Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System?

PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 1 January 2002, pp. 124-129

"Do Vaccines Increase the Risk of Other Infections?

Vaccines may cause temporary suppression of delayed-type
hypersensitivity skin reactions or alter certain lymphocyte function
tests in vitro.51–57 However, the short-lived immunosuppression caused
by certain vaccines does not result in an increased risk of infections
with other pathogens soon after vaccination. Vaccinated children are not
at greater risk of subsequent infections with other pathogens than
unvaccinated children.58–60 On the contrary, in Germany, a study of 496
vaccinated and unvaccinated children found that children who received
immunizations against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, Hib, and polio
within the first 3 months of life had fewer infections with
vaccine-related and -unrelated pathogens than the nonvaccinated group.61

Bacterial and viral infections, on the other hand, often predispose
children and adults to severe, invasive infections with other pathogens.
For example, patients with pneumococcal pneumonia are more likely to
have had a recent influenza infection than matched controls. Similarly,
varicella infection increases susceptibility to group A ß-hemolytic
streptococcal infections such as necrotizing fasciitis, toxic shock
syndrome, and bacteremia.63"


SUMMARY

"Current studies do not support the hypothesis that multiple vaccines
overwhelm, weaken, or "use up" the immune system. On the contrary, young
infants have an enormous capacity to respond to multiple vaccines, as
well as to the many other challenges present in the environment. By
providing protection against a number of bacterial and viral pathogens,
vaccines prevent the "weakening" of the immune system and consequent
secondary bacterial infections occasionally caused by natural infection."

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

snip

*organized medicine*

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:20:26 GMT, "LadyLollipop"
wrote:



"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

snip

*organized medicine*



Con Med / quackwatch.com / propagandistProbert etc. etc. draw
premature and industry science driven conclusions on ongoing medical
controversies ...

and then make cutesy remarks like Dave "OracDOESN"TKNOW" Gorski who
claimed he'd have 'egg on his face' ... "Orac's" face that is ...if
they were dead wrong and injecting the neurotoxic mercury into babies
bodies has caused little or no harm whatsoever.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...stprobert.html

Probert is at the low rung of the Pharma/Ratbags propaganda team ...
just repeating the Vac Industry Science propaganda ...

LadyLollipop wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

snip

*organized medicine*

No argument then?

"LadyLollipop" wrote in message
news:_PMLe.250130$x96.51057@attbi_s72...


"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

snip

*organized medicine*

No, this is called science. A hypothesis is presented and facts used to
back it up.

Calling everything you disagree with organized medicine does help your
argument.

Jeff

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:20:26 GMT, "LadyLollipop"
wrote:



"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

snip

*organized medicine*



Con Med / quackwatch.com / propagandistProbert etc. etc. draw
premature and industry science driven conclusions on ongoing medical
controversies ...

Actually, it is called evidence-based medicine.

rest of garbage deleted

LadyLollipop wrote:
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

snip

*organized medicine*

*Real Science*

A 2002 report is confirmed by a 2005 report.

PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 1 January 2002, pp. 124-129

"Do Vaccines Increase the Risk of Other Infections?

Vaccines may cause temporary suppression of delayed-type
hypersensitivity skin reactions or alter certain lymphocyte function
tests in vitro.51–57 However, the short-lived immunosuppression caused
by certain vaccines does not result in an increased risk of infections
with other pathogens soon after vaccination. Vaccinated children are not
at greater risk of subsequent infections with other pathogens than
unvaccinated children.58–60 On the contrary, in Germany, a study of 496
vaccinated and unvaccinated children found that children who received
immunizations against diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, Hib, and polio
within the first 3 months of life had fewer infections with
vaccine-related and -unrelated pathogens than the nonvaccinated group.61

Bacterial and viral infections, on the other hand, often predispose
children and adults to severe, invasive infections with other pathogens.
For example, patients with pneumococcal pneumonia are more likely to
have had a recent influenza infection than matched controls. Similarly,
varicella infection increases susceptibility to group A ß-hemolytic
streptococcal infections such as necrotizing fasciitis, toxic shock
syndrome, and bacteremia.63"


SUMMARY

"Current studies do not support the hypothesis that multiple vaccines
overwhelm, weaken, or "use up" the immune system. On the contrary, young
infants have an enormous capacity to respond to multiple vaccines, as
well as to the many other challenges present in the environment. By
providing protection against a number of bacterial and viral pathogens,
vaccines prevent the "weakening" of the immune system and consequent
secondary bacterial infections occasionally caused by natural infection."

Jeff wrote:
"LadyLollipop" wrote in message
news:_PMLe.250130$x96.51057@attbi_s72...


"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

snip

*organized medicine*


No, this is called science. A hypothesis is presented and facts used to
back it up.

Calling everything you disagree with organized medicine does help your
argument.

She has no argument, just a kneeJERK reaction to anything that refutes
what she believes.

"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...

"LadyLollipop" wrote in message
news:_PMLe.250130$x96.51057@attbi_s72...


"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

snip

*organized medicine*

No, this is called science.

By:

*organized medicine*



A hypothesis

an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument;


is presented and facts used to
back it up.

LOL!!

Calling everything you disagree with organized medicine does help your
argument.

Jeff

A hypothesis

an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument

Makes you look like a fool.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Jeff wrote:
"LadyLollipop" wrote in message
news:_PMLe.250130$x96.51057@attbi_s72...


"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...

snip

*organized medicine*


No, this is called science. A hypothesis is presented and facts used to
back it up.

Calling everything you disagree with organized medicine does help your
argument.

She has no argument, just a kneeJERK reaction to anything that refutes
what she believes.

A hypothesis is presented and facts used to
back it up.

hypothesis

an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument

*;*