I’m right there with you on the vaccines, too. I was afraid that our pediatrician would kick us out of his office when I said (after a horrible screaming experience at the 2-month vax appointment) that we would not be further vaxing baby for quite some time to come. Surprisingly, he said it wouldn’t be a problem. Brain damage and spiking SIDS rates that correlate with the vax schedule is enough to convince me. That pertussis is a killer.

Most people don’t realize that the deadly diseases we vax against were already on the decline prior to the use of vaccines because of cleaner water and living conditions. Not vaxing isn’t going to bring diphtheria back to the western world.

“For the “benefits” of vaccination to outweigh the risk, there would have to be a benefit, and as doctors themselves have stated as their reason for refusing to be vaccinated, “Vaccination is of no proven benefit.” (BMJ 1990) The only documented effects of vaccines involve increasing susceptibility to the antigen.

You do correctly judge that vaccines are likely to do more harm than good at least in immune compromised people. Interestingly though, it is such groups that get targeted most for vaccines. So if the primary concern is really public health, then the authorities have very poor common sense.

Are there certain people at greater risk for whom it may be wise to avoid the vaccination? Yes, all who are susceptible to the sensitising effect, which means every living being. To establish the “risk” to the general population if we stopped giving measles vaccinations you need only observe isolated communities such as the Amish who do not believe in vaccination. Whilst measles epidemics continued in the vaccinated population outside (and they occur in 100% vaccinated populations), between 1970 and 1987 there was not a single case of measles reported in the Amish (Jrnl Inf Dis 1991). That is because the disease had already declined enormously without vaccination, so it appears that the vaccine is actually keeping the disease going. The real risk of stopping measles vaccinations is the disastrous loss of a significant income stream for drug companies, particularly since upon the public seeing the resultant tremendous benefit to public health, they would refuse the other vaccines too.”

I’m loving that this post has (how strange, since it wasn’t what I thought the main point!) resulted in a now detailed discussion of what I consider to be such an important issue so firstly, thanks for being part of that. It’s a great way for me to challenge and further my own knowledge.

As far as what I ’should’ be doing on this blog, I guess that’s really something I only have to answer to myself! My intentions are to share my opinions on issues I feel are related to a healthy and positive lifestyle, and that certainly encompasses things I don’t consider myself on expert on. What people choose to do with that information is up to them.

Having said that, I’m still more than happy with my sources, and in answer to your previous comment –

My question was not whether B-cells play a significant role in immune responses – that is common knowledge. Trying to be clearer, what I am asking you for is evidence of a positive effect of vaccines themselves being demonstrated in stimulating a B-cell response that is effective against the targeted antigen. I heard about a PhD immunologist who confessed observing that vaccine-induced antibodies do not go anywhere near the antigen, so she has no faith in vaccination. We all know how the theory goes but it is what is observed in practice that counts, doesn’t it? So have you read actual medical research in which the contrary has been observed in practice? If so, can you please provide the reference?

From there, as you mention (although I’ve taken it out of context), the issue is very complex and is starting to be well outside my realm of expertise and so I’ve asked Bronwyn Handcock (who runs the site I referenced) to chime in. Here’s what she had to say –

“In regards to the research being provided on the site, the references demonstrate that vaccines are ineffective and cause many adverse effects. They demonstrate that the effect of vaccines is sensitisation, meaning that they increase, instead of decrease, susceptibility to the disease. You are claiming that the site authors “ignore” research demonstrating vaccines playing a positive role, but such a statement from you has no meaning unless you can demonstrate that such research exists. If you want to make an allegation that there is anything inaccurate in the site in what it depicts or interprets, then provide a specific example where you know, from your superior knowledge or interpretation of research data, that to be the case, and then we can debate it. Obviously a proper debate cannot be entered into on the basis of generalisations.

In respect to atypical measles, I thought that you would have used a medical dictionary when doing a biochem major, but perhaps not? Atypical measles is not caused by a different strain of measles. It is “a hypersensitivity response to natural measles infection in individuals who have previously (been vaccinated)” (“Atypical Measles Syndrome: A Continuing Problem”, AJPH Feb 1979.)

It is difficult to obtain accurate information on the frequency of that particular manifestation of the sensitisation effect of vaccination. Fulginiti (1967) postulated that 2/3 of killed vaccine recipients were susceptible to it 5-6 years after immunization. Nossal (2000, Bull WHO) wrote that 1/5 measles cases after that vaccine were atypical. I have also been informed that research in Canada found that up to 50% of measles cases in the vaccinated are atypical, but I don’t have the reference for that at hand. Regardless, with statistics like these, no-one can tell you the real frequency because there is no real compulsion on doctors to report such a case even if the doctor is knowledgeable and intelligent enough to correctly diagnose it. (Many cases could be diagnosed as Kawasaki disease, for example, ref: “Kawasaki disease: a measles cover-up?” CMAJ, 136: June 1, 1987). It’s the same with all of the so-called “vaccine-preventable” diseases, which include in their diagnostic guidelines “no history of immunisation” resulting in differing diagnoses for such diseases in the vaccinated.

What is important about atypical measles, however, is that it is an example of a well documented problem that shows up so well what the real effect is of vaccination – sensitisation, i.e. increased susceptibility to the virus. This is due to the invasive procedure of injection (just like the sensitising effect of deep puncture wounds in nature) and also to the immune-sensitising toxic ingredients. It is only the degree and manifestation of the sensitising effect that varies among vaccine batches, doses, recipients and times of administration.”

I hope that helps –

Kat

As for the measles example – I’m not going to comment in any great detail as I don’t really know much about that specific example. It doesn’t necessarily disprove the generaly principle that I described in my previous post (eg. are atypical measles caused by a different strain than normal measles? Presumably people with this vaccination are still protected from normal measles?), although it is certainly very concerning that this is a potential side effect of vaccination. It would also be interesting to know at what rate people contract atypical measles – if it is quite rare than the benefits of vaccination may outweigh the risk of contracting the atypical type. Or perhaps there are certain populations at greater risk, for whom it may be wise to avoid the vaccination. etc etc. What would be the risk to the general population if we stopped giving measles vaccinations? It just seems to me that the answer is probably a lot more complex than just stopping all vaccinations.

Just in relation to vaccinations – the site that you’ve listed above is in no way a well referenced, objective, or scientifically grounded site. I’m all for debate on these issues, but the arguments you’re using need to be well founded, eg. from peer-reviewed academic journals.

Also, my understanding of immune responses (which is, I admit, somewhat limited – though I do have a biochem major and have learnt the basics of immune responses!) is that it is not so much the initial rise (and then fall)in antibody levels that is really important. Rather, ‘memory’ cells (a type of B-cell) are produced after a vaccination (or any other exposure to an antigen) that, upon subsequent re-exposure to that antigen, are able to recognise it and produce a specific immune response much more quickly in comparison to someone who with no prior exposure to the antigen. This doesn’t always mean that you won’t have any symptoms of an illness at all upon a second exposure, but they tend to be greatly reduced in severity and your body is generally able to recover much more quickly.