Unvaccinated children healthier

On Apr 17, 10:48?pm, Mark Probert
wrote:
Chris wrote:
Actually, the normal immune system is not bypassed, rather it is activited,
although more specifically than with a natural infection.

You believe that? You believe that the injection for diseases into the
tissues of a body doesn't completely bypass the "normal" immune
process in relation to normal contraction of the diseases? Emphasis on
the word "normal" here. Are you aware of the difference as to what
reactions/processes are evoked between the two introduction methods
and in what order? I am completely aware of this "activation" process
of which you speak.

Then please educate us as to the differences. Be specific, very
specific, and cite your sources.

I don't play games Mark. You can find and cite many sources if you so
choose. Not only does the body have to fight the virus for which it is
being inocculated against suddenly, it also has to fight against other
vaccine components such as formaldehyde. It can overstress the body
and cause it to overproduce antibodies against various proteins.


the fact that autism
is "a disorder probably caused by organically based central nervous
system dysfunction", the fact that the neurologic systems, immunologic
systems, etc. are rapidly forming during a period of time when an
infant is supposed to receive nothing other than breastmilk,
and the immune system receives thousands of other challenges each day, like
from the bacteria in the gut

Yes, but more importantly, naturally, and that bacteria in the gut is
something that the infant's gut is already working hard at adjusting
to, which doesn't even occur until somewhere around an estimated 6
months of age, so why stress a developing organism even more?

Care to document that?

Again, there is ton's of information out there pertaining to open gut
in infants. Check it out. You can learn a bunch of information on the
biology of the junctures that need to close, etc. One of the
recommendations pertaining to the recommended length of exclusively
breastfeeding infants for six months has at least touched on the
reasearch on the issue. Better yet, some research indicates it can
happen earlier for some infants, and more importantly in reference to
this topic, later. An open gut allows proteins to pass through the
junctures going directly into the blood stream triggering antibody
production is some cases.




the fact
that a body's immune system can be confused at just what it should be
attacking and thereby attack itself bringing on the diagnosis of an
autoimmune disease,
autism is not an autoimmune disease, however. To the best of my knowledge,
there is no evidence to suggest that it is.

I didn't say that autism was an autoimmune disease. You seemed to have
left out the definition of what autism is that I posted in your C&P. I
believe that a developing neurological system can be injured as well.

Mind repeating the definition? I could not find it.

Yes, I do mind repeating the definition. Pick up a dictionary. I used
a medical dictionary to find mine.



warrants research in a direction most involved
prefer to ignore.
What direction is that?

You don't really care, so why ask? I've pointed out many times that
the only true way to ensure that vaccines are not in fact harmful for
some people and that it may require further research into who should
and shouldn't receive one or more vaccines is warranted. Would it
really be so terrible to perform a few expensive tests prior to their
administration? Funding for research in this direction isn't readily
available for obvious reasons.

When facts fail, toss out a conspiracy to supplement logic.

Logic?! HA! That's funny coming from you.


I'm curious Jeff, do you have children?

Why would that make a difference?

It definitely makes a difference.

"Chris" wrote in message
oups.com...

There are
certain organs and processes involved to get to that stage of immunity
when acquired naturally. There are links that indicate more research
should be done on various components of vaccines that can closely
resemble the genetic makeup of certain individuals thereby tricking
the body into attacking itself along with the component it should be
strictly focusing on.

Cite some examples of this research, please.

Maybe you need to start doing your own searches and research versus
being all for the bones the agencies choose to share with you. I have.
I don't feel the need to educate you.

A good starter book with a slew of links to check out on your own that
happens to not be all anti-vaccine nor pro-vaccine is the book my very
own pediatrician told me to read What Your Doctor May NOT tell you
about Children's vaccinations. It offers a lot of the information that
people who feel they deserve to have their right to choose for their
themselves and their children are looking for.

Jeff writes: I have done my research. If the OP wants to make claims, he
should be able to support them.




Emphasis on
the word "normal" here. Are you aware of the difference as to what
reactions/processes are evoked between the two introduction methods
and in what order? I am completely aware of this "activation" process
of which you speak.

Yes.

the fact that autism
is "a disorder probably caused by organically based central
nervous
system dysfunction", the fact that the neurologic systems,
immunologic
systems, etc. are rapidly forming during a period of time when an
infant is supposed to receive nothing other than breastmilk,

and the immune system receives thousands of other challenges each
day,
like
from the bacteria in the gut

Yes, but more importantly, naturally, and that bacteria in the gut is
something that the infant's gut is already working hard at adjusting
to, which doesn't even occur until somewhere around an estimated 6
months of age, so why stress a developing organism even more?

How much are you stressing a baby compared to the way the baby is
already
stress by responding to the organisms that he is already responding to?

You can stress a baby's immune system immensely when the immune system
is low after fighting infection,

Evidence, please.

Puhleeze. You think the CDC recommendations to avoid vaccination
during periods of febrile illness is because their immune system is
NOT compromised? der.

Jeff write: Read what the OP said: "....after fighting infection." Not
during periods of febrile illness.


hence the recommendation to not vax
while the infant is sick, and you can tax it by introducing 4 to 6
foreign substances at one time requiring disease-fighting immunity
resources while the immune system is currently trying to mature
itself, starting small and working its way up.

the fact

� that a body's immune system can be confused at just what it should
be





attacking and thereby attack itself bringing on the diagnosis of
an
autoimmune disease,

autism is not an autoimmune disease, however. To the best of my
knowledge,
there is no evidence to suggest that it is.

I didn't say that autism was an autoimmune disease.

OK. You're right. You said that an autoimmune disease is diganosed.
That's a
huge difference.

Yes, a huge difference and yet still somehow significant when even
autism can be linked to a genetic disposition for an autoimmune
disorder to begin with (with or without vaxes).

Somehow significant? Gee, what a joke.

I don't find it funny at all.

Jeff writes: Not all jokes are funny. Like unsupported suggestions about
life-saving vaccines.




You seemed to have
left out the definition of what autism is that I posted in your C&P.
I
believe that a developing neurological system can be injured as well.

Yet there is very little to no evidence that the neurological system is
injured.

And yet, even still, there is little to no evidence that the
neurological system is NOT injured.

Actually, there is plenty of evidence that autism is not caused by
vaccines.
And the fact that the immune system responds to vaccines outside the
nervous
system as well as there is no mechansism known by which vaccines might
harm
the nervous system, there is no reason to think that autism is caused by
vaccines.

Much is not known yet about recumbinant DNA vaccines, and yet the
biggest concern about them is that they can trick the body into
attacking itself; hence an autoimmune disease down the road.

Jeff writes: Why would this be a particular concern wtih recumbinant
vaccines?

Conjugated vaccines are vaccines where components are joined to
proteins. When vaccines have components like animal proteins, such as
monkey tissues, etc. it is not unreasonable to see the potential
problems that may be linked. Proviruses can develop and remain
inactive in the body for years. It is believed by many that when they
become active, there are instances where a body cannot distinguish
between its own tissues and the foreign invading substances, so it
attacks itself. It has also been said that the animal proteins are
undigested in the body and that the undigested proteins are a major
cause of allergies. Proteins that are undigested can attack the
protective covering on nerve cells and may cause neurological
problems.

Jeff writes: Proviruses contain DNA or RNA, not just protein. Undigested
proteins in the body are unlikely to attack nerve cells. Most nerve cells
are inside the CNS and behind the blood brain barrier. What you are
suggesting is theoretical, at best.


Each person has a unique genetic makeup, and when combined with family
and personal medical histories, and backgrounds (social environment),
it can determine how one will react to a vaccine; therefore, vaccines
are not one-size-fits-all. Not all diseases are the same. Not all
vaccines are even the same.

Jeff writes: You don't need to combine the unique genetic make-up with
family history. Either a particular version of a gene is there or not. Of
course, not all vaccines or diseases are the same. But, how do you recommend
docs determine which vaccine or what doses to give?

Yes, vaccines can harm and kill, and yes, they can also save lives,
but because lives are on the line in either situation, more research
needs to be done to in fact rule out that vaccines are NOT responsible
for most of what is ailing people today. I don't believe in
sacrificing one to save 20.

Jeff writes: Yet, there is very little evidence that vaccines do much harm.
Unfortunately, a very small number of people have bad reactiosn to vaccines.
However, the number is very small. Much smaller than the number of lives
saved. The benefits clearly outweigh the risks. As far as whether or not
vaccines cause most of what is ailing people today: get a clue. There is
absolutely no reason to think that vaccines cause obesity, heart disease,
type II diabetes, cancer, etc. There is no evidence to support this
conjecture.

I have gathered too many links that happen to not be any feasible
order on my backup computer since my crash four months ago, BUT you
can find this information for yourself if you look.

Jeff writes: I have. What you are writing is total nonsense.

Why is it that you are so big on asking for proof/links/etc. versus
searching them out for yourself? I don't ask you for proof or links
because I've searched and learned both sides of the argument. I choose
to not take the word of either side as gospel, nobody should. Again,
my issue is that the decision as to which vaccines I choose to give my
child, if any, should be mine and mine alone, and the medical
community that I pay to work with me in that decision-making process
should be knowledgeable enough as to which vaccines pose more of a
risk to MY child than to the majority of children, and I should be
provided with the necessary information to make that decision
including the whole truth from the pro-vaccine side.

Jeff writes: I have looked into vaccines very carefully. Likewise, I look at
the evidence for each vaccine. And for each vaccine offered to kids, the
evidence that they do more good than harm is very good. Vaccines have cut
down on deaths from chicken pox, measles (wiped out deaths in the US), small
pox, Hib menigitis, hepatits B and other diseases. There is risk with
vaccines, as with any treatment, but the risk is extremely small compared to
the benefit.


You want to be a basher of those who rightly question the substances
being injected into their bodies and children's bodies, then so be it.
I don't bash those who throw caution to the wind and do NOT at least
question it.

Jeff writes: Incorrect. I want to be basher of those who provide false
information that harms people.

Jeff

"Chris" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 17, 10:48?pm, Mark Probert
wrote:
Chris wrote:
Actually, the normal immune system is not bypassed, rather it is
activited,
although more specifically than with a natural infection.

You believe that? You believe that the injection for diseases into the
tissues of a body doesn't completely bypass the "normal" immune
process in relation to normal contraction of the diseases? Emphasis on
the word "normal" here. Are you aware of the difference as to what
reactions/processes are evoked between the two introduction methods
and in what order? I am completely aware of this "activation" process
of which you speak.

Then please educate us as to the differences. Be specific, very
specific, and cite your sources.

I don't play games Mark. You can find and cite many sources if you so
choose. Not only does the body have to fight the virus for which it is
being inocculated against suddenly, it also has to fight against other
vaccine components such as formaldehyde. It can overstress the body
and cause it to overproduce antibodies against various proteins.

This can very rarely happen. When a real virus attacks the body, not only
will the body often have a more intense response, but the virus has a lot
more potential to do harm than the vaccine.

The vaccine is almost always safer than the real virus.

And for many viruses, the vaccine only has the key components against which
the body needs to attack to cause immunity (e.g., only a few proteints
against hepatits B) with minimal risk of infection.

Vaccines are much safer than viruses and save many lives.

the fact that autism
is "a disorder probably caused by organically based central nervous
system dysfunction", the fact that the neurologic systems,
immunologic
systems, etc. are rapidly forming during a period of time when an
infant is supposed to receive nothing other than breastmilk,
and the immune system receives thousands of other challenges each day,
like
from the bacteria in the gut

Yes, but more importantly, naturally, and that bacteria in the gut is
something that the infant's gut is already working hard at adjusting
to, which doesn't even occur until somewhere around an estimated 6
months of age, so why stress a developing organism even more?

Care to document that?

Again, there is ton's of information out there pertaining to open gut
in infants. Check it out. You can learn a bunch of information on the
biology of the junctures that need to close, etc. One of the
recommendations pertaining to the recommended length of exclusively
breastfeeding infants for six months has at least touched on the
reasearch on the issue. Better yet, some research indicates it can
happen earlier for some infants, and more importantly in reference to
this topic, later. An open gut allows proteins to pass through the
junctures going directly into the blood stream triggering antibody
production is some cases.




the fact
that a body's immune system can be confused at just what it should be
attacking and thereby attack itself bringing on the diagnosis of an
autoimmune disease,
autism is not an autoimmune disease, however. To the best of my
knowledge,
there is no evidence to suggest that it is.

I didn't say that autism was an autoimmune disease. You seemed to have
left out the definition of what autism is that I posted in your C&P. I
believe that a developing neurological system can be injured as well.

Mind repeating the definition? I could not find it.

Yes, I do mind repeating the definition. Pick up a dictionary. I used
a medical dictionary to find mine.

There is very little, if any, evidence that autism is an autoimmune disease.

warrants research in a direction most involved
prefer to ignore.
What direction is that?

You don't really care, so why ask? I've pointed out many times that
the only true way to ensure that vaccines are not in fact harmful for
some people and that it may require further research into who should
and shouldn't receive one or more vaccines is warranted. Would it
really be so terrible to perform a few expensive tests prior to their
administration? Funding for research in this direction isn't readily
available for obvious reasons.

When facts fail, toss out a conspiracy to supplement logic.

Logic?! HA! That's funny coming from you.


I'm curious Jeff, do you have children?

Why would that make a difference?

It definitely makes a difference.

Why?

Jeff

Jeff write: Read what the OP said: "....after fighting infection." Not
during periods of febrile illness.

Immune systems aren't back up to par even after the person *appears*
to be healthy and fine again.


Jeff writes: Not all jokes are funny. Like unsupported suggestions about

life-saving vaccines.


Like how your's are equally unsupported other than with the vague,
generalized statements of the professional organizations that list the
very side effects in their literature and yet only accompany it with
"is so rare that it cannot be linked"? @@ I haven't read one single
study pertaining to this very issue that clearly indicates that the
participants were only given one single vaccine to study its
relationship as a causative factor to something anyway.




Conjugated vaccines are vaccines where components are joined to
proteins. *When vaccines have components like animal proteins, such as
monkey tissues, etc. it is not unreasonable to see the potential
problems that may be linked. Proviruses can develop and remain
inactive in the body for years. It is believed by many that when they
become active, there are instances where a body cannot distinguish
between its own tissues and the foreign invading substances, so it
attacks itself. It has also been said that the animal proteins are
undigested in the body and that the undigested proteins are a major
cause of allergies. Proteins that are undigested can attack the
protective covering on nerve cells and may cause neurological
problems.

Jeff writes: Proviruses contain DNA or RNA, not just protein. Undigested
proteins in the body are unlikely to attack nerve cells.

Unlikely or will not? I know they contain DNA or RNA and not just
protein. What happens if your DNA is injected into my body, along with
say formaldehyde?


Most nerve cells are inside the CNS and behind the blood brain barrier. What you are suggesting is theoretical, at best.

Most or All? Polio doesn't attack nerves affect brain function? The
viruses also contain proteins. Theoretical? Is it not also theoretical
about what you are saying?



Each person has a unique genetic makeup, and when combined with family
and personal medical histories, and backgrounds (social environment),
it can determine how one will react to a vaccine; therefore, vaccines
are not one-size-fits-all. Not all diseases are the same. Not all
vaccines are even the same.

Jeff writes: You don't need to combine the unique genetic make-up with

family history. Either a particular version of a gene is there or not. Of
course, not all vaccines or diseases are the same. But, how do you recommend
docs determine which vaccine or what doses to give?

The recommendations can only be made after all of the adequate
research is conducted, which is not the case, which will not be by me.
There are many people with certain genes that mark one as more
susceptible to developing a condition that never actually do and there
are people who don't have the gene that still develop the condition,
so the gene being there or not isn't the only factor to take into
consideration.




Yes, vaccines can harm and kill, and yes, they can also save lives,
but because lives are on the line in either situation, more research
needs to be done to in fact rule out that vaccines are NOT responsible
for most of what is ailing people today. I don't believe in
sacrificing one to save 20.

Jeff writes: Yet, there is very little evidence that vaccines do much harm.

Unfortunately, a very small number of people have bad reactiosn to vaccines.
However, the number is very small. Much smaller than the number of lives
saved. The benefits clearly outweigh the risks.

Again, you have already quite clearly relayed your belief that
sacrificing some to save many others is acceptable to you and that it
requires no further study as to how to eliminate those few being
harmed.


Jeff writes: I have. What you are writing is total nonsense.

Go ahead and prove to all who read here that it is total nonsense.
First of all, you'll need to get past the fixation on autism that you
seem to have since I'm not only speaking of autism. I would really
sincerely appreciate you sharing with me how giving my child the
hepatitis B vaccine will spefically not cause his inherited gene to
trigger the autoimmune disorder that can render him disabled. Please.
I'm serious.



Why is it that you are so big on asking for proof/links/etc. versus
searching them out for yourself? I don't ask you for proof or links
because I've searched and learned both sides of the argument. I choose
to not take the word of either side as gospel, nobody should. Again,
my issue is that the decision as to which vaccines I choose to give my
child, if any, should be mine and mine alone, and the medical
community that I pay to work with me in that decision-making process
should be knowledgeable enough as to which vaccines pose more of a
risk to MY child than to the majority of children, and I should be
provided with the necessary information to make that decision
including the whole truth from the pro-vaccine side.

Jeff writes: I have looked into vaccines very carefully. Likewise, I look at

the evidence for each vaccine. And for each vaccine offered to kids, the
evidence that they do more good than harm is very good. Vaccines have cut
down on deaths from chicken pox, measles (wiped out deaths in the US), small
pox, Hib menigitis, hepatits B and other diseases. There is risk with
vaccines, as with any treatment, but the risk is extremely small compared to
the benefit.

Not for everybody and not for all vaccines.The risk-benefit ratio is
different for everybody.



You want to be a basher of those who rightly question the substances
being injected into their bodies and children's bodies, then so be it.
I don't bash those who throw caution to the wind and do NOT at least
question it.

Jeff writes: *Incorrect. I want to be basher of those who provide false

information that harms people.

And yet you don't consider yourself amongst this group of providing
false information that harms people at all.

On Apr 17, 10:48?pm, Mark Probert
wrote:
Chris wrote:
Actually, the normal immune system is not bypassed, rather it is
activited,
although more specifically than with a natural infection.

You believe that? You believe that the injection for diseases into the
tissues of a body doesn't completely bypass the "normal" immune
process in relation to normal contraction of the diseases? Emphasis on
the word "normal" here. Are you aware of the difference as to what
reactions/processes are evoked between the two introduction methods
and in what order? I am completely aware of this "activation" process
of which you speak.

Then please educate us as to the differences. Be specific, very
specific, and cite your sources.

I don't play games Mark. You can find and cite many sources if you so
choose. Not only does the body have to fight the virus for which it is
being inocculated against suddenly, it also has to fight against other
vaccine components such as formaldehyde. It can overstress the body
and cause it to overproduce antibodies against various proteins.

This can very rarely happen. When a real virus attacks the body, not only
will the body often have a more intense response, but the virus has a lot
more potential to do harm than the vaccine.

The vaccine is almost always safer than the real virus.


You are basically in effect in agreement, although you try to state
that you are not. You use phrases such as "This can rarely happen"
"Unlikely" and "Most" in response to something I've said. I prefer to
not generalize important issues. In reference to the above, you again
choose to say "almost always safer" and "more potential". lol. More
importantly, you choose to ignore the difference between the harm the
actual virus can do and the harm the actual vaccine can do, which
happen to be 2 totally different things.


And for many viruses, the vaccine only has the key components against which
the body needs to attack to cause immunity (e.g., only a few proteints
against hepatits B) with minimal risk of infection.

Vaccines are much safer than viruses and save many lives.


Again, above, "for MANY viruses," and not all. You cite only the
hepatities B vaccine. Care to share how ALL vaccines only contain key
components the body NEEDS to attack?



I'm curious Jeff, do you have children?

Why would that make a difference?

It definitely makes a difference.

Why?

This question I will not even attempt to answer for you. Sorry, but
I'm not going down that road. It does make a difference, and it is a
difference that only those with children can see outright and those
without deny.

Autoimmune disorders can take years to develop. You can't tell the
parents of children who are able to clearly see a connection on their
own that they are wrong because what you have read says it is so. You
can't tell someone that the onset of their spouse's crippling
autoimmune disease nine months after receiving their hepatitis B
vaccine is not related at all, especially when there are what you like
to call "theories" out there begging for further research to find out
for certain. You also cannot tell that person that their sons who may
or may not have the gene that predisposes them to the same disorder
should most definitely receive the hepatitis B vaccine, just as their
doctors are unable to look that person in the eye and say "This
vaccine will not trigger that gene into action." or "Your child will
not develop this condition as a result of receiving this vaccine."
Your intolerance of people demanding higher standards, better
research, and better safety in reference to vaccines is disgusting.
Why not support the quest for more information and demand more? Is it
because it is easier to trust what you are told in the first place?
You also believe that one's immune system is back up to par
immediately following a fever or even a cold? My doctor even tells me
differently. It is common knowledge that after an illness that taxes
an immune system, one is more susceptible and vulnerable to many other
things for periods even up to and probably past 6 months, even simple
and minor colds, and yet the individual can appear completely healthy
and "fine" otherwise. You go ahead and continue to contribute to the
perceived problem - that there are people out there who choose not to
vaccinate entirely - versus making a difference in addressing the real
issue - trying to disprove these so-called theories to alleviate their
justifiable fears. There is a reason the old saying "Believe all of
what you see and only half of what you hear." If my neighbor is
terrified that her child is now at an increased risk for developing an
autoimmune disorder after being vaccinated because her other child
developed one, then she deserves to see the proof that it was most
definitely not caused by it and she deserves to be left alone in
reference to repeating the same with her next child if it that
information is otherwise not available. I suppose you would take no
issue to being what I believe is a victim of the experimental blood
product trials for PolyHeme. It was an unpublicized study where
citizens weren't even notified that the only way to opt out of being a
potential guinea pig was to wear a bracelet specifically stating they
wanted no part of it, where the recipients were not notified they were
a part of the experiment and also not told that they must actually
request real blood after arrival at the hospital or they would
continue to receive the experimental product, where they drew cards
out of an envelope in the ambulance to figure out who got it and who
didn't - but heck, you'd rather be alive than bleed to death right?
Because everything is just that simple for you. It wouldn't bother
you at all that in say 3 years you now had a debilitating/crippling
condition that nobody could pinpoint to your receipt of the product
who just instead said "There is currently no causative link to say
this condition has developed in relation to receiving PolyHeme." or
"PolyHeme saves lives." or "There is no reason to believe that
introduction of the foreign and unnatural substance of PolyHeme into a
body triggers any autoimmune responses."? Worse yet, that the people
who gave you that product were not going to be held financially
responsible because the causative link cannot be proved adequately
enough or because they would lose their liability insurance? @@
Whatever. Natural immunity does not require as fast of a reaction time
than an injection does, and since an injection can consist of more
than one component that requires a reaction from the body, it can
overreact or overcompensate. Plug away, but please, again, and
seriously, prove it and make a positive contribution to the issue at
hand.

On Apr 30, 3:06 pm
hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hepatitis b vaccine is a vaccine that when given to 1 day old infants
has very little benefit for them .The original advice was to give the
vaccine to those groups at risk: prostitutes ;drug addicts who share
needles, medical professionals [inadvertant stick.]Why than give it to
infants. Simple those at risk would not take it. The only group of
infants that benefit from this vaccine are those who have infected
mothers . For most other infants they are far more likely to have an
adverse reaction to the vaccine than to recieve any benefit from it.
The vaccine has been linked to MS (Neurology, 2004; 63: 838-42).
From that article "Conclusions: These findings are consistent with
the hypothesis that immunization with the recombinant hepatitis B
vaccine is associated with an increased risk of MS" . Also the
protective effect of this vaccine may wane with time. So by the time
these infants those who choise high risk lifestyles need it it may not
offer protection Vince

"Jeff" wrote in message
news:I7eZh.584$IJ3.419@trnddc07...

"Chris" wrote in message
oups.com...

There are
certain organs and processes involved to get to that stage of immunity
when acquired naturally. There are links that indicate more research
should be done on various components of vaccines that can closely
resemble the genetic makeup of certain individuals thereby tricking
the body into attacking itself along with the component it should be
strictly focusing on.

Cite some examples of this research, please.

Maybe you need to start doing your own searches and research versus
being all for the bones the agencies choose to share with you. I have.
I don't feel the need to educate you.

A good starter book with a slew of links to check out on your own that
happens to not be all anti-vaccine nor pro-vaccine is the book my very
own pediatrician told me to read What Your Doctor May NOT tell you
about Children's vaccinations. It offers a lot of the information that
people who feel they deserve to have their right to choose for their
themselves and their children are looking for.

Jeff writes: I have done my research. If the OP wants to make claims, he
should be able to support them.




Emphasis on
the word "normal" here. Are you aware of the difference as to what
reactions/processes are evoked between the two introduction methods
and in what order? I am completely aware of this "activation"
process
of which you speak.

Yes.

the fact that autism
is "a disorder probably caused by organically based central
nervous
system dysfunction", the fact that the neurologic systems,
immunologic
systems, etc. are rapidly forming during a period of time when an
infant is supposed to receive nothing other than breastmilk,

and the immune system receives thousands of other challenges each
day,
like
from the bacteria in the gut

Yes, but more importantly, naturally, and that bacteria in the gut
is
something that the infant's gut is already working hard at adjusting
to, which doesn't even occur until somewhere around an estimated 6
months of age, so why stress a developing organism even more?

How much are you stressing a baby compared to the way the baby is
already
stress by responding to the organisms that he is already responding
to?

You can stress a baby's immune system immensely when the immune system
is low after fighting infection,

Evidence, please.

Puhleeze. You think the CDC recommendations to avoid vaccination
during periods of febrile illness is because their immune system is
NOT compromised? der.

Jeff write: Read what the OP said: "....after fighting infection." Not
during periods of febrile illness.


hence the recommendation to not vax
while the infant is sick, and you can tax it by introducing 4 to 6
foreign substances at one time requiring disease-fighting immunity
resources while the immune system is currently trying to mature
itself, starting small and working its way up.

the fact

? that a body's immune system can be confused at just what it should
be





attacking and thereby attack itself bringing on the diagnosis of
an
autoimmune disease,

autism is not an autoimmune disease, however. To the best of my
knowledge,
there is no evidence to suggest that it is.

I didn't say that autism was an autoimmune disease.

OK. You're right. You said that an autoimmune disease is diganosed.
That's a
huge difference.

Yes, a huge difference and yet still somehow significant when even
autism can be linked to a genetic disposition for an autoimmune
disorder to begin with (with or without vaxes).

Somehow significant? Gee, what a joke.

I don't find it funny at all.

Jeff writes: Not all jokes are funny. Like unsupported suggestions about
life-saving vaccines.




You seemed to have
left out the definition of what autism is that I posted in your C&P.
I
believe that a developing neurological system can be injured as
well.

Yet there is very little to no evidence that the neurological system
is
injured.

And yet, even still, there is little to no evidence that the
neurological system is NOT injured.

Actually, there is plenty of evidence that autism is not caused by
vaccines.
And the fact that the immune system responds to vaccines outside the
nervous
system as well as there is no mechansism known by which vaccines might
harm
the nervous system, there is no reason to think that autism is caused by
vaccines.

Much is not known yet about recumbinant DNA vaccines, and yet the
biggest concern about them is that they can trick the body into
attacking itself; hence an autoimmune disease down the road.

Jeff writes: Why would this be a particular concern wtih recumbinant
vaccines?

Conjugated vaccines are vaccines where components are joined to
proteins. When vaccines have components like animal proteins, such as
monkey tissues, etc. it is not unreasonable to see the potential
problems that may be linked. Proviruses can develop and remain
inactive in the body for years. It is believed by many that when they
become active, there are instances where a body cannot distinguish
between its own tissues and the foreign invading substances, so it
attacks itself. It has also been said that the animal proteins are
undigested in the body and that the undigested proteins are a major
cause of allergies. Proteins that are undigested can attack the
protective covering on nerve cells and may cause neurological
problems.

Jeff writes: Proviruses contain DNA or RNA, not just protein. Undigested
proteins in the body are unlikely to attack nerve cells. Most nerve cells
are inside the CNS and behind the blood brain barrier. What you are
suggesting is theoretical, at best.


Each person has a unique genetic makeup, and when combined with family
and personal medical histories, and backgrounds (social environment),
it can determine how one will react to a vaccine; therefore, vaccines
are not one-size-fits-all. Not all diseases are the same. Not all
vaccines are even the same.

Jeff writes: You don't need to combine the unique genetic make-up with
family history. Either a particular version of a gene is there or not. Of
course, not all vaccines or diseases are the same. But, how do you
recommend docs determine which vaccine or what doses to give?

Yes, vaccines can harm and kill, and yes, they can also save lives,
but because lives are on the line in either situation, more research
needs to be done to in fact rule out that vaccines are NOT responsible
for most of what is ailing people today. I don't believe in
sacrificing one to save 20.

Jeff writes: Yet, there is very little evidence that vaccines do much
harm. Unfortunately, a very small number of people have bad reactiosn to
vaccines. However, the number is very small. Much smaller than the number
of lives saved. The benefits clearly outweigh the risks. As far as whether
or not vaccines cause most of what is ailing people today: get a clue.
There is absolutely no reason to think that vaccines cause obesity, heart
disease, type II diabetes, cancer, etc. There is no evidence to support
this conjecture.

I have gathered too many links that happen to not be any feasible
order on my backup computer since my crash four months ago, BUT you
can find this information for yourself if you look.

Jeff writes: I have. What you are writing is total nonsense.

Why is it that you are so big on asking for proof/links/etc. versus
searching them out for yourself? I don't ask you for proof or links
because I've searched and learned both sides of the argument. I choose
to not take the word of either side as gospel, nobody should. Again,
my issue is that the decision as to which vaccines I choose to give my
child, if any, should be mine and mine alone, and the medical
community that I pay to work with me in that decision-making process
should be knowledgeable enough as to which vaccines pose more of a
risk to MY child than to the majority of children, and I should be
provided with the necessary information to make that decision
including the whole truth from the pro-vaccine side.

Jeff writes: I have looked into vaccines very carefully. Likewise, I look
at the evidence for each vaccine. And for each vaccine offered to kids,
the evidence that they do more good than harm is very good. Vaccines have
cut down on deaths from chicken pox, measles (wiped out deaths in the US),
small pox, Hib menigitis, hepatits B and other diseases. There is risk
with vaccines, as with any treatment, but the risk is extremely small
compared to the benefit.


You want to be a basher of those who rightly question the substances
being injected into their bodies and children's bodies, then so be it.
I don't bash those who throw caution to the wind and do NOT at least
question it.

Jeff writes: Incorrect. I want to be basher of those who provide false
information that harms people.

Jeff
Jeff writes: Yet, there is very little evidence that vaccines do much
harm. Unfortunately, a very small number of people have bad reactiosn to
vaccines. However, the number is very small.

ftp://ftp.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensati...n_20060411.pdf

Page 28, last line.

"bigvince" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 30, 3:06 pm
hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hepatitis b vaccine is a vaccine that when given to 1 day old infants
has very little benefit for them .The original advice was to give the
vaccine to those groups at risk: prostitutes ;drug addicts who share
needles, medical professionals [inadvertant stick.]

Yeah, I know. I got the original heptavax vaccine, made with hepatitis B
antigen from people infected with the virus, before the combinant vaccine
was made.

Why than give it to
infants. Simple those at risk would not take it. The only group of
infants that benefit from this vaccine are those who have infected
mothers .

And it is not alway possible to tell who those are while the vaccine would
do the most good.

For most other infants they are far more likely to have an
adverse reaction to the vaccine than to recieve any benefit from it.
The vaccine has been linked to MS (Neurology, 2004; 63: 838-42).
From that article "Conclusions: These findings are consistent with
the hypothesis that immunization with the recombinant hepatitis B
vaccine is associated with an increased risk of MS" . Also the
protective effect of this vaccine may wane with time. So by the time
these infants those who choise high risk lifestyles need it it may not
offer protection Vince

In which case they can get vaccinated again.

This is one study. Certainly, there were more studies of the issue. Did they
show a possible link?

Jeff

On May 1, 12:06 am, "Jeff" wrote:
"bigvince" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Apr 30, 3:06 pm
hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hepatitis b vaccine is a vaccine that when given to 1 day old infants
has very little benefit for them .The original advice was to give the
vaccine to those groups at risk: prostitutes ;drug addicts who share
needles, medical professionals [inadvertant stick.]

Yeah, I know. I got the original heptavax vaccine, made with hepatitis B
antigen from people infected with the virus, before the combinant vaccine
was made.

Why than give it to
infants. Simple those at risk would not take it. The only group of
infants that benefit from this vaccine are those who have infected
mothers .

And it is not alway possible to tell who those are while the vaccine would
do the most good.

For most other infants they are far more likely to have an
adverse reaction to the vaccine than to recieve any benefit from it.
The vaccine has been linked to MS (Neurology, 2004; 63: 838-42).
From that article "Conclusions: These findings are consistent with
the hypothesis that immunization with the recombinant hepatitis B
vaccine is associated with an increased risk of MS" . Also the
protective effect of this vaccine may wane with time. So by the time
these infants those who choise high risk lifestyles need it it may not
offer protection Vince

In which case they can get vaccinated again.

This is one study. Certainly, there were more studies of the issue. Did they
show a possible link?

Jeff

The give this vaccine to infants that have none infected mothers is
not beneficial to those infants and in actuality those infants stand
a far greater chance of being damanged by this vaccine than by the
virus it protects against. Adverse reaction serious and sometimes
fatal can occur to take that risk and treat helpless infants who have
no risk factors as living test tubes Why because the drug addicts and
prostitutes won't take it is poor and damaging science, Certainly for
medical professionals and those that choise risky lifestyles it should
be and option. Resently The FDA put rules in effect prohibiting
blatant conflicts of interest on thier advisory boards. Perhaps its
time for the CDC to stop using Doctors with blatant conflicts of
interest from thier advisory chain. This economic influence cannot be
overestimated. Resently the COURAGE study investigating the benefit of
stenting in Heart diesease. The study concluded that stents offered no
real benefit in most cases ;before the paper was published it was
being attacked by MDs in the employ of stent makers .Every vaccine has
risk to allow those with that conflict to make these decisions is a
practice that needs to stop. Vince

"bigvince" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 1, 12:06 am, "Jeff" wrote:
"bigvince" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Apr 30, 3:06 pm
hand.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hepatitis b vaccine is a vaccine that when given to 1 day old infants
has very little benefit for them .The original advice was to give the
vaccine to those groups at risk: prostitutes ;drug addicts who share
needles, medical professionals [inadvertant stick.]

Yeah, I know. I got the original heptavax vaccine, made with hepatitis B
antigen from people infected with the virus, before the combinant vaccine
was made.

Why than give it to
infants. Simple those at risk would not take it. The only group of
infants that benefit from this vaccine are those who have infected
mothers .

And it is not alway possible to tell who those are while the vaccine
would
do the most good.

For most other infants they are far more likely to have an
adverse reaction to the vaccine than to recieve any benefit from it.
The vaccine has been linked to MS (Neurology, 2004; 63: 838-42).
From that article "Conclusions: These findings are consistent with
the hypothesis that immunization with the recombinant hepatitis B
vaccine is associated with an increased risk of MS" . Also the
protective effect of this vaccine may wane with time. So by the time
these infants those who choise high risk lifestyles need it it may not
offer protection Vince

In which case they can get vaccinated again.

This is one study. Certainly, there were more studies of the issue. Did
they
show a possible link?

Jeff

The give this vaccine to infants that have none infected mothers is
not beneficial to those infants and in actuality those infants stand
a far greater chance of being damanged by this vaccine than by the
virus it protects against.

Evidence please.

Adverse reaction serious and sometimes
fatal can occur to take that risk and treat helpless infants who have
no risk factors as living test tubes

Evidence please.

Why because the drug addicts and
prostitutes won't take it is poor and damaging science, Certainly for
medical professionals and those that choise risky lifestyles it should
be and option.

And this is the kids fault? I have to admit, without using proper English, I
am not sure what you mean.

Resently The FDA put rules in effect prohibiting
blatant conflicts of interest on thier advisory boards.

Excellent. It's about time.

Perhaps its
time for the CDC to stop using Doctors with blatant conflicts of
interest from thier advisory chain.

Absolutely.

This economic influence cannot be
overestimated.

Actually, it can be.

Resently the COURAGE study investigating the benefit of
stenting in Heart diesease. The study concluded that stents offered no
real benefit in most cases ;before the paper was published it was
being attacked by MDs in the employ of stent makers .Every vaccine has
risk to allow those with that conflict to make these decisions is a
practice that needs to stop. Vince

Oh, I agree. Yet, there is no evidence that anyone ever changed votes about
vaccines because of conflicts of interest. However, I do totally agree that
anyone with a conflict of interest should not be vote on the committees.

Jeff