The controversy of vaccinations has led to a whole industry of advocacy groups – some protesting for "green" vaccines, some for the removal of mercury, others for vaccine choice and even pro-life groups speaking against the use of aborted fetuses in vaccine production. With all of these issues, and fingers pointed at so many potential problems in vaccines, it is easy to miss one of the most important issues of all: Are vaccines even effective or useful to begin with?
This is a premise that is assumed to be true in most cases… but what if it's not? Would there be any need to try to produce vaccines without mercury, without retrovirus contamination, or without infected, aborted fetal tissue?
Based on my understanding of the whole theory of vaccination, even if I was offered the "greenest" vaccine, free from the usual heavy metals, contaminants and carcinogens, I would still refuse it, even in the midst of an outbreak. This may seem absurd and even totally extreme to some readers but my position is based on not only science but logic.
It is believed that vaccines prevent disease because they can cause the body to produce antibodies. This theory is only important if you accept the premise that antibodies in the blood create immunity to disease. The antibody theory of immunity was built from the understanding of the immune system that was accepted in the early 1900's when vaccines were invented. In actuality, the antibody theory was disproven over 50 years ago, meaning that modern science has PROVEN that antibodies do not equate immunity. This fact has been demonstrated in several different ways. First, it has been shown time and again that individuals with high levels of antibodies can contract the very disease for which they are supposedly protected. In fact, after researching all the outbreaks in the last several years, to my knowledge in every single case, a large majority of infected people are always fully vaccinated. A great example was the mumps outbreak in Brooklyn
in February 2010, which was named the worst outbreak since 2006 by The New York Times. In this instance, over 75% of the infected people had been fully vaccinated. Further evidence mounts against the antibody theory of immunity with the fact that research has shown that individuals with low or zero antibody levels exhibit immunity. In a diphtheria lab in Great Britain during an outbreak, no correlation between antibody level and immunity could be found. Furthermore, some people suffer with a condition called agammaglobulinaemia. In simple terms, this means their body cannot produce antibodies. If the theory that substantiates vaccines were true, people with this condition would be absolutely doomed. They would never be able to obtain immunity for any disease. However, in real life, these individuals not only recover from disease incidence almost as rapidly as their peers, but in addition, exhibit good immunity to further exposures. To make this case for vaccines even weaker, vaccines are not even highly effective at raising antibodies to begin with. For this reason, booster shots to revaccinate children are added to the vaccine schedule almost yearly. But the #1 reason that I would refuse any and every vaccine is because of the true effect they have on the immune system. Rather than causing immunity, vaccines paralyze the immune system, leaving it disabled. If you don't know how vaccinations shift the body toward allergy and autoimmunity, watch for my next blog post.
Posted by reneet333 on Oct 27, 2010 in Vaccines | 16 comments
The hallmark of American pediatric healthcare is the childhood vaccination policy. It is a portion of healthcare that is promoted by the government and enforced by the educational system. Parents are rarely even knowledgeable about the fact that in almost every state, whether to vaccinate is their own choice. We give up to three times the vaccines as other first world countries and there has never been more controversy and scandal surrounding another topic in medicine.
Of the hundreds of potentially dangerous vaccine additives, thimerosal has been targeted as a main concern by doctors, researchers and many organizations. Thimerosal was developed by Eli Lilly in 1929. Thimerosal is a form of ethylmercury, and is 50% mercury by weight. Mercury is almost the deadliest element on earth, second only to plutonium. Nervous system and brain damage are both proven effects of mercury exposure whether the toxin is inhaled, eaten or even placed on the skin. Starting in the 1990s, infants were being given multiple doses of mercury-laced vaccines. During this decade, babies were injected with mercury levels that exceeded the federal safety levels for dietary mercury by 87 times. By 1999, the government had asked pharmaceutical companies to remove all thimerosal from vaccines. However, there is plentiful evidence that the CDC was working against the government recommendation. In 2010, even though many parents are misled and believe vaccines are mercury-free, the thimerosal disaster continues. Many vaccines contain “trace” amounts of thimerosal. When a child receives numerous vaccines in a single day, trace + trace + trace still equals a toxic exposure. And unless special ordered, flu vaccines still contain up to 25 micrograms of this dangerous additive.
A common rebuttal given by medical and health officials to defend injecting thimerosal is the fact that children can eat mercury-containing fish and not suffer brain damage. Let’s explore this argument used to confuse the real issue at hand. What American parents should know is that eating tuna that contains mercury is totally different that injecting a vaccine with mercury.
A first important factor is that the mercury we ingest when eating fish is methylmercury. The mercury that we inject with vaccines is ethylmercury. Research used to ease parental concern showed that ethylmercury is rather rapidly eliminated from the bloodstream. Many parents relied on this fact when accepting vaccines. What would horrify these same parents is the knowledge that although thimerosal does indeed leave the bloodstream, it deposits in the worst place possible: the brain and other organs. This effect has been shown in research time and again, but even our own National Institutes of Health funded a study in 2005 that spells the result of ethylmercury exposure. The findings are that ethylmercury is more toxic than methylmercury because it crosses the blood-brain barrier quicker and converts to inorganic mercury. This inorganic mercury is most difficult to excrete and stays in the brain longer and in higher levels.
Of a greater concern is that vaccines are injected, not ingested. The gastrointestinal tract is equipped to eliminate heavy metals from foods we eat. When you inject into the bloodstream the body has no defense. Every organ and tissue is left vulnerable. Another area of concern is that all safety levels ever established are based on ingesting the toxin. Comparing injecting to ingesting and comparing ethylmercury to methylmercury is even more ridiculous than comparing apples to oranges. We literally have no research to substantiate the safety of this practice. Conversely there are hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled children who have been raised with the childhood vaccine policy.
As a side note, thimerosal has been banned in Russia, Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has a policy on mercury exposure: “Mercury in all its forms is toxic to the fetus and children, and efforts should be made to reduce exposure to the extent possible to pregnant women and children as well as the general population.”
We are injecting babies, toddlers, pregnant women and the elderly with high levels of thimerosal to attempt to avoid the yearly flu. The question I am left with is “What doctor in his right mind would inject thimerosal into a human being?”