( Part 3 of 3 ) So what might happen when you repeatedly bombard a baby’s immune system with vaccines?
It depends whether you believe Dr Paul Offit, the king pin at the Children’s Hospital at Philadelphia and seemingly of late, the sole mouthpiece for vaccination programs and the vaccine industry in the United States, who claims that healthy infants can safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once.
Yes, "Safely"!
I disagree with Dr. Offit.But then, I am only a country town hick who never went to medical school, so what would I know?
But here’s why I disagree with him.
A baby develops “adaptive tolerance” by suppressing inflammatory cytokines, including IL-1B and TNF-a, to make sure that T cells don’t respond to everything naturally presented to the baby as “safe”.
IF a baby’s immune system is developing along a specific pathway which is designed to SHUT DOWN INFLAMMATION, as an “important developmental programme” - “beneficial to the neonate” what might be the result of tossing vaccines into a baby immediately after birth, and at regular intervals thereafter?
1) We know that in adults, influenza vaccines increase autoimmunity antibodies (Isakov). Does this happen in infants and children? There is no logical reason to believe that it doesn't, but we can't be sure until such research is urgently undertaken - now that yearly influenza vaccination is forced upon babies - and pregnant mothers.
2) We know that hepatitis B vaccines given to adolescents result in an increase in alloreactive cellular responses (Roddy) and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20179666 , but that research hasn’t extended to babies either. Neither have researchers looked at what happens after regular booster shots. At such a crucial non-inflammatory time, what would a neonatal immune system do with increased allo-antibodies? The fact is no one has a clue!
3) We know that vaccination in adolescents can result in autoimmune anti-NMDA encephalopathy (Hoffman), but unfortunately that research has not yet extended to babies.
4) We know that vaccinating mice at the critical point of immune development described by Chelvarajan, results in a skewing towards an allergic Th2 immune system (Eurekalert and Lee).
5) We also clearly know that the LONGER a parent delays giving a DPT vaccine, the less the baby's chances of developing asthma.(McDonald)
A first vaccine is designed to PROVOKE inflammatory immune responses, and booster shots are designed to enhance that inflammatory process, and to keep it going for a long time.
The core of NEONATAL vaccine administration “theology” is that the earlier we vaccinate babies, the better.
The alleged “objective” of regular booster vaccinations, is that continuing to provoke the immature immune system of the baby, will result in life-long memory T-cell immunity as a result of being repeatedly vaccinated early in life.
The other untouchable tenet of NEONATAL vaccine “theology” is that IPSO FACTO, all vaccines are safe, and do not affect, or perturb the normal functioning of the immune system, and THAT anything that happens after a vaccine is “coincidental”.
A recent study (Wherry) about "chronic" infection, has shown that “pathogen persistence” in the body, results in the body’s T-cells against that specific pathogen “giving up”.
This is called “T-cell exhaustion”. The author contrasts the very specific immune system actions against acute infection: “After infections that are cleared acutely, highly functional memory T-cells develop....” with the across-the-board blunted action of the immune system in chronic infections.
Acute infections ARE cleared from the body because they usually don’t come through a needle with a whole array of foreign proteins and adjuvants. The WAY the body clears an acute natural infection, is quite different from the way a body is being forced to respond to repeated injections of the same antigen.
What might happen IMMUNOLOGICALLY if you put in vaccines, a form of applied "chronic" infections, into babies in the first few weeks of life?
What are vaccines - if they aren’t a form of applied “chronic” infections?
Might a different form of T-cell exhaustion happen later, to those vaccinated babies?
The answer appears to be “yes”.
In a recent study (Posfay) adolescents were given a booster dose to check how they would respond to the DPT vaccines they received at 6, 10 and 14 weeks of age. Looking at tetanus antibodies, the authors found to their horror that nearly half had no boost or increase in their tetanus antibodies. They noted that a high proportion of teenagers who were given their primary vaccinations on the early schedule simply had no response to boosters and they conceded that, "early life immune immaturity may limit the persistence of infant-induced immunity".
Similar “refusal” to make booster T-cell dependant antibodies has been documented in 14 year-old Alaskan children after Hepatitis B boosters, as well as in 15 year-olds in Micronesia and Taiwan. (Lu)
In 2003,Pihlgren showed that if mammals are vaccinated too early, memory IgG responses to T-cell dependant antigens are suppressed. In mice it took 6 – 8 weeks for the immune system to mature enough to be able to start making long term Ig G antibodies. Pihlgren stated that in humans, the process is much longer, without specifying how long.
Both the mice and human studies, suggest that the core theory that infant vaccination DOES NOT affect the immune system, is incorrect.
That proof is staring us in the face.
Example. Paediatric EPI-PEN prescriptions are at an all-time high.
Young and old adults, (who we are told haven’t yet co-operated with the burgeoning adult vaccination programme and are seriously undervaccinated), are not (yet) meaningfully represented in the huge EPI-PEN prescription increase in young children.
Today's children, are the MOST vaccinated ever, in the "during-the-crucial-neonatal-developmental" time frame.
Is it some "fluke" that children today, have the highest level of developmental disabilities in the history of mankind?
Is this "real progress?"
In America 43% of children have chronic ill-health, and developmental disorders affect one in every six children.
This study showed that in 1988,16.8% of children younger than 18 years of age had lifelong conditions arising in early childhood as a result of cognitive or physical impairment or a combination of the two, but a more recent 2009 study using much more restrictive criteria, still came up with a total figure of 14.8. Who knows what the figure is today?!.
Everywhere in the developed world, parents are starting to notice the huge numbers of children with serious chronic disorders and behavioural issues. Older teachers readily see the difference between children they taught years ago, and children entering school in 2011.
These figures are outrageous, but are explained away by the authors saying that the reduction in chronic disorders was due to improved survival of children born preterm, or with birth defects or genetic disorders, and - buried amonst a list of hopeful interventions to keep chronic diseases at lower numbers - was "new infant vaccines". Does the author need, just an intsy ray of light shone in there? The author is implying that vaccines have REDUCED chronic disease, but such an assertion is ridiculous!
Also please note the preponderance of chronic conditions "based on an emotional or behavioral phenotype...".
How about substituting that phrase, with another possibility, which is: "A vaccine-enforced neonatal inflammatory phenotype triggering inappropriate brain activity by activations of immune cytokines including Il-1B and TNFa, which should be left well alone."
It’s no good blaming the (relative) increased numbers on increased premie births, better diagnosis as Boyle does, because that implies that these disabilities have always been at these percentages, but that no-one noticed before.Even the most naive parents can see through that excuse.
It's also no good blaming older parents either, because in the days before contraception, women continued to have children right up until menopause.
Where are all the similarly blighted adults today, who were born to those older mothers?
The medical profession argues that the solution is "better access to medical care" when it could be argued that it's the medical system throughout pregnancy and after birth, that took the children to the very precipice on which they now stand.
It’s my contention that vaccines, given to a baby within the immunological window of vulnerability, described by Pihlgren, can force some babies into an "inflammatory phenotype" resulting in the possibility of:
1) an increase in allergy,
2) autoimmunity
3) the triggering of brain inflammation, with resultant chronic ill health in many diverse ways...
and
4) an inability to respond to vaccine antigens previously injected during this neonatal period.
We can't even restrict potential problems to neonatal time frames, because serious neurological disorders after DPT in adolescents have been seen, where all of the current tests came back normal.
So clearly there's even more that isn't known about adolescent neurology/immune system tie-ups as well.
For the reasons above, I believe that the current obsession to vaccinate pregnant women, babies - earlier and earlier, and adolescents and adults with as many vaccines as possible - will result in:
... the most immunologically damaged population the world has ever seen.
I believe that the writing is being written on the wall, for those with the eyes to see the finger moving.
No doubt these same people who didn't realise that the brain and the immune system were connected until about a year ago, will all have their own plausible theories to protect vaccine programmes, and explain away neonatal immune system problems rarely seen in children decades ago. Immune systems, which, by their own admission, they know virtually nothing about.
It's no longer acceptable to tell a parent, "The vaccine didn't do this. We don't know what did, but WE KNOW a vaccine didn't do this." because they "know" nothing of the sort.They may believe it but certainly no more!
It's also not acceptable to bully parents into giving their babies any vaccines at all, when immunologists haven't the foggiest what those vaccines do in a baby's body, let alone a baby's developing brain.
It's time the medical profession took a long hard realistic look at the huge numbers of chronically sick children they treat, and ask the same questions that parents and those of us without medical training, have been asking for a very long time.
