A Fully Informed Choice… Part 1

This write up was submitted to me by a mother who wishes to remain anonymous. This will be spread out over a series of posts because this mama did her homework and let me tell you, there is A LOT of information that she has shared with us!!! Please find the time to read through the series. I will post a new series every day.

As to not overwhelm you, take breaks.

Grab a cup of tea.

Part 1:

There are many reasons why we have ultimately chosen not to vaccinate our children. Initially we had every intention of vaccinating our kids, this despite the fact that I have been told that the final dose of Gardasil will be potentially fatal. (I had two of the three scheduled injections, with anaphylactic reactions). We decided to limit side effects by splitting the vaccinations, but had every intention of going ahead – we actually didn’t know there was an option! When we found out that we did not have to vaccinate, we thought anyone who didn’t must be crazy. After all, why would you refuse such wonderful medical advances that protect your children, leaving them at risk of preventable childhood diseases?? That to us seemed almost negligent as a parent. Then we became informed, and what we have learnt deeply saddens us. We have researched for several years, and as such have a lot of medical literature which shows clearly the dangers of – and often times ineffectiveness of – vaccinating with the current childhood schedule.

* (Had I been able to access the scholarly articles written regarding the Gardasil vaccine prior to my injections, I would have declined the series. While the shots have not been proven effective against cervical cancer, for some females the injections have been shown to almost double the risk of cervical cancer. Most women will have contracted, and cleared, the HPV virus by their 30’s. This poses no risk of cervical cancer. I highly recommend parents read through the literature on the Gardasil vaccine and HPV itself before accepting this vaccine series for their sons and/or daughters. I would also suggest parents read the literature regarding the Hepatitis B vaccination given at birth, which shows no increase in antibody response when compared with the first injection given at 2 months of age. This additional injection does, however, result in statistically increased risk to the infant, both short term and long term).

There is no doubt that vaccination can cause terrible, irreversible harm, even death. These effects are well established, and are the reason we have vaccine courts and vaccine damage funds available to affected families. These complications are not disputed, and can easily be found in any reputable source. (A good way to start researching vaccination is by looking into scholarly articles [peer reviewed preferably] in medical journals e.g. Journal of Immunology, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of American Medical Association, the Lancet, Medical Journal of Australia etc. There is an abundance of worthwhile sources accessible by the public, both with free access and with paid access). I personally believe that while these kind of terrible direct results are unfortunate, they are not the typical reaction to vaccination. So the small risk of our children being affected like this did not overly concern us, we believed (and still do) that it would be an unlikely result. The problem here lays with the children who need protection the most. When babies and children have weakened immune systems, they are at far greater risk for complications from disease, which can lead to long term detrimental health outcomes or death. These very patients are also the ones at the greatest risk of not only having vaccine side effects, but those effects which are most severe (also including long term detrimental health outcomes and death). What is becoming increasingly evident in medical circles is that vaccines also cause a change in immune response. New research is showing that vaccination sways the immune response, a result especially notable in those whose immune balance is already disrupted.

This skewing of the immune system can result in allergic and autoimmune conditions and this is what studies are finding is occurring in the population at alarmingly high and increasing rates. Vaccinations are known to cause the exacerbation of existing conditions. They are also known to stimulate dormant conditions. The complications of vaccination are difficult to determine, as many apparent reactions may simply be coincidence, and alternately many seemingly unrelated incidences may well be vaccine reactions. (Studies show that severe adverse reactions to vaccination can occur up to 8yrs post injection, potentially longer). The passive system of reporting vaccine reactions has been shown to cause under-reporting of adverse reactions, and therefore a lack of thorough investigation into these adverse events. What we do know is that contracting disease naturally provides not only longer lasting immunity (often lifelong compared with <2-10 years, depending on the vaccine) but also lessens the risk of serious illness. (For example, contracting pertussis [whooping cough] is a protective factor against developing asthma, whereas the vaccination increases the risk). We know that there are diseases which are far safer to contract in childhood (such as measles, which provides great protection from conditions such as asthma and allergy; and chickenpox, which provides great protection against eczema, especially the most severe forms of eczema. These diseases have increased risks of complications when contracted in adolescence or adulthood).

There are complications that occur in vaccinated populations alone (for example, atypical measles) and a disturbing increase in medical literature of unintended vaccine results, such as finding vaccine adjuvants and abnormal antibody levels in parts of the body they are not designed to affect. These findings are linked with conditions such as neurological dysfunction, autoimmune conditions, and central nervous system problems. There are issues with the approval process for vaccinations. Most vaccines have very short trial lengths which is insufficient to clearly establish the long term detrimental effects of the toxic vaccine ingredients. The way trials are conducted to ascertain vaccine side effects is also questionable, as the control groups are not true controls but rather they are injected with adjuvants. Injecting the control groups in trials with known neurotoxins cannot give an accurate result of the reaction to vaccination, as reactions to adjuvants occur frequently. In fact, in order to mimic brain damage, some vaccine adjuvants are used to deliberately cause neurological damage during animal studies. There are countless examples in medical literature of the damage caused by vaccination, and it is openly noted that the risk to patients is weighed up against the cost. In other words, there are safer and more effective alternatives available, which are not used due to the additional costs.

Financial burden also influences vaccine policy, such as when a new schedule is introduced. There have been several changes to the vaccination schedule with no ‘catch up’ program implemented. If it was absolutely vital that the age of first vaccination be lowered, and that additional doses of the vaccine are administered, then certainly there would be a policy in place to ensure that those populations who missed the additional vaccines are offered them. Yet new vaccination schedules are encouraged as though they are vital, with no attempts made to provide vaccination to those being missed. It is also interesting to note that when a safer vaccine was introduced for the at risk populations here in Australia (Aboriginal, premature infants etc.) it was implemented immediately that the new vaccine only was to be purchased for future use – yet the new vaccine was withheld from being given to patients until there was no longer enough of the old vaccine to give the full course. So if only one shot of the course could be given with the old vaccine, then the new one was to be given from the start. But if an extra full course could be used with the old vaccine, knowing that there was a safer alternative available, then the old vaccine was to be given regardless. Examples of questionable vaccine policy are common and they highlight the lack of testing (in particular with repeated vaccination recalls) and lack of effective vaccine trials, where approved vaccines are later shown to have disastrous effects on health which were not discovered at the trial stage. Contamination is another problem with vaccination. In addition to the toxic chemicals and antibiotics found in vaccines (antibiotics have a negative impact on immune function) contaminants are impossible to remove. Sometimes these contaminants are minor, other times they cause major problems. Increasing knowledge of the contamination in vaccinations is revealing that along with contamination of foreign bodies from handling issues, there are great numbers of unknown viruses from the animal products used in vaccine production. We are only just beginning to learn of the diseases and cross contamination that the animals used in vaccine production carry, and we know less about the potential effects of injecting these viruses. We do know that some types have been established to cause harm in humans, and there are as yet many unidentified types. In addition to this issue, there is surfacing information in medical studies which shows a correlation between childhood conditions (e.g. anaphylactic reactions, diabetes, allergic conditions, increased infection rates etc.) and exposure to vaccinations. It is little wonder that the information provided to health care professionals is different to that given to parents and patients.

A parent has every legal right to request the vaccine information package, but most parents are unaware it exists to ask for it. The complete list of ingredients and side effects is far more extensive than parents are led to believe with the version they are given. This cannot be true informed consent when a parent does not know they are lacking this important information.

When the decision of whether or not to vaccinate is being made, many people are aware of the notion that clean living and access to proper medical care, food and water has been used to explain the decline in diseases. What is not common knowledge is the abundance of evidence which both seemingly supports, and seemingly contradicts, the role of vaccination. At first glance, we can see clearly that the rate of childhood diseases have declined since the introduction of vaccination. What we are not shown is that there was a drop in death rate well over 90% from childhood diseases before the introduction of mass vaccination (these statistics are readily available for public access). We are not told that the same level of disease decline was experienced in areas where vaccinations were either not implemented at all, or not implemented in mass. We are certainly not openly shown the areas where morbidity and mortality rates actually increased after mass vaccination. There is ample documentation showing that vaccination can significantly increase both the risk of contracting disease, and the complications and death rate associated with the disease. This is also accessible by the public.


2 Responses to A Fully Informed Choice… Part 1

  1. Pingback: A Fully Informed Choice… Part 2 | The Lactation Learning Station

  2. Pingback: A Fully Informed Choice… Part 3 | The Lactation Learning Station

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: