Posts
How insane can insanity get? Apparently there are no limits to the collective "scientific" insanity of vaccine advocates. This kind of mass hysteria, a kind of mystical religious fanaticism of a high priesthood of white jacketed lunatic "researchers", has now reached the point where the last shred of common sense has been obliterated. These people are now recommending with a straight face the abandonment of breast feeding in third world countries so that their worthless vaccines will work better! The depths of such madness are unfathomable! Adding malnutrition to vaccine toxicities is an act of criminal insanity and a genocidal crime against humanity!
Over the course of the past few years we have been gathering studies from the US National Library of Medicine on the adverse unintended consequences of vaccination. Along the way we discovered a study published in the Journal of Pediatric Infections & Diseases in 2010 which, after posting it to our Facebook group, became the most viral article we have ever shared at 4,518 times thus far:
Vaccination proponents have suggested that breastfeeding should be delayed in order to prevent immune factors within breast milk from inactivating vaccine-associated antibody titer elevations and vaccine potency. - GreenMedInfo Summary
What about this study caused the flurry of interest? Could it be the obviously disturbing implications of suggesting women in the underdeveloped world temporarily stop breast feeding (often the only source of infant nutrition) in order to increase the vaccine's purported "efficacy"? Are we to assume that these breast milk deprived infants should consume formula* in the interim? And to what end? So that the vaccine can generate a temporary spike in antibody production, which is no measure of real world effectiveness?
*Infant formula has been linked to 48 adverse effects, including increased mortality.
.jpg)
First, it must be made clear that the term "efficacy" when used in the context of a vaccine's antibody elevating effects does not equate to effectiveness, i.e. whether a vaccine actually works in real life to protect against the intended infection.
It is this semantic trick (conflating and confusing "efficacy" with "effectiveness") which convinces most of the "developed" world that vaccine research is "evidence-based" and focused on creating enhanced immunity, when in fact it is simply a highly successful business enterprise founded on defrauding its "customers" of both their money and health. The dangers of common vaccines are so well known by the "experts" and the manufacturers who produce them that their risk (like nuclear power) is underwritten by world governments. The importance of this fact can not be understated.
.jpg)
Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response, not unlike kicking a bee hive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater the "efficacy" (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity these antibodies will have for the antigen of concern, can not be guaranteed; nor must the vaccine reseachers prove antibody-antigen affinity to receive FDA approval.
Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating "false flag" responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A, so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection - and at the price of distracting away from real threats and exhausting the entire immune apparatus.
What's worse, the vaccine response can "blow back" causing loss of self-tolerance and, via the resultant Th2 dominant immune system, the body can attack itself (autoimmunity). In the meantime, the first line of defense against infection (Th1) is compromised and the "front door" can be left wide open to unmet infecitious challenges.
It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity insofar as effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not. One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the developing infant by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.
In the same way that secretory IgA from breast milk deactivates a broad range of "natural" antigenic challenges for the infant, this indispensable immune factor also deactivates the inherently disruptive and immunotoxic antibody-generating vaccine antigens and adjuvants. Rather than view this as the "enemy," the reduction in antibodies that accomodates a well nourished breastfed infant's bloodwork after the highly invasive and unnatural introduction of a vaccine is a sign of health, not disease.
Infant Formula: Risk Factor for 48 Diseases
Breast Feeding: Risk Reduction for 59 Diseases
Vaccination Research
Article: Infant Formula For Disaster
Post date:
Sunday, July 10, 2011 - 10:10Vaccination proponents have suggested that breastfeeding should be delayed in order to prevent immune factors within breast milk from inactivating vaccine-associated antibody titer elevations and vaccine potency. - GreenMedInfo Summary
Abstract Title:
Inhibitory effect of breast milk on infectivity of live oral rotavirus vaccines.
Abstract Source:
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 Oct;29(10):919-923. GreenMedInfo.com
Article Affiliation:
From the *National Centers for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA;†Division of Pediatric Infectious Disease, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; ‡The National Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Hanoi, Vietnam; §Department of Pediatrics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, India; ¶Department of Pediatrics, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI; ∥Department of Microbiology, College of Medicine,
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:: Live oral rotavirus vaccines have been less immunogenic and efficacious among children in poor developing countries compared with middle income and industrialized countries for reasons that are not yet completely understood. We assessed whether the neutralizing activity of breast milk could lower the titer of vaccine virus and explain this difference in vitro.
METHODS: Breast milk samples were collected from mothers who were breast-feeding infants 4 to 29 weeks of age (ie, vaccine eligible age) in India (N = 40), Vietnam (N = 77), South Korea (N = 34), and the United States (N = 51). We examined breast milk for rotavirus-specific IgA and neutralizing activity against 3 rotavirus vaccine strains-RV1, RV5 G1, and 116E using enzyme immunoassays. The inhibitory effect of breast milk on RV1 was further examined by a plaque reduction assay.
FINDINGS: Breast milk from Indian women had the highest IgA and neutralizing titers against all 3 vaccine strains, while lower but comparable median IgA and neutralizing titers were detected in breast milk from Korean and Vietnamese women, and the lowest titers were seen in American women. Neutralizing activity was greatest against the 2 vaccine strains of human origin, RV1 and 116E. This neutralizing activity in one half of the breast milk specimens from Indian women could reduce the effective titer of RV1 by∼2 logs, of 116E by 1.5 logs, and RV5 G1 strain by ∼1 log more than that of breast milk from American women.
INTERPRETATION: The lower immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries could be explained, in part, by higher titers of IgA and neutralizing activity inbreast milk consumed by their infants at the time of immunization that could effectively reduce the potency of the vaccine. Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated.
.jpg)
METHODS: Breast milk samples were collected from mothers who were breast-feeding infants 4 to 29 weeks of age (ie, vaccine eligible age) in India (N = 40), Vietnam (N = 77), South Korea (N = 34), and the United States (N = 51). We examined breast milk for rotavirus-specific IgA and neutralizing activity against 3 rotavirus vaccine strains-RV1, RV5 G1, and 116E using enzyme immunoassays. The inhibitory effect of breast milk on RV1 was further examined by a plaque reduction assay.
FINDINGS: Breast milk from Indian women had the highest IgA and neutralizing titers against all 3 vaccine strains, while lower but comparable median IgA and neutralizing titers were detected in breast milk from Korean and Vietnamese women, and the lowest titers were seen in American women. Neutralizing activity was greatest against the 2 vaccine strains of human origin, RV1 and 116E. This neutralizing activity in one half of the breast milk specimens from Indian women could reduce the effective titer of RV1 by∼2 logs, of 116E by 1.5 logs, and RV5 G1 strain by ∼1 log more than that of breast milk from American women.
INTERPRETATION: The lower immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries could be explained, in part, by higher titers of IgA and neutralizing activity inbreast milk consumed by their infants at the time of immunization that could effectively reduce the potency of the vaccine. Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated.
*Infant formula has been linked to 48 adverse effects, including increased mortality.
It is this semantic trick (conflating and confusing "efficacy" with "effectiveness") which convinces most of the "developed" world that vaccine research is "evidence-based" and focused on creating enhanced immunity, when in fact it is simply a highly successful business enterprise founded on defrauding its "customers" of both their money and health. The dangers of common vaccines are so well known by the "experts" and the manufacturers who produce them that their risk (like nuclear power) is underwritten by world governments. The importance of this fact can not be understated.
What's worse, the vaccine response can "blow back" causing loss of self-tolerance and, via the resultant Th2 dominant immune system, the body can attack itself (autoimmunity). In the meantime, the first line of defense against infection (Th1) is compromised and the "front door" can be left wide open to unmet infecitious challenges.
In the same way that secretory IgA from breast milk deactivates a broad range of "natural" antigenic challenges for the infant, this indispensable immune factor also deactivates the inherently disruptive and immunotoxic antibody-generating vaccine antigens and adjuvants. Rather than view this as the "enemy," the reduction in antibodies that accomodates a well nourished breastfed infant's bloodwork after the highly invasive and unnatural introduction of a vaccine is a sign of health, not disease.
This study struck a deep psychic chord out there. Images of phallic syringes stabbing away jealously at the symbolic breast of Nature come to mind, as the increasingly invasive ethos of modern hyper-technological medicine drives itself (and us) to the point of insanity "improving upon Nature." Can't we just leave the timeless wisdom of mothering and nourishing that is woven into the mother-infant dyad alone?
Additional Topics:Infant Formula: Risk Factor for 48 Diseases
Breast Feeding: Risk Reduction for 59 Diseases
Vaccination Research
Article: Infant Formula For Disaster
No comments:
Post a Comment