Let's face it: the only real justification for using vaccines to \"immunize\" ourselves against disease is derived from the natural fact that when challenged our immune systems launch a successful response. Were it not for the elegance, proficiency, and mostly asymptomatic success of our recombinatorial (antibody-based) immune systems in dealing so well with infectious challenges, vaccination would have no cause, no scientific explanation, no justification whatsoever.* <\/p>\n
In fact, ever since the adaptive, antigen-specific immune system evolved in early vertebrates 500 million years ago, our bodies have been doing a pretty good job of keeping us alive on this planet without need for synthetic, vaccine-mediated immunity. Indeed, infectious challenges are necessary for the development of a healthy immune system and in order to prevent autoimmune conditions from emerging as a result of TH2 dominance. <\/p>\n
In other words, take away these natural infectious challenges, and the immune system can and will turn upon itself; take way these infectious challenges and lasting immunity against tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pathogens we are exposed to throughout our lives, would not be possible. <\/p>\n
Can vaccines really co-opt, improve upon, and replace natural immunity with synthetic immunity? <\/p>\n
How many will this require? <\/p>\n
Are we not already at the critical threshold of vaccine overload? <\/p>\n
By \"improving\" on our humanness in this way, are we not also at the same moment departing dramatically from it? <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Presently, compliance with the CDC's immunization schedule for children from birth through 6 years of age requires 60+ vaccines* be administered, purportedly to make them healthier than non-vaccinated or naturally immunized ones.** Sixty vaccines, while a disturbingly high amount (for those who retain the complementary human faculties of reason and intuition), does not, however, correctly convey just how many antigenic challenges these children face in total... <\/p>\n
A new paper published in the journal Lupus entitled, \"Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations,\" points out that as many as 125 antigenic compounds, along with high amounts of aluminum (AI) adjuvants are given to children by the time they are 4 and 6 years old, in some \"developed\" countries. <\/p>\n
The authors also state: \"Immune challenges during early development, including those vaccine-induced, can lead to permanent detrimental alterations of the brain and immune function. Experimental evidence also shows that simultaneous administration of as little as two to three immune adjuvants can overcome genetic resistance to autoimmunity.\" <\/p>\n
Vaccine adjuvants are agents that accelerate, enhance or prolong the antigen-specific immune responses vaccines intend to elicit. In essence, they enhance vaccine \"efficacy,\" which is defined by the ability to raise antibody titers. A vaccine's \"effectiveness,\" on the other hand -- and which is the real-world measure of whether a vaccine works or not -- is not ascertainable through the number of antibodies produced. Whether or not a vaccine or vaccine adjuvant boosts antibodies that have actual affinity with the intended pathogen is what counts in the real world, i.e. antibody-antigen affinity, (and not the sheer volume of antibodies produced) determines whether a vaccine will be effective or not. <\/p>\n
The semantic confusion between \"vaccine efficacy\" and \"vaccine effectiveness\" ensures that vaccines which disrupt\/harm\/hypersensitize the immune system by stimulating unnaturally elevated antibody titers may obtain FDA approval, despite the fact that they have never been shown to confer real-world protection. *** Some vaccine researchers have even suggested that breastfeeding, which may reduce vaccine-induced elevations in antibody titers in infants, i.e. its iatrogenic disease-promoting effects, should temporarily be delayed in order not to interfere with the vaccine's so-called \"efficacy.\" <\/p>\n
Common adjuvants include: aluminum, mineral oil, detergent stabilized squalene-in-water, pertactin, formaldehyde, viral DNA, phosphate, all of which are inherently toxic, no matter what the route of exposure. <\/p>\n
Many parents today do not consider how dangerous injecting adjuvants directly into the muscle (and sometimes blood, due to incorrect and\/or non-existent aspiration techniques), especially in non-infected, healthy offspring whose immune systems are only just learning to launch effective responses to the innumerable pathogens already blanketing their environment. <\/p>\n
Adequate breastfeeding, in fact, is the most successful strategy in the prevention of morbidity and mortality associated with infectious challenges, and is so distinctively mammalian (i.e. obtaining nourishment and immunity through the mammary glands), that without adequate levels (only 11.3% of infants in the US were exclusively breastfed through the first six months of life (Source: CDC, 2004)) infants become much more readily susceptible to illness. <\/p>\n
Not only have humans strayed from their mammalian roots, by creating and promoting infant formula over breast milk, and then promoting synthetic immunity via vaccines over the natural immunity conferred through breastfeeding and sunlight exposure, for instance, but implicit within the dominant medical model to replace natural immunity with a synthetic one, is a philosophy of transhumanism, a movement which intends to improve upon and transcend our humanity, and has close affiliation with some aspects of eugenics.*** <\/p>\n
The CDC's immunization schedule reflects a callous lack of regard for the 3 billion years of evolution that brought us to our present, intact form, without elaborate technologies like vaccination -- and likely only because we never had them at our disposal to inflict potentially catastrophic harm to ourselves. <\/p>\n
The CDC is largely responsible for generating the mass public perception that there is greater harm in not \"prophylactically\" injecting well over 100 distinct disease-promoting and immune-disruptive substances into the bodies of healthy children. They have been successful in instilling the concept into the masses that Nature failed in her design, and that medical and genetic technologies and interventions can be used to create a superior human being. <\/p>\n
Continue to Page 2 <\/p>\n
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
More:<\/p>\n
Vaccination Agenda: An Implicit Transhumanism \/ Dehumanism<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Let's face it: the only real justification for using vaccines to \"immunize\" ourselves against disease is derived from the natural fact that when challenged our immune systems launch a successful response. Were it not for the elegance, proficiency, and mostly asymptomatic success of our recombinatorial (antibody-based) immune systems in dealing so well with infectious challenges, vaccination would have no cause, no scientific explanation, no justification whatsoever.* In fact, ever since the adaptive, antigen-specific immune system evolved in early vertebrates 500 million years ago, our bodies have been doing a pretty good job of keeping us alive on this planet without need for synthetic, vaccine-mediated immunity. Indeed, infectious challenges are necessary for the development of a healthy immune system and in order to prevent autoimmune conditions from emerging as a result of TH2 dominance. Continue reading