The vaccine debate is heating up in Australia, following the ‘No Jab, No Pay; No Jab, No Play’ legislation that was introduced on the first of January.
There are strong feelings on both sides of the matter—and understandably—the wellbeing of our most vulnerable citizens, the citizens we are responsible for and love dearly—our children, is at stake here.
If you fall in the group of parents who questions the safety of vaccines, you can rest at ease. You can stop the hours of researching that I’m sure you have been doing to make sure you are making the right decision.
Why? Well because in their January 9th article, ‘There is NO Debate’[i], the Herald Sun has told us exactly that: there is no debate when it comes to the safety of vaccines.
Of course, they must be right. They explain ‘[h]ow myths are being peddled to avoid the new “no jab, no play or pay” laws’.
Because of course the thousands of parents who are questioning the safety and efficacy of vaccines are not intelligent enough to separate mere myths from science in their minds.
They have somehow been duped and have not been able to see the light.
Not to mention the tens of thousands of parents who have seen their precious children succumb to vaccine injuries that have caused permanent disabilities and changed their lives forever.
Despite the fact that these children were developing perfectly until their shots, and began to show signs of regression—or worse—either immediately after, or in the days following their vaccinations, they are told it was a mere coincidence. There was absolutely no connection between the vaccines and the obvious change in their children, the doctors tell them.
We hear the same story over and over and over again.
So should we just accept what the Herald Sun is telling us? Are we wrong to question vaccines?
The article explains and ‘debunks’ seven ‘myths’ that these crazy anti-vaxxers are spreading about vaccinations, each in a matter of paragraphs.
Let’s take a closer look at each though, one by one, and see whether there is in fact ‘NO Debate’, or whether maybe, just maybe, the Herald Sun’s health editor, Grant McArthur, who penned the article, neglected to tell us the whole story.
In the interests of brevity, and due to time constraints, I will be addressing one or two points per ‘myth’. However, it should be stated that for every point made, there are so many more that indicate the benefits of allowing the body’s immune system to work naturally, and point to the dangers of vaccinations.
The body’s immune system can cope with infection without the help of vaccines.
The immune system is a collection of specialised cells and chemicals that fight infection. Each time a bacterium, fungus or virus (germ) is overcome, the immune system “remembers” how to defeat that infection. If the immune system comes into contact with that particular germ again, it can destroy it quickly, often before symptoms are even noticed.
Without causing infection, vaccines trick the immune system into responding as if the body is under attack from a specific bacterium or virus by introducing dead or weakened versions of the germ; inactivated toxins from germs; or molecules from the surface of the germ.
If the immune system encounters the live germ or toxin later, the immune system quickly recognises it and kills it.
Firstly, this doesn’t actually answer the question. It explains how the immune system works—something which most people who have studied vaccines have a good knowledge of anyway.
It then explains how vaccines work—also something which most people who have studied vaccines have a good knowledge of.
Vaccines do not work the same way that the immune system does in nature. When we come into contact with a pathogen in our environment, it is not injected straight into our bloodstream as vaccines are.
This means that the body deals with it differently than it would a disease we are exposed to naturally.
In nature, a pathogen that we come into contact with goes through a number of bodily systems that evoke an immune response. It is dealt with by the skin, the gut, mucous membranes, etc.
This is even common knowledge amongst medical practitioners! The Merck manual, which is a doctor’s bible, says the following about the body’s lines of defence:
‘The body has a series of defenses. Defenses include physical barriers, white blood cells, and antibodies and other chemical substances
Physical Barriers: The first line of defense against invaders is mechanical or physical barriers:
- The skin
- The cornea of the eyes
- Membranes lining the respiratory, digestive, urinary, and reproductive tracts
As long as these barriers remain unbroken, many invaders cannot enter the body. If a barrier is broken—for example, if extensive burns damage the skin—the risk of infection is increased. In addition, the barriers are defended by secretions containing enzymes that can destroy bacteria. Examples are sweat, tears in the eyes, mucus in the respiratory and digestive tracts…’
So in the words of the medical establishment, as long as the body is doing what it is supposed to be doing, you are unlikely to get sick!
There is no issue with children developing their immune system by exposure to their environment—children are forever putting things in their mouths, and perhaps this is nature’s way of helping them to develop a strong immune system.
Another point that the article doesn’t explain is the benefits that some childhood illnesses have on the immune system long term. It doesn’t explain that those who have the Measles as a child, as well as developing a lifelong immunity to the disease itself, also develop lifelong immunity to degenerative bone and cartilage disease, sebaceous skin diseases, and certain tumours.[ii] This includes health problems such as dust mite allergies,[iii] along with other common allergies[iv]. The Measles vaccine does not provide this protection, while the wild Measles virus does.
The immune systems of babies are protected through the placenta and breastfeeding, so they don’t need vaccination.
Babies are exposed to many germs as part of the normal birthing process, including those from the vaginal canal, faeces and breastmilk. Although their immune systems can meet these challenges, the immune system in an infant is still developing and needs to become active to protect against a range of bacteria and viruses.
An infant will receive some natural protection against diseases transferred from the placenta, but the level of protection depends on the mother’s exposure to disease either by illness or vaccination. Breastmilk is also valuable for protection, but the protection is mainly for germs that infect the gut. The protection received from the placenta and breastmilk can be weak and only lasts for a few months.
This paragraph is an insult to all breastfeeding mothers and the power of breast milk’s ability to protect and nourish an infant!
Not only does it protect from germs that infect the gut, as the article states, but from a range of other pathogens to which the mother or baby are exposed.
There is a plethora of studies which have clearly demonstrated the superior health that breast-fed babies in general experience compared to their formula-fed counterparts. Try telling me that this is ‘weak’ protection!
If you thought that was amazing, get this: when mother breast feeds, not only does she pass on to her baby antibodies she has developed to illnesses during her lifetime, but also creates new antibodies in response to pathogens the baby is exposed to! When a breastfeeding baby has come into contact with a virus or bacteria, the baby’s saliva sends cues to the mother through her skin as the baby is feeding.
During the next few hours following this, the mother’s body makes targeted antibodies which the baby then receives throughout its next few feeds, to help the baby fight that pathogen.[v] So to say that the protection is ‘weak’ shows a lack of understanding of how the body works in this regard.
Breast milk contains antibodies for far longer than ‘a few months’, though it is true that the milk’s ability to perform this function is at its strongest in the months after birth. Both the World Health Organization and UNICEF advise that babies be
breastfed for ‘two years and beyond’ because of the numerous benefits it provides to infants.
Another issue that the article does not address is the fact that babies are not born with a fully-developed immune system. They do not produce antibodies of their own (the most commonly-produced being IgG) until AT LEAST a few weeks, but more commonly, several months following the birth of the baby. (See graph below).[vi]
Why is it, then, that one of the first things we do is insist that a newborn is jabbed with a Hepatitis B vaccine, followed by vaccinations for 9 diseases at 2 months of age?[vii]
This is ludicrous, considering that the medical profession itself admits that it is generally only from 2-3 months of age that a baby’s immune system is even remotely mature enough to give an immune response that would enable the vaccine to work effectively!
Combining two or three vaccines into one injection may put a baby’s immune system under considerable strain. Vaccines should be separated and given at six-monthly or yearly intervals.
Delaying vaccines would leave children vulnerable to catching diseases. Vaccines do not reduce a child’s immunity. Combining vaccines reduces the number of injections that babies and children need to receive.
Vaccine preparations don’t cause infection, so an “all-out” immune response is not triggered. In addition, the immune system is designed to handle multiple attacks, because in nature germs don’t attack the body one at a time.
Each vaccine is carefully researched and produced so that it is suitable to be given at the earliest possible time to provide the best level of effectiveness and protection.
Here I want to point out something that few people are aware of, but which needs to be publicised.
When we vaccinate our children, we place trust in the vaccine manufacturers. We assume that they have conducted thorough research on their product before releasing it to the public. To put it bluntly, although we SHOULD be safe in making that assumption, we are NOT.
Anyone who has studied any science, even at a basic high school level, knows that if a study were to be conducted on the safety of a vaccine, it should involve a large sample size of people randomly split into two groups, to exclude other extraneous variables having an effect on results.
One group should then be injected with the vaccine being studied, and the other with a saline solution.
Nobody taking part should be aware of which group they are in. This methodology is called a double blind placebo study.
It is the best and most sound methodology to use for a scientific study, as it eliminates the most variables.
If you assumed that that is the method that vaccine manufacturers use when researching the safety of their products, you are wrong.
No, what they do (and it is explained on the package insert of each vaccine how the study was conducted but how many people take the time to read that? How many people’s doctors have told them that they have the right to read this insert, which includes information such as possible adverse side effects, vaccine ingredients and research methodology in studying the vaccine’s safety) is they give one group of participants the vaccine they are studying, while another is given an alternative vaccine, or an injection of a solution of the same vaccine, just with no virus in it[viii].
The control, therefore, still contains all the adjuvants—the aluminium, formaldehyde, polysorbate-80, etc.
All this tells us is whether any adverse reactions experienced are different from or similar to those of other vaccines—it does not tell us whether vaccines themselves are safe, or whether the particular vaccine being studied is safe.
There has been very few studies conducted comparing vaccinated children to those who are unvaccinated, as it is claimed that it is unethical to withhold vaccines from a group of children for the purposes of a study.
This is nonsense, as we know that there are parents all around the world whose children are not vaccinated, and who would be all too pleased to participate in a study comparing the health of their children to that of the vaccinated.
I would have thought that if vaccine manufacturers were so sure of the safety and efficacy of their vaccines, they would jump at the chance to prove to anti-vaxxers that their concerns are unfounded.
The few studies that have been conducted comparing vaccinated children to the unvaccinated (including a New Zealand and a German study) have actually found that the unvaccinated are, in many ways, healthier than the vaccinated, with fewer cases of health problems such as eczema, hay fever, allergies, asthma, ear infections, warts, diabetes, epilepsy, dyslexia, celiac disease, GERD, and infection such as tonsillitis.[ix]
Where is the media coverage of this? What have vaccine manufacturers done in response to this?
So, Grant McArthur of the Herald Sun, don’t try to tell me that vaccines are ‘carefully researched’ to ensure the best level of protection and effectiveness, because that is a downright lie.
Reactions to combined vaccines do occur and are still occurring. (Keep reading to see my point later about the connection between the MMR vaccine and Autism, which was admitted by a CDC scientist). Vaccines CAN cause infection (keep reading to see my point later about virus shedding). Vaccines CAN overload the immune system.
Profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies — “big pharma” — are behind the push to vaccinate.
The strongest advocates for vaccines are government and not-for-profit health organisations, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, rather than commercial companies, according to immunologist Prof Andrew Lew, from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research.
“This is because vaccines are extremely cost-effective against disease,” he said. “As an example, every $1 spent on Hib leads to a saving of $5 to the health budget.
“Some vaccines are not particularly profitable but are good for the community. An example is the flu vaccine made by CSL, Australia’s largest vaccine company, which is made in close collaboration and stewardship from the WHO.”
People forget that pharmaceutical companies are just that—COMPANIES. A company’s aim, first and foremost, is to make money. It stands to reason, then, that it is NOT in the best interests of the pharmaceutical companies to get us all well—they make more money if we are sick. It also stands to reason that pharmaceutical companies are going to try their hardest to push their vaccines, as this results in profit for them!
Don’t try to tell me, Grant McArthur, that vaccines do not generate much profit—in 2015, the CDC spent $4 BILLION on vaccines—that’s in one year alone![x] As if, after making such a purchase, they are not going to be making an effort to push vaccines onto the public! While this is in the USA and not Australia, the principle is the same. The pharmaceutical companies and the government are tied together.
Just one of many examples—in July, 2013, a study which was commissioned and funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) was published, stated that vaccines ‘are very safe’.[xi]
However, the public was NOT told that the study was designed and peer-reviewed by high-level officials from the CDC, including the CDC’s Director of Immunisation Safety![xii]
And we are expected to believe that there is ‘nothing in it’ for the pharmaceutical companies or the government!
In addition to this, there are cases where government bodies such as the US’s DHHS are given money from pharmaceutical companies to fast-track the use of vaccines[xiii] and work in partnership with such companies to develop and share the profits generated from the sale of vaccines[xiv].
Government bodies should never have this sort of relationship with a pharmaceutical company.
There have been numerous examples of vaccine manufacturers, such as Merck, openly funding studies designed to convince the public of the safety of vaccines,[xv] and only recently, pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline was caught bribing Chinese doctors to endorse and distribute their products.[xvi]
A 1997 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that, ‘[o]f the $1.4 billion that fund US vaccine research and development annually, 46% comes from vaccine sales, 36% from taxpayers, ad 18% from risk capital’.
Did you get that? Nearly half the money used to fund vaccine research COMES FROM THE SALE OF VACCINES![xvii]
Do the words ‘conflict of interest’ spring to your mind too, or is it just me being cynical?
There is a long history of conflicts of interests in the pharmaceutical industry[xviii] and there needs to be more transparency before we can start trusting either our governments or the vaccine manufacturers.
The fact that in the US, the vaccine manufacturers have no accountability whatsoever for the consequences of their vaccines and cannot be sued is a perfect example of just how powerful the pharmaceutical companies are!
Vaccinations can cause certain disorders, such as autism and diabetes, or contribute to the risk of sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI), which includes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and fatal sleep accidents.
These theories have been extensively investigated and dismissed. Immunisation reactions are generally mild and resolve by themselves without needing medical treatment. Reactions may include fever and soreness at the injection site. Serious immunisation reactions are exceptionally rare.
This is laughable. These ‘theories’ have been far from dismissed! There is a long list of doctors—highly educated individuals who are above falling gullibly for myths surrounding vaccines—who are concerned about the safety of vaccines.[xix]
The rest of the myth bust can be found at Eureka Wellness here