I am really surprised with what seems to be an overwhelming support of vaccination in the paleo community. Why is this? Anyone who has researched the issue cannot deny there is a very deep debate about vaccines and the health conditions they can trigger.
I myself was a healthy person up untill being vaccinated for hepatitis (school requirement) My health degenerated and now I have severe autoimmune thyroid disease and seizures. Vaccine antigens alone are known to increase or trigger autoantibody activity in mammalian models, not to mention highly immuno-irritating adjuncts like thimerisol, MSG and aluminum.
IS it worth trying eradicate infectious diseases by bringing out new epidemics of allergies, autoimmune disease and developmental disorders? The CDC estimates that by 2020 22% to 25% of US residents will have at least one autoimmune disease.
Get Free Paleo Recipes Instantly
Take your anti-science/modern medicine nonsense elsewhere please. Any reasonable risk analysis will show that the benefits of vaccination always outweigh the risk.
Risk-benefit analysis for measles:
- Life threatening vaccination complications for measles: <1 in 1 million.
- Measles mortality (developed countries): 1 in 1000.
- Measles mortality (complicated with malnutrition and lack of medical care): 1 in 10.
You're 1000 times more likely to die from contracting measles than dying from the vaccination.
Also a fun episode of Bullshit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXq3tvDAAyI&feature=youtu.be
You're right, we can't deny that there is a deep debate going on about the safety of vaccines; however, a debate doesn't mean that one side has any validity. There's still a deep debate going on about the accuracy of the theory of evolution, but that doesn't mean that there's any scientific evidence to back up the side touting Adam and Eve and their incestuous offspring.
Correlation =/= causation and anecdotes =/= evidence.
Personally, I think that autism is caused by eating organic food. See the below scientifical graph thingy. PROOF.
I'm sorry a vaccine made you sick. I thought you might find this interesting, from Natasha Campbell-McBride, of the GAPS diet:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/07/31/dr-natasha-campbell-mcbride-on-gaps-nutritional-program.aspx (kind of mirrors what she says in her GAPS book):
Vaccinations have been developed, originally, for children with perfectly healthy immune systems," she says. "GAPS children are NOT fit to be vaccinated with the standard vaccination protocol."
"It's a matter of the last straw breaking the camel's back," she explains. "So if the child is damaged enough, the vaccine can provide that last straw. But if it doesn't provide that last straw in a particular child, then it will get the child closer to the breaking point."
"What we also have to understand is that the pharmaceutical industry cannot patent natural viruses, natural bacteria or any microbe that nature has created. They have to genetically modify them before they can patent them," she says.
"So these vaccines contain genetically modified viruses, genetically modified microbes. We still haven't got enough data to know what exactly they're doing to the human body, and what exactly these genes are doing to our gut flora in these children."
"Now we have excellent tests that find chemicals produced by various species of microbes in the gut," she says."??? So by analyzing urine, indirectly we can say what kind of species of microbes are sitting in the gut of the child, or what kind of chemicals they are producing."
"...If the child has abnormal gut flora we can assume that the child has a compromised immunity, and these children must not be vaccinated with the standard vaccination protocol because they simply get damaged by it. They should not be vaccinated."
Younger siblings of autistic children, and younger siblings of children with all these disabilities should not be vaccinated with the standard vaccination protocol," she warns.
"The immune tests that I was talking about can be repeated every six months or every year for these children. Whenever the child is considered to be perfectly healthy and the immune system shows itself to be perfectly well functioning, only then can a vaccination be considered for these children because we simply cannot take the risk."
So, I think in general, while a vaccine made you sick, it was simply the straw that broke the camels' back. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean that they won't keep requiring them for everyone, even though there is probably anecdoctal evidence that in someone who's sick it could make them worse. I too have had experience with this - i.e. a public health measure that backfired on me, like a flu vaccine making me worse off, and I wouldn't be surprised if the number of these incidences increased over the years.
Maybe ask chris kresser about why he didn't vaccinate his daughter? He talks about it in a podcast. Unfortunately, there is no black-and-white issue here - and in taking a medicine for the common good, there will always be someone who reacts and will we know if the reaction is because of poor diet, the vaccine formulation, the child or person in question had an infection already and the vaccine exacerbated it? I am sorry for your condition, but clearly just because many on paleohacks support it doesn't mean it is 100% without risk, like any medicine.
I don't think there is overwhelming support, though maybe some of the people trying to make a living in the paleosphere just don't want to touch this subject.
My general idea for vaccines- research them.
What I think- I think, for me, for things like flu shots and gardasil- risks outweigh the benefits. For the flu, they are always behind the curve, and shooting you up with what they hope you'll get. For gardasil, well, they never really proved a link between HPV and cancer. Their proposed mechanism is 'irritation', if I remember correctly. I would imagine any vaccine would have to be similarly 'irritating' in order to get the immune system to respond. I am sure the funding is much better now, since cancer is so much more interesting than warts. I do hope the little girls shot up with this crap turn out okay in the end.
For vaccines for children, well, I don't see giving newborns them immediately. One should wait until the immune system firms up. I can't remember when that happens right now, but if I had a newborn, I'd be looking it up. Then I'd ignore every vaccine that has come out during the era of federal laws that protect vaccine companies from liability. I'd look for older ones with proven track records, ones that protect children from really dangerous illnesses- you, know stuff that tends to end in death rather than the sniffles.
Every shot brings with it the potential for complications, so you want the potential benefits to outweigh the potential risks. Most of the modern things just don't meet the criteria for me.
I think if we were around when these diseases were killing people we wouldn't even question the chance to take a vacine to prevent it from happening. I think it's important that you focus on bringing up healthy children on a healthy diet so that their immune system can withstand the various things that get thrown at it, be that immunisations or any number of the foreign substances that exist within our environment every day.
I have allergies and food intolerances myself but I don't that down to immunisation. I give the responsibility to processes foods, but I may be looking the wrong way.. I will never know.
From the same 2003 Lancet paper referred to in the comments below:
While the authors highlight that there have been many 'claims and counterclaims' concerning links betewen vaccinations and development of autoimmune conditions, they note that 'only in a few rare cases, however, has autoimmune pathology been firmly associated with particular vaccines.' p.5
Moreover, autoimmune response, a 'part of the normal health immune system'. It can 'occasionally appear' after vaccination, but this is distinct from an autoimmune illness which is rarely developed. p.7
In your question you conflate autoimmune response with a pathology. Also, where is the evidence that vaccinations 'bring out new epidemics' of develpomental issues and allergies? I'd be interested in see it, if it exists...
What about the Pharm companys having to pay millions of dollars to women who got the HPV vaccine? That causes cancer in women who have gotten it and that was backed by science. Not saying some don't have benefits but If you might die from cancer why not die from something the vaccine is going against.
The point these links show is that there was no removal of any of the simian viruses, not SIV, not SV40, from early polio vaccines. But no one cared much about SIV at the time because natural SIV and many other simian viruses present were not considered dangerous in humans. SV40 got most of the attention because of the cancer. If you really want to know more info, you could easily do a tad of research yourself or even consider the obvious potential implications of info you have already been given. I come here to learn new things and to share info I have found out myself, but if you don't want to seriously consider my info, nor share any new info on your part either, then I see no point to continuing this conversation.
There are many legitimate concerns when it comes to vaccines. And while I personally agree that vaccines appear to have done a lot of good, and I don't advocate doing away with them, I do think it's high time to take a better look at what goes into your body when you are vaccinated. The issue is not a simple one. In order for vaccines to actually work, it's not simply a matter of injecting small amounts of weakened virus or virus parts into the blood. That does not work because the body very quickly clears the virus from the blood with minimal effort and minimal immune response. To get a better response, one way is to inject a LOT of the virus into the blood, but that is expensive and cuts way back on profits and big pharma does not take that route.
So the other way is to inject toxins or irritants along with the virus, anything that illicits a very strong and prolonged immune response can be used. That is why there are tons of toxins in vaccines. They need to provoke a powerful and long lasting inflammatory response and most babies get about 16 different vaccines in a short number of years. Many of these toxins like mercury and its replacement, aluminum, do cross the blood brain border and cause inflammatory response there as well. Toxic aluminum is in most vaccines in the USA.
And when this powerful immune response is generated, antibodies are typically triggered against any and in many cases all protein ingredients in the vaccine. So antibodies are triggered against the virus proteins, yes, that is what is wanted, but also against all other protein ingredients. What other proteins are present? Trace amounts of anything that was used to grow the virus are also present but these trace amounts are not required to be listed on the vaccine ingredients. However, the trace amounts of protein are found when vaccines are tested. What is used to grow vaccine? Egg, yeast, human embryonic tissue, etc. You will find that many are proteins that humans are these days showing strong allergies against. This is not surprising because if you inject undigested proteins directly into the blood stream, immune response is exactly what is predicted, especially in presence of strong immune stimulants, and the response will get stronger with each injection.
Also, in the 70s and 80s, peanut oil, which had most but NOT ALL proteins removed, was a very very common ingredient in many vaccines. You were getting undigested peanut protein injected into your veins multiple times, an obviously likely cause of peanut allergy. However, I can't figure out if this is still an ingredient because apparently 'nonactive' ingredients are also not required to be listed in vaccine ingredient lists. However, oil is used in many vaccines and whatever oil is used will contain trace proteins from the source of the oil, be it nut proteins, castor proteins, or whatever.
Also, not all ingredients of vaccines are always even FDA approved, like in the case of the forced vaccinations of the military with anthrax vaccine. Another bone of contention is the use of squalene in vaccines. Squalene exists in some parts of the human body naturally and also is used in some vaccines. If the unnatural immune response generated by a vaccine was to result in antibodies against squalene you would then have an autoimmune response to squalene in other parts of your body. Shark squalene, the same stuff used in vaccines, injected into arthritis prone rats, resulted in arthritis in the rats and for some, it was permanent ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1850095/ ) Gulf War syndrome vets were found to almost all have squalene antibodies in their blood and those with no syndrome did not have antibodies. ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10640454 ) Vaccines manufacturers claimed there was no squalene in the military anthrax vaccine but sensitive testing by the pentagon found trace amounts of squalene were in fact present in the vaccine. Vaccine manufacturers then claimed the pentagon testers made a mistake.
In 2006, the vaccine manufacturers got a law passed that exonerated them from any lawsuits or harm ever done by their vaccines ever. I personally this was done because vaccine makers realized the dangers of their product and were scared themselves. They are now completely safe no matter what happens with any of their vaccines due to negligence or any other cause. Scary! They now have no reason to be careful and even in the case of severe negligence or harm, cannot be sued. IMO, vaccines have done much good but also are likely very dangerous for some of the population that are more sensitive due to genetics and other factors and we need to shine more light and prioritize safety over profits when it comes to vaccinations. But IMO govt is afraid any serious effort to look at problems and safety issues would scare off many parents from getting their kids vaccinated so they would prefer to sweep it under the rug instead. Remember that big pharma is very good at constructing research in ways that yield the answer they want to show the public. They can easily come up with a few studies that show the results they want to show and then just pretend other studies that show the opposite do not exist. So it's not a good idea to blindly trust big pharma.
I find it interesting that the vetrinary medical assosiation has steadily reduced the reccomendations for vaccinations of companion animals, because the benefit does not outweigh the risk, (sp. they subject the pet to potential risks of allergic reactions and immune-mediated hemolytic anemia in canines as one example ) yet the number of vaccines reccomended for adults and baby humans continues to increase as the years wear on. America is the most vaccinated country on earth, yet does not have overall better health than other western countries.
Although I havent read the article I remember it being brought up that HIV may have been introduced by accident through a polio vaccine manufactured in Africa using chimp organ substrates from wild collected animals. These vaccines were given to over a million people, and it is at least in theory possible that SIV may have mutaed in some of the recipients.
Anti-science? I think the question was clearly backed by science. Matt your answer was anti-science.
there is also an arguement that vaccinations caused a huge HIV outbreak...
found this website a couple of years ago... but someone might be interested.
if you're an advocate for vaccinations... please don't be to irritated to take a look. :]