[rayne008]

I think some legitimate questions about vaccinations get pushed aside due to the ignorance and anger around this topic. Instead of typing out my concerns, I'll just copy snippets from this Doctor's blog, which contain some of the questions I have... Obviously I have no way to determine this guys credibility.

Clarification needs to be created regarding VACCINATION vs. IMMUNIZATION. I’m all for immunization. The problem created by media and pharmaceutical influence is that people equate immunization with vaccination. Vaccination is simply injecting something into your body. This does not create immunity for your body. These are 2 totally separate entities.

With building immunity, it’s a natural process. With that natural process, your body uses many defenses. The first layer of defense is your skin. This blocks out any harmful opportunistic buggers. With a vaccine, this law of nature is totally bypassed by injecting you with a needle full of stuff your skin would never allow past it.

You also have a respiratory system that also aids in defense. You cough, you sneeze, and you blow your nose, in attempt to expel the potential invader. Coughing, sneezing, and snorting are results of your immune system working. Don’t suppress it with fever reducers, anti-histamines, etc. You’re just making it easier for the invader.

You also have your gut-associated lymph system to fight with the stronger stuff. If your system is so deficient to get past these natural defenses, the potential invader, live or dead, enters the blood stream. Once something is in your blood stream, it can be transported any anywhere in your body, not good at all. It’s like open bar at a chiropractic convention.
A vaccine violates all laws of natural immune defenses by taking a potential pathogen along with all the TOXIC ingredients (aluminum, formaldehyde, adjuvants, etc) directly into your blood system. This process would never occur in building natural immunity. That last sentence is kind of an oxy-moron. Immunity is a natural thing. Vaccines are an artificial thing.

FLAWED RESEARCH:

The scientific mantra of vaccines is that they are safe and effective based on their research. Their research is flawed and is a double standard from any other drug product studied. The Gold Standard in research design is the double blinded, randomized controlled trial (RCT).

This means that people are split into 2 groups randomly and participants are given either the real thing or the fake thing being tested. Then progress is charted on who gets better, who gets worse, and the like. In theory there should be no bias as to reporting because the researchers don’t know who is in the placebo or the real intervention group.

How many vaccines have ever been studied in this manner? ZERO! The reason? The researchers will say they cannot perform an RCT because it would be unethical to NOT give a child a vaccine because if that child dies of something that could have been prevented, then they don’t want to be responsible. But if someone dies in their trials from taking their anti-depressants, it must be OK.

Hey drug companies, I will volunteer my child to be in the placebo group and compare him to the health and well being of those that have gotten all the recommended vaccines. I’m sure I can gather a few hundred thousand more to be in the placebo group to create a large sample.

Instead of research to see safety and effectiveness, they instead see if the person builds anti-bodies to the antigen (the foreign invader) that is in the vaccine. If antibodies are built, then it’s ‘safe and effective,’ or so they lead us to believe. These studies are rarely, if ever done on kids younger than 4 years old. How can you say it’s safe or effective for a baby if it’s never studied on a baby?

The 2 populations that have limited production of anti-bodies are infants and geriatrics, the 2 most heavily vaccinated populations. If they can’t produce anti-bodies, then the vaccine would be pointless. The whole premise of the vaccine is that you get injected with a foreign invader and you produce anti-bodies against it. If you can’t produce anti-bodies well then what’s the use of injecting something to try and stimulate that reaction?

With kids, they don’t produce any anybodies until after age 6 months. So why give a vaccine to anyone under the age of 6 months if they can’t produce antibodies. Even if the whole vaccine theory really worked, it would be absolutely pointless to inject a baby of 6 months or less with a vaccine . With a child’s immune system being very immature until age 2, the overload of 36 vaccines by the age of 18 months seems about as logical as drinking from a fire hydrant.

He does touch base on many of the diseases that we are being vaccinated for, including measles.

The only stat I could find for deaths from measles in the US was in 2003 we had 2 deaths. 1 death was attributed to post bone marrow transplant surgery and the other was a 75 year old with pneumonia. Media loves to report when there are measles outbreaks but what you'll never hear in their reports is that anyone died from it.

I think there are more than enough questions raised to promote an intelligent conversation, rather than mindless vitriol from both extremes of the issue.