There are safer ways to vaccinate than we are currently doing. This is a fact.
We have been lax about thinking ahead. The original vaccines were created because there was a deadly disease that was absolutely horrible, and this method worked. But at a small cost of a few people. We were highly motivated to find ANY way to deal with polio, for instance.
Now we have twenty more vaccinations we give to very tiny babies...and nobody has really thought much about how many we can actually give to an infant without changing the infant's immune system in a negative way. What is the upper limit? 50? 100? Are we actually going to consider putting a copy or an original of every deadly disease known to man into every infant before they reach the age of two? Does anyone know how this will ultimately affect our children? The answer is NO.
We were lax about thinking about the effect of adding more vaccines, because the original mercury preservative was meant for one dose only. Twenty times that amount is way more toxic. Although there is really no "safe" level of mercury for a person.
It is a toxin, and the best amount of mercury in a baby is zero. That is also a fact.
We were lax in thinking about the effect it might have on a baby of reving up their immune system towards more than one deadly disease at a time. Did we study infants to see if their immune systems were developed enough to handle more than one vaccine at a time consistently? No.
Did we study what to do if we reved up an infant's immune system and it stayed constantly reved up? Do we know how to calm it down so the infant doesn't develop chronic immune regulation problems down the line? No.
Did we study other ways to deliver a vaccine besides injecting it? Yes. And the reason is that some of our immune system was designed to function at the nose and mouth, where the mucous membranes function to deal with invaders. Most diseases do not enter the human body directly into the bloodstream. They enter through the nose, eyes, mouth, genitals. The bodies' natural defense mechanisms were designed to face the first assault at these points, not directly in the bloodstream.
Yet, we still use injections for most immunizations.
Many diseases we are trying to eradicate are not as serious as the first ones we developed vaccinations for. This means we are not looking anymore for safer ways to deal with them. Vaccinations were never designed to handle every type of human disease. It probably isn't the best way to do this kind of health care.
If a disease isn't deadly, and we aren't at a huge risk of being exposed to it, then we need to balance the risks to many of our children of getting vaccinated for everything against the benefits of eradicating a disease with a vaccination alone.
Every vaccination needs a preservative, for one thing. Unless you can somehow get a "fresh" vaccination, every baby will be getting an injection of a preservative at the same time as they are getting the deadly disease pushed into their bloodstream. This preservative dose accumulates, and infants livers are not fully developed until age 3, and so might not be able to eliminate the toxic preservative.
We never planned to look into the genetic differences of various children and how that affects their reactions to vaccines. Some of these reactions are deadly. And so each time a parent brings a child to be vaccinated, they are taking the chance that their child's genetic makeup is the kind that will make the vaccination deadly to him. And so the vaccination is now itself a deadly disease. Only we have control over this one.
Let's take the control we do have and work to make vaccinations safer and more effective, and not to use the shotgun approach and vaccinate everyone in exactly the same way--we know for a fact that some people cannot get vaccinations without becoming seriously ill or dying. These children and adults should be allowed to live. They have a right to live.
There are other health care practices that could keep us safe from the risk of having a small part of our population un-vaccinated. Already we currently live in a society where not everyone gets vaccinated for many reasons. So we should not let the idea of vaccination make us lax about taking regular precautions to avoid illness. We can find better methods of public hygiene, and other types of medications and lifestyle practices that don't rely so heavily on trying only to "eradicate" the disease.
Although complete eradication is an admirable goal, and one worth pursuing, there will always be genetic mutations of viruses and bacteria that will cause us to continue to have to deal with public health concerns in the future. At what point will vaccination itself become unviable? At that point we will seriously be in trouble if we have no other resources to rely on.
A safer way might be to vaccinate only:
with thimerisol-free vaccines
with a minimum amount of total preservative (shake the bottle, etc.)
only one disease at a time
space them out long enough for the infant's body to get rid of the preservative before doing the next
space them out long enough for the infant's immune response to go back to normal before initiating the next immune challenge
never, ever vaccinate a sick child, wait until the illness is over
don't give Tylenol before vaccination, since this can affect the natural immune response
* Research needs to continue to find safer ways of preserving vaccinations. (Refrigeration-only comes to mind.)
* Research needs to continue to discover for which genetic types of humans vaccinations are fatal, or will cause serious chronic immune disruption, so that parents can make an informed choice about EACH vaccine.
* Research needs to continue to discover and educate the population about other public health practices that can protect our health so that we have several lines of defense against deadly diseases besides relying on vaccinations, in the event we "discover" there IS an upper limit to how often we can vaccinate an individual in their lifetime or at least in early childhood.
* Research needs to continue to discover ways to calm the immune system of a child or adult if/when a vaccination causes a reaction that does not stop on its own, or that continues toward an unhealthy process leading to chronic disease, like aut0-immune disorders, and severe allergies.
* Research needs to continue to find the best timing for a vaccination. There is probably an optimal time to vaccinate. For instance, many vaccinations require multiple doses because the immune system changes over time. Some of this is due to the child's development. There is also probably a "sub-optimal" time to vaccinate. In other words, there might be times in a child's development when it is the worst time to vaccinate.
* Research needs to continue to find ways to create vaccines that don't rely on animal proteins being injected into human bodies. This is one of the reasons many people are allergic to eggs. Many vaccines are created by injecting the diseases into live eggs.
* Research needs to continue to find a way to decide which deadly diseases are going to be best dealt with by a vaccination, and which we will deal with another way. Because there are too many diseases to vaccinate against all of them, since there are always going to be new ones appearing. There needs to be a process of thinking about what factors/elements are most important.
* We need to study if there is a better way to vaccinate, like vaccinating regions instead of everybody. Perhaps it isn't necessary to get vaccinated for certain diseases in every area at all times. For instance, when are we going to ever stop vaccinating for a particular disease?
Polio, for instance, is not a common disease anymore. Unfortunately, it was never completely removed from the planet. Governments all store deadly diseases for future use as a biological weapon or as a biological museum of DNA. We will never get rid of any deadly disease totally because of this possiblity. And because we can never prove completely to everyone's satisfaction that a disease is completly "gone," then no disease can ever be eliminated from the list of vaccinations, under our current vaccination policy.
My child had a bad reaction to a vaccine. I had a right to know that this was going to be a possiblity. Unfortunately, my Doctor didn't have access to the information I needed to make an informed decision about my son's vaccination. I want that information available for the next generation of parents so they won't have to go through what I went through. And if they do, it will be part of a much better informed choice than the one I was given and have to live with.
Everyone lives with the problem of the children who have been hurt by vaccinations. It affects the entire family, and the community. They require special education, special medical care, and often housing and supervision for the rest of their lives. I would like this "deadly" disease treated with the same care and concern about its "prevalence" as the ones that the vaccinations that caused it are trying to eradicate.
It's kind of scary to think that the FDA and the CDC might have a vested interest in the outcome of studies about vaccines that they consider mandatory and have recommended for years. But they do have a vested interest.
And so maybe they are a bit biased and motivated to prove the saftey of what they have been advocating. If mercury is safe, then why is it so important for them to reassure us that it is not in use in any more vaccines?
If they were to come out and say that mistakes were made or things were miscalculated, lawsuits would proliferate. And we couldn't have that.
So why can't we have accountability without lawsuits? Why isn't there any in-between ground between total acceptance of everything that is told to us, and a lawsuit? This makes it very hard for the medical system and the political system that deals with medical issues to adapt to change, to new knowledge, new developments, and new health threats. And even to respond honestly to requests for change in saftey regulations from groups of concerned parents.