!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ADHD, 6X AutoImmune disorders, 3X Atopic disease, 3.3X Dev'p Delay, 4X speech delays

For many years, the ammo to push back on an increasingly aggressive CDC (US) vaccine schedule was limited.

But we finally have something that's likely been known for many years...A statistically significant study at Ford Health in Michigan by a premiere epidemiologist who was trying to prove vaccine hesitancy was wrong. But despite meticulous care and following the CDC guidelines on how to study vaccine safety, he and his colleagues proved the EXACT OPPOSITE.

The smoking gun? From birth to 10 years old:

17% of Unvaccinated kids had a  chronic health condition
vs
57% of vaccinated kids

Please have a look at this 3 minute clip and share it widely with parents trying to conceive or are pregnant.

User Clip: UNSAFE?: A well-designed study to REDUCE Vaccine Hesitancy in Parents PROVED Vaccines Safety SHOULD be questioned | Video | C-SPAN.org

For more independent data, that USA is headed in the wrong direction; we now rank below Cuba on infant mortality (45th) (and worsening further) yet many Americans still wrongly assume we are a leader in Children's health. Singapore is best @1.5 deaths per 1,000

For the scientifically minded, I've attached the study (unpublished because it found the "wrong" results) .

And the documentary + trailer here:

https://www.aninconvenientstudy.com/

Finally; if you have the time, full Senate hearing on this issue

What about nutrition? Healthy water? Clean air? Maternal nutrition & drug abuse?

You can see that these effects are significant as well.

Please refer to the MAP

with a range from 10.5 deaths (Baton Rouge, LA) (per 1,000) in low income polluted areas vs cleaner, higher income areas 3.7

Bear in mind even the lowest rates in the US are more than double that of dozens of countries with Singapore best at 1.7 overall.

Also, so that we don't have to rehash things unnecessarily, here are the criticisms of the study (and responses)

https://www.aninconvenientstudy.com/criticisms

That was a really well done movie about the study. That study and many others are very alarming

Have you read "Dissolving illusions" by Dr. Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk? If you are a reader, it is a very informative read. Dr. Humphries was also on a Joe Rogan interview.

We declined vaccinations in our children due to the aborted fetal cell line ingredients. As we come to learn more, we are very glad to have declined.

Informed consent would be great, if studies like this were published and available and didn't subject you to the ire of institutional medicine, friends, family, forum staff, etc.

Great post, thank you.

Hey Jackson,

Very pleased you had the time to watch! Powerful info and so glad it is easily shared.

More importantly, glad you found a way to make the best decision to try to ensure optimal health of your children!

One principle I've established (which I think permeates so many decisions), is to prioritize the most obvious solution with the lowest downside risk and lowest impact to all life on the planet.

Conventional Western medicine has so many parallels to big Ag. An extreme number of perverted incentives that are not disclosed.

Like so many, I started this journey blindly trusting the "science" & doctor's recommendations.

It didn't take much digging to realize blind trust/faith is not the path.

I wish you and your family optimal health and well-being.

Appreciate you taking the time to give your feedback!

-JP

PS I had not heard of that book, but was aware of several of the datasets. Will check it out, thanks for the recommendation!

I used to teach this stuff, and published a bit on related topics.

Among other things, the cited information neglects herd immunity.
In current North America (for now) unvaccinated children still benefit from lower risk of viral disease and complications, because most of their cohort is still vaccinated.
Once herd immunity is lost (ex. ~95% vaccination for measles; ~ %50 vaccination for flu, etc.) the unvaccinated will no longer free-ride on herd immunity.

There is conflict of interest between population level health benefits and perceived individual risk.

Cole's Notes:
The level of effective  vaccination required for successful herd immunity varies as the reciprocal of viral transmission potential.
For sustained pathogen transmission based upon direct infection, each infected person has to pass the infection to at least 1 other person; otherwise transmission damps out.
In an unvaccinated population a single measles case will transmit to ~ 20 other people;  hence the need for ~ >90% immunity to lower the probability of to <1 transmission per infected person, thereby damping out the epidemic, which is otherwise explosive.
The measles vaccine is highly effective; failed vaccinations are rare, but even so very high vaccination rates are needed to prevent continuous endemic measles circulation,

In contrast, depending upon the strain, influenza is much less transmissible, with each infected person passing the infection to just above 1 other person.
So for flu vaccination, which is far less effective than measles vaccine, a rate of only ~50% is still enough to damp out transmission of many strains, while lowering the risk of serious disease in infected vaccinated people.

On a corollary of the above, to maintain endemic circulating disease there are population thresholds.
Measles is so transmissible that endemic circulation is only possible with an interacting population of >~200,000 people.
In a smaller group, every one quickly gets measles, dies or recovers (sometimes with complications), and is then immune, with no further circulation, unless sufficient immuno-naive babies accumulate and another infection enters the community.

The Americas were originally populated by small groups, that filtered out the likelihood of pathogens.
Until Columbus...

Douglas Campbell wrote:Among other things, the cited information neglects herd immunity.
In current North America (for now) unvaccinated children still benefit from lower risk of viral disease and complications, because most of their cohort is still vaccinated.
Once herd immunity is lost (ex. ~95% vaccination for measles; ~ %50 vaccination for flu, etc.) the unvaccinated will no longer free-ride on herd immunity.

There is conflict of interest between population level health benefits and perceived individual risk.

We're getting measles outbreaks in the UK - particularly London at the moment due to reduced take up of vaccinations. One in 5 of the children infected have needed hospital treatment. I remember Laura Ingalls Wilder's sister was blinded by measles. It can kill.
Some people are able to make their own choice, and as you say there is a conflict of individual and society benefit.

Thank you Nancy and Douglas for joining the discussion and welcome the opportunity to discuss things, elucidate the truth.

And find a way to all come out a little wiser and with a more complete perspective of the problem and potential solutions.

Hopefully what we can have 100% agreement on is that the gold standard for medical interventions is double-blind, placebo controlled study. Can we agree on that?

Douglas Campbell wrote:I used to teach this stuff, and published a bit on related topics.

The Americas were originally populated by small groups, that filtered out the likelihood of pathogens.
Until Columbus...

Yes, I read with interest that different pathogens proliferate in different environments.  

And smallpox immunity for the European city dwellers (however achieved) was something the native peoples didn't & couldn't have.

Would agree, it's definitely something of which to be aware...

J.P. Waters wrote:Hopefully what we can have 100% agreement on is that the gold standard for medical interventions is double-blind, placebo controlled study. Can we agree on that?

I think you're probably right on that. They can have difficulty doing that sort of study due to medical ethics sometimes though.

Thanks Nancy. Here's some additional info on the subject.

It's a 66 page document that is useful for reference.

I would direct your initial attention to pages 3 & 4.

Douglas, I'd invite you to read this document (pages 3, 4 & 65) are an easy 2 minute read, so that we can have a substantive discussion without onerous time constraints. As time allows, you may be interested in the deposition (link) on page 66 of Dr. Stanley Plotkin (who you're likely quite familiar with).

JP, I appreciate the tone you've set for this discussion!

Unfortunately, in the USA at least, politics have played too large a part in those decisions, studies aside.

I grew up at the tail end of the polio epidemic and my parents had us vaccinated gladly for that and measles and a couple others I don't remember?

We allowed our own sons to be vaccinated in '75 and '78 as babies and later at school age.
My guy and I had a covid shot and one booster then stopped.
I think Herd Immunity could have worked, if again, politics had not separated the masked from the unmasked.
Neither of us have had flu shots or pneumonia shots nor all of the tests and pokes and prods deemed necessary for our age group.
I get a tetnus booster periodically as I still manage to step on a nail or somehow impail myself every five to ten years.

I don't see it as an all or nothing choice...but would like to think these things could be informed choices and not all required if politics did not play a part.

My first daughter in law grew up in an unvaccinated family and those grandsons are unvaccinated.

Our other daughter in law  feels vaccinations are important so those grandkids are.

Personal choices.....there, as in other important areas I am 'pro choice' .

Thanks Judith! I'm doing my best.

I agree Politics has crept in, but would also say that perverse economic incentives are a larger part that are masquerading as politics.

This is not a new trend in humanity...

One thing I was unaware of, is the details of polio infection and immunity.

I think you'll find the page 65 discussion on Polio illuminating.

Hope that helps too!

I welcome your comments here and everywhere!

On page 65, they allude to DTP vaccine safety concerns and DTaP replacing it.

Here is a little more detail on the difficulties, complexities, and 'perplexities'  with vaccines.

"...our findings can be summarized in one sentence: We discovered vaccines train the immune system in ways no one expected..."



This isn't the end of a discussion on vaccines, just the beginning of a new discussion.

From the YT description:

"TEDxAarhus 2018 by medical doctor and professor in global health Christine Stabell Benn and learn how hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved every year just by using the existing vaccines smarter. Christine Stabell Benn is a medical doctor and professor in global health. By studying real-life effects of vaccines in Africa, she has found that vaccines do much more than protect against the target disease; they have so-called non-specific effects."

JPL: Here is the link to the paper cited within the presentation:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28188123/

In permaculture, we are good at finding ways around false dichotomies. Can we think of something beyond vax/no vax?

We have all decided that spraying is a bad idea. But what if a disease does exist? Then we try to make use of diversity to confuse the pestilence. We make homes for natural predators, improve the health of the soil, think holistically.

There are a lot of positive things we can do to avoid illness that aren't vaccines, but modern "society" considers the costs of vaccination, whatever they may be, to be acceptable. Modern society also considers spraying vegetables to be an acceptable cost. We don't have to accept the "spray or have a harvest failure" dichotomy rule our gardens, nor do we have to have the "vaccinate or die of infectious disease" dichotomy rule our lives & health. There are a lot of ways to be creative and try doing things differently, like staying at home through the winter and not travelling by plane.

I am reading a history of the neighboring town. In former days they had figured out that if they made a sickhouse where people could be cared for and quarrantined. Some signed up to get sick so that they could get immunity to common diseases in a relatively safe and nourishing environment. It definitely wasn't Heaven but neither is anything else. (Back in the day, or somewhat before then, people would often live into their hundredth decade.)

I think that modern humans have difficulty realizing that life contains suffering that will happen whether they do X or Y. Worst of all, we tend to export suffering to poorer countries and poorer people (which is another discussion unto itself). Whether we vaccinate or don't people will get sick, in different ways. Spraying seems to help world food security but doesn't in the long run, it makes people sick and destroys the ecosystems that sustain us. Maybe I will write more about this, but I think that the more we realize the limits of our power, the happier we can be in our hearts and the more at peace with the world.

There definitely are ways to make things better... but my experience has shown me that all the things we do out of fear, end up coming back and hurting us in the end because fear encourages short term thinking. In some ways this is necessary and contributes to the beauty and diversity of the world, but when we lose track of the root of life, things start plummeting quickly.

So my experience. I grew up eating healthy food, wild mushrooms & vegetables, playing outside in the woods & the dirt. It's true that there were always people of weak constitution (maybe I am one of them) and some of my troubles may be related to trauma (around that time I started getting sick for worse and longer than before). Never any antibiotics that I know of. But plenty of early vaccinations--one of my earliest memories is just that. And I have had health issues all along, though varyingly, some of them definitely have to do with a bad immune system, and others possibly so. (Isn't the immune system such an important thing for us to have?)

My parents are healthier than me, which is rather alarming. My grandparents were all healthier than me for most of their lives, and some of them ate mostly frozen meals and boiled potatoes. I eat better than most of these recent ancestors of mine, and probably better than a lot of ancestors further back. It makes one think...

I can't say for certain but this seems to make things connect a little better for me.

J.P. Waters wrote:On page 65, they allude to DTP vaccine safety concerns and DTaP replacing it.

Here is a little more detail on the difficulties, complexities, and 'perplexities'  with vaccines.

"...our findings can be summarized in one sentence: We discovered vaccines train the immune system in ways no one expected..."

This isn't the end of a discussion on vaccines, just the beginning of a new discussion.

From the YT description:

"TEDxAarhus 2018 by medical doctor and professor in global health Christine Stabell Benn and learn how hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved every year just by using the existing vaccines smarter. Christine Stabell Benn is a medical doctor and professor in global health. By studying real-life effects of vaccines in Africa, she has found that vaccines do much more than protect against the target disease; they have so-called non-specific effects."

JPL: Here is the link to the paper cited within the presentation:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28188123/

The gist of this video is as follows.

Vaccines are not good or bad, but rather it depends greatly on the type of vaccine. Dr. Benn studied the effects of various vaccines, not only on resistance to the disease in question, but upon overall health, and found that the results were surprising.

1. A live vaccine, e.g. for polio, which was not present in Guinea-Bissau, dramatically increased the survival rate of children compared to control--inexplicably, as polio is not present in Guinea-bissau.
2. Dead or non-live vaccines such as DTP (diphtheria, tetanus & , which make up the majority of vaccines in developed countries, dramaticallydecreased the survival rate of children compared to control.

Generally speaking, only the resistance to particular diseases was measured, not the effects on the overall, long-term immune system health. Benn & others found that while it is clear that all the currently in-use vaccines do increase resistance to particular diseases, non-live vaccines have a universally negative impact on survival and an increase in hospitalizations over time compared to control & live vaccines, whereas live vaccines that contain the living pathogen, universally had a tremendously positive impact on survival.

She compares the difference to a tennis coach versus a ball machine. The tennis coach (live vaccine) is a flexible organism capable of responding and teaching adaptability to the immune system whereas the ball throwing machine teaches only a single movement, getting the immune system trained in unnatural, maladaptive ways.

Benn suggested that with minor changes to the vaccination regimens and a strong emphasis on live vaccines, we could save many millions of children and prevent numerous hospitalizations and diseases. However, she suggests that the pro or anti vax politics gets in the way. The WHO is "pro vaccine" so it wouldn't listen to these suggestions, and most healthcare organizations are set on replacing all live vaccines with dead ones (the unhealthy sort). She also fears that "anti vaccine" people will not see the virtues of live vaccines.

Non-live vaccines are most common in developed countries, whereas live vaccines are often used in developing countries--likely the reason being that they are much easier to make without expensive equipment and chemicals.

Now for my commentary. I think that it is because dead vaccines are more difficult to make and easier to make a profit on, that is one reason. If you can make your own live vaccines from some home-concocted homeopathic dilution of a sick person's saliva, what medical company stands to profit from it? Capitalism is very keen on making everything predictable and dead and the same. Just like how industrial farming must have everything in straight, monocropped, weed free rows for efficient machine harvest, it cannot cope with the idea that perhaps the messy, unpredictable nature of life might actually be a blessing in disguise.