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 & pertussis, which make up the majority of vaccines in developed countries, dramatically
decreased 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.