Article: Too many vaccines? Conclusion: No.

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromo ... _many.html

Apparently, their argument is that normal daily life exposes you to about a hundred times more pathogens that require an immune response than a normal vaccine schedule would, and that if you don't have trouble dealing with the stuff in your immediate environment, it's unlikely that the regular vaccine schedule would overload your system.

Sure. But there are a lot of strange things in vaccines that we would never be exposed to if we didn't stick them right into ourselves. NOT dissing vaccines in general. We've done plenty of them around here.

I like Dr. Sears' The Vaccine Book. It lists each childhood immunization, its manufacturer and each ingredient it contains. I was a wee bit shocked to find out that there are cells from perfectly healthy aborted fetuses in at least one of them. In others there are animal cells. Yet he is pretty objective (doesn't advise not to vaccinate, just to know what you are choosing to put in your kids when you do it).

Not trying to debate, because chances are they don't overwhelm our immune systems. But it's hard to tell which bodies are equipped to deal with all of the preservatives and other strange components they contain.

I'm not totally against vaccination, but it's been proven that some pretty sick stuff gets into them and the reasons why are never fully investigated.

I believe in having as few vaccinations as possible. I don't believe in getting a vaccine that has not been in use for at least 20 years (so we can see the impact).

The use of mercury in vaccines has proven links to the explosion of autism in kids (and boys are affected more than girls because of the "blood-brain barrier" that gives girls better protection from this toxin)...lawsuits have been won based on this evidence. I think I'll wait and see what it does to the people foolish enough to embrace something barely tested before I put it in my body.

Study after study has failed to find correlation between vaccines and autism. I do think that, in some children who are predisposed to autism, the vaccines may be the trigger for the symptoms to start. However, the underlying neurobiology for autism already has to be there. If not, every child who got a vaccine would end up having autism. Plus, some parents who have at-risk children choose to not vaccinate, and their child still develops autism later on. In addition, the time when the MMR vaccine is given is right around the time when autistic symptoms start to show, making many parents point to the vaccine when, really, it's just the nature of autism's symptoms.

And, ironically, if a pregnant woman contracts rubella (German measles), one of the three things the MMR vaccine prevents, her baby usually ends up having autism. And deafness, blindness, mental retardation, and distorted limbs. Personally, I would rather have autism than tetanus, rubella, diphtheria, or the like... Autism doesn't kill. The diseases that you are vaccinated against do.
-OddDuckNash99-

Yeah, you get more mercury from your normal environment than from vaccines. And the Wakefield controversy is pretty much dead--the antivaxxers have mostly switched to the "too many vaccines" theory.

Re. aborted fetuses--yes, technically. The original cell lines came from, I think, six different ones (maybe six--some number like that) and they've been cultured for decades. They're not actually the original cells, but cells grown in a lab that were originally gotten from an aborted fetus. I know, I don't like it either; I don't think it's ethical. I'd much rather have them use animal cells or develop cell lines from cord blood instead. Said animal cells tend to be things like chicken embryos, which have also been used in a similar way to develop vaccines.

Well, one chooses the side they agree with. If those studies were so iron-clad, then the lawsuits would not have prevailed. There is no medically-sound reason to put a toxin like mercury (or any of its derivatives) into a vaccination.

There was a recent batch of vaccines made by Bayer sent overseas. It tested positive for Bird Flu. Not the ordinary kind, but the fatal kind...the kind only found in labs. Bayer's answer for how it got there was little more than "oops." How does a deadly pathogen get into a vaccine distributed from the USA overseas? Had the people who processed the vaccine skimped on the QC tests and not discovered it, that virus would have been mass distributed into a human population, and if just one human had the virus mutate into something that affected humans, you'd have a global pandemic.

FWIW, Bayer is the company that is pushing to produce and market a "cure" for a Bird Flu pandemic.

Sounds like cross-contamination. Thank goodness for quality-control procedures.

Re. the lawsuits--you're aware that neither lawyers, nor judges, nor juries, have any medical training? OK, then. And you're aware that the only big-profile lawsuit that ever succeeded was a judgment of "this child with this very rare disorder which was already disabling and already causes immunosuppression, acquired autistic-like symptoms upon vaccination"--and that all other lawsuits since then have failed?

I believe it is ONE lawsuit that can be said to have prevailed and there was a previously undiagnosed mitocondrial condition involved. No one can say vaccines NEVER do harm; that is why there is a compensation system in place; but there is no link between Autism and vaccination that has been proved or sustained. There IS a link between mitocondrial conditions and nasty vaccine side effects.

please don't flame me I'm just posting a link to informed choice:

http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html