Bookmark and Share

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Boise Weekly Article

It may just be that "science" is on the road to recovery. More Medical Doctors (MD's) are beginning to question the immediate safety and potential for long term adverse effects from many (if not ALL) of the vaccinations being given to not only children but the elderly and disabled (obviously most of their immune systems have already been compromised) community as well. To me, these doctors show the integrity of what the health industry should base its products and services. I would have to call these M.D.s, Insider Doctors. Doctors that take into account the oath they took to provide help for others, not harm. Remember there was for 1,000's of years that short pledge in the Hippocratic Oath, "First Do No Harm".

"In a just-published shocking study virology researchers at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands have demonstrated that a regular flu vaccine in children actually worsens a key aspect of their flu-fighting immune system. This research was not conducted by vaccine-disliking scientists. Rather, it was conducted by pro-vaccine researchers who have spent their careers trying to develop better vaccines. Lead author Rogier Bodewes delivered the sobering message as he explained that flu vaccines “have potential drawbacks that have previously been under appreciated and that are also a matter of debate.”

While the study group is rather small, it involves highly advanced scientific evaluation of the immune system. The researchers collected blood from 27 healthy, unvaccinated children with an average age of 6 years old, and 14 children with cystic fibrosis who received an annual flu shot. The unvaccinated children were found to have a superior immune response, giving them broader protection against what they might face in an actual flu season, including pandemic strains.

The researchers found that the CD4 T helper cell response to the flu influenza A was present in both the unvaccinated and vaccinated children. On the one hand this means that in healthy children a vaccine was not needed to elicit a T helper cell response to the flu. Such helper cells coordinate the higher-powered adaptive immune response so that antibodies can destroy the virus. On the other hand it means that the T helper cell response in children with respiratory disease was comparable to the healthy children, potentially offering them some protection against whatever viral strains happened to be in the flu vaccine.

It is important to understand that children need to develop a healthy immune system, like going to school and getting an education. Another aspect of the flu-fighting immune system is the CD8 T cells, also called cytotoxic T cells, which destroy virally-infected cells as well as cancer cells. This is also a vital part of a robust anti-viral immune response.

In the healthy unvaccinated children a rise in these cytotoxic T cells was seen as the children got older – giving them important broad based-protection against any type of flu strain as well as a healthier immune response for knocking out any mutant cancer cells. In the unvaccinated children their immune systems were learning to become more effective as they grew older.

In contrast, the gradually increasing CD8 cytotoxic T cell response that was present in unvaccinated children was absent in the regularly vaccinated children with cystic fibrosis. Regular flu vaccines appeared to interfere with the healthy development of the immune response in a way that left a child more vulnerable to flu and potentially cancer (which was not part of this study). This means children getting flu vaccines would get some protection against whatever is in the vaccine that year but would have reduced protection against anything that wasn’t, a problem that would get worse as the child grew older. It is common that vaccines don’t cover all the viruses in any given season, especially a suddenly-emerging pandemic strain. It is also typical that viruses mutate rapidly in any given flu season, making vaccines a limited tool of effectiveness.

While this is only one angle of the vaccine issue, it is a dramatic finding. I don’t expect public health officials to discourage people from getting flu vaccines. However, I cannot understand why public health officials fail to take the most basic steps to ensure children have a robust and healthy immune response, such as promoting the vital importance of vitamin D adequacy for the anti-viral flu response. It is well known that 70% of children in the United States lack optimal vitamin D. It is obvious that public health in the United States is more about protecting vested interests and antiquated paradigms of health than truly protecting the public health."

">http://www.wellnessresources.com/health/articles/flu_vaccine_worsens_flu-fighting_cancer-fighting_immunity_in_children/

A big help here right now would be to have a copy of that study from the virology researchers at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands. This may be something Mr. Gavin could actually help us with since he appears to have an account with the Medical Journals that charge for these studies and findings and he is such an avid researcher and may even know the doctors on the research team personally. What I am saying is that the study should be reviewed if at all possible by those that do not have a vested interest in the outcome.

My concern with many of the links to studies that Mr. Gavin and his cohorts have provided here are simply links to the very root of the problem. I do thank Mr. Gavin and his team for the time provided here, I know many of us have expanded our knowledge base on this ever increasing debate as to whether the effectiveness of vaccinations out-weigh the potential risks.

One does have to wonder why so much of this comment board has been directed at a one Dr. Wakefield's study. ("I've learned to not make a potential life-saving decision based on one man.") There happened to be two other medical doctors prior to the Dr. Wakefield's study and report. They seem to have already concluded some amazing findings with the same group, but have not been mentioned here.

Documents reveal that fourteen months before Dr Wakefield's paper was published, two other researchers -- Professor Walker-Smith and Dr Amar Dhillon -- independently documented the same problems in these children, including symptoms of autism.

Here are the notes on the seven children, as presented in 1996, 14 months BEFORE Dr Wakefield published his paper in The Lancet:

Child 1. Immediate reaction to MMR with fever at 1 [corrected, illegible]
Rapid deterioration in behaviour - autism
Histology active chronic inflammation in caecum
Treated Asacol
INDETERMINATE COLITIS** (1)

Child 2. MMR at 15 months - head banging 2 weeks later.
Hyperactive from 18 months.
Endoscopy - aphthoid ulcer at hepatic flexure
Caecum: lymphoid nodular hyperplasia with erythematous rim and pale swollen
core.
Histology, Ileum mild inflammation, colon moderate inflammation
Acute and chronic inflammation.
Treated CT3211 [a dietary treatment]
INDETERMINATE COLITIS** ? CROHN’S DISEASE

Child 3. ? dysmorphism - chromosomes and normal development
MMR at 5 months [sic]
Measles at 2.5 years* - 1 month later change in behavior
Hyperactive with food
Colonoscopy - granular rectum, normal colon and lymphoid nodular
hyperplasia.
Histopathology: lymphoid nodular hyperplasia.
Increased eosinophils 5/5 mild increase in inflammatory cells (Dhillon)
Routine normal
LYMPHOID NODULAR HYPERPLASIA
INDETERMINATE COLITIS**
[* correction: he received measles vaccine first at approximately 15 months of
age and MMR at 2.5. years]

Child 4 (2). Reacted to triple vaccine 4 months - screaming and near cot death
(DPT)
MMR at 15 months - behaviour changed after 1 week.
“measles rash” week before
Endoscopy - minor abnormalities of vascular pattern
Histology - non-specific proctocolitis**
Treated
INDETERMINTE PROCTOCOLITIS
LYMPHOID NODULAR HYPERPLASIA

Child 5 (3). MMR at 14 months.
Second day after, fever and rash, bangs head and behaviour abnormal
thereafter.
Endoscopy - Lymphoid nodular hyperplasia
Histopathology: Marked increase in IEL’s [intraepithelial lymphocytes] in ileum
with chronic inflammatory cells in reactive follicles. Increase in inflammatory cells in colon and IELs increased.
LYMPHOID NODULAR HYPERPLASIA
INDETERMINATE COLITIS

Child 6 (7). MMR - 16 months - no obvious reaction
2 years behavioral change - 2.5 years
Screaming attacks - / food related
Endoscopy - Lymphoid nodular hyperplasia terminal ileum
Histology - Prominent lymphoid follicles
Dhillon: moderate to marked increase in IEL’s, increase in chronic inflammatory
cells throughout the colon - superficial macrophages not quite granuloma
INDTERMINATE COLITIS
Child 78. MMR 14 months
16 months “growling voice”
18 months - behavioural changes - autism diagnosed at 3 years
Barium [follow through X ray] 5 cm tight stricture [proximal] to insertion of
terminal ileum
Endoscopy- prominent lymphoid follicle in ileum
Mild proctitis with granular mucosa
Histology
Ileum - reactive follicles
Colon - bifid forms, increased IEL’s
Slight increase in inflammatory cells
INDETERMINATE COLITIS
? CROHN’S DISEASE

NOTES:
(1) Inflammation that is not diagnostic of either Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis
(2) Child 6 in The Lancet paper. The chronological order was corrected for the final Lancet paper.
(3) Child 3 in The Lancet paper

http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html

I do appreciate that more M.D.s are waking up to the facts and are taking the initiative to do what is right. Doctors have little time to research the researchers and only administer their treatments based on the curriculum used in their education programming and the marketing campaigns provided them after.

I am however all for education. In fact, history seems to be one of the best teachers. Where did it all begin? That is where we find the answers.

No comments: