange) and, as DeBecker discusses below (see the source document to watch the video – Ed), provides leaked records that show IOM members were told at the start that their final report could not provide evidence suggesting vaccine harm.

See more here substack.com

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method