Staggering 6mo vaccinations

[Yeddi]

Kawazuki, I admit you seem to be a little more open-minded than others I've met, however some of your comments I can't agree with. For instance:

1. "BUT enough has been done to prove that there is minimal chance of danger." This is simply not true. The stat you used before of 1:10,000,000 is a statistic that is as dodgy in its mathematics as they get. This figure has been reached by comparing the reports of only deadly, anaphylactic and extremely mentally damaging reactions on VAERS (which is said to only be about 10% of actual reactions) with that years population census. It is not a comparison between the number of reactions verses the number of injections given, nor is it a comparison made between age groups, it is a comparison made between the number of life-threatening reactions verses the entire population from newborn babies to the 100 year old granny in the nursing home. Not everyone gets vaccinated, and if they do they don't do so every year and for everything so this stat is completely misleading. GACVS (the WHO organisation for monitoring vaccine safety) recently had to admit that 1 in every 1500 DTP injections given resulted in severe outcomes. That's just the DTP and each baby gets three injections of that over their first year of life. In essence that takes it to a stat of 1:500 just for ONE vaccine. Even if we keep it at the 1:1500 that's really not that much better. This information can be found in their reports if you're interested, of course they're not going to go advertising it and as ALWAYS they conclude that the risk is worth the benefit. Really? By what measure? What is the risk ratio, with today's modern medicine of dying from Whooping Cough **IF** you catch it? Last year there was 30,000 reported cases of whooping cough in Australia (it is estimated that the new synthetic vaccine is only 30% effective because it misses many of the strains, and who is to say those people wouldn't be immune anyway), and 3 deaths. While those deaths are tragic, that shows a 1:10,000 risk, and I debate whether a death caused by whooping cough is any less devastating than a death caused by vaccination. The math of the risk/benefit here for me just doesn't add up.

Additionally, as not ONE single study has been conducted comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated kids there is no way to see what difference vaccination really makes. ALL studies compare vaccinated kids against each other, or less vaccinated kids. If a child is going to be damaged by vaccine they don't have to have all the vaccinations before they do, it takes just one for them to reach toxic load, and how do you know which one? When the FDA, CDC and WHO were asked to do a study comparing the vaccinated against the unvaccinated they refused. Why? Because THEY couldn't deprive anyone from the protection of vaccination in order to conduct the study. What a load of bull. There are plenty of parents out there that don't vaccinate at all whose children could be used as the unvaccinated control group. I being one of them, would happily allow them to follow my son's health and development so they could make comparisons.

Also, the way they test whether vaccination even works is by seeing whether the pathogen has stimulated the production of antibodies, it is **assumed** that if you have antibodies then you're immune. The pathology of AIDS just blows that out of the water, doesn't it. A disease where the immune system exhausts itself making antibodies that don't do anything but divert energy and weaken it, opening them up to other infections. What are some other auto-immue disorders.... Type 1 diabetes, anaphylactic allergies, Eczema, IBS, Lupus... autism. Over-active immune systems and vaccines, who by their very purpose, are designed to stimulate the immune system can't be linked in any way, what an unreasonable theory!

2."They are tested for around 20-30 years before being introduced". Again, not true. The WHO and FDA have a pre-approval program for many vaccines currently in circulation, which means they can skip a lot of the checks and balances. Those in circulation now are not the same ones that were in circulation 10 years ago. For instance, in 1997 there was a whooping cough epidemic in Denmark despite a 97% vaccination rate. It was discovered that it was actually the live virus in the vaccine that was causing the epidemic. Hence the synthetic version of the vaccine was rolled out without much testing because it could only be better than the vaccine in circulation... Vaccines only go through three phases of testing before being introduced into the public, with the understanding that adverse reactions to vaccines can't really be understood until they are in circulation within the population. The manufacturers even admit this, so in essence our little iddy biddy babies are the guinea pigs for the fourth phase of testing, and when one understands the phases of testing, this should concern parents, and it's certainly not 20-30 years of testing. Phase I is animal testing (we're not animals, we are the only warm-blooded species that can't produce our own vitamin C. What do people take when they are getting a cold? Vitamin C. Why? Because it boosts the immune system. Therefore we process thing differently to animals). Phase 2 is human testing in around 300 volunteers, usually adults. Phase III is about a 10,000 sample of volunteers, again usually adults or maybe older children. Then it's rolled out. I have never seen one study on how the CYP450 enzyme system in babies would effect vaccination. This enzyme system is fundamental in processing medications/chemicals in the body, and therefore would change how someone would process the chemical components in a vaccine. Babies don't even START to produce this enzyme until two weeks of age (and the schedule requires hep b vax on the first day of life...), and children don't have the full load of this enzyme system until they are two, hence the reason when you read most medications - even vitamins - "not suitable for children under the age of 2" is written on the packet. Add to this that vaccines are changing all the time, they're loading more and more chemicals into one shot to be processed all at once, even **IF** they have tested a vaccine for 20-30 years I bet you they haven't tested what happens when you combine them. Funny enough, one of the treatments suggested for autism is an enzyme supplement. Also funny are the studies that analyse the hair of autistic kids that show they can't process heavy metals, perhaps because they don't have enough cyp450 enzyme because the system has been compromised by overloading it before it's developed...

An interesting bit of trivia: the above stat regarding the DTP came out in 2008. In 2004 the WHO kept getting reports that the DTP vaccination was behind some very high morbidity and mortality rates in third world countries, so they set up an independent task force to investigate. That's good, right? You would think this task force went to these countries to investigate, doing lab tests and meeting with the suspected victims.... Nope. Well they would at least get sent all the case reports and went through them unbiasedly... Nope. Do you know what they did? That sat in a UK office and read through several studies on the DTP vaccination that had been conducted over the previous several years. All had been conducted in Western countries and the largest sample size was 100. From these clinical studies they decided it couldn't possibly be the DTP vaccination and that was the end of their investigation. So much for the fourth phase of testing. Funny thing about facts, is they don't go away, hence the 2008 admission of 1:1500.

Kawazuki, don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you personally, and my sarcasm is not directed at you but my irritation with the lack of transparency and open-mindedness within institutionalised healthcare. A LOT of people believe in vaccination which is their right to and I'm not judging that, people must make decisions for themselves as they will suffer the consequences (good or bad) for those choices. However I think it is a highly censored topic, and if you question that censorship you're labelled "selfish", "moron", "endangering your child", "quack". However, if it's censored or ridiculed for asking questions, how can parent's really make informed choices?

[kawazuki]

I totally agree with your last statement.
not taking it personally at all, i got thicker skin and can see your side of it as well, and its a very valid point your making.

I guess im trained to have more confidence in the system than a non medical person thats the difference. lol
I am somtimes unsure f that TRUST I have is valid or not, i do question it daily.