Is this the White Flag?

There follow the conclusions drawn from a fascinating research paper published last year, which I’ll probably call “The Polish Study”, which acknowledges and uses as its title: “Neurologic adverse events following vaccination”.

http://progress.umb.edu.pl/sites/progress.umb.edu.pl/files/129-141.pdf

It runs:

Proposals for modification of the vaccination schedule 

European countries have different models of vaccination that have been modified in recent decades.

In Scandinavian countries, which have the lowest infant mortality, vaccinations are voluntary and infants receive their first vaccination at 3 months of age. In the first year of life, they may receive nine recommended vaccinations, and at 18 months, the MMR. The acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) is used, as well as IPV. BCG and Hepatitis B vaccines are administered to children from high risk groups.

Similar vaccination schedules do exist in other European countries, where the vaccination of neonates was abandoned and a ban on the use of thimerosal in vaccines was introduced [4, 74]. Note also that Scandinavian countries have the lowest rates of autism compared to other developed countries in which children are vaccinated much earlier and with greater number of vaccines [49].

Professor Majewska – neurobiologist and Director, Marie Curie Chairs Program, Department of “Pharmacology and Physiology of the Nervous System”, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology,  Warsaw – together with pediatricians, drafted a proposal for changes to the vaccination program in Poland, which is based on an analysis of programs in other European Union countries. The propositions are as follows:

  1. Eliminate thimerosal from all vaccines.
  2. Discontinue the immunization of infants with the hepatitis B vaccine (vaccinate only newborns at high risk, i.e. of infected mothers).
  3. Discontinue BCG vaccination of neonates (use only in  children from regions where the percentage of TB patients is over 40 per 100 thousand).
  4. Begin vaccination from 4 months old in the remaining group of children.
  5. Discontinue the whole cell pertussis vaccine.
  6. Give a maximum of three types of vaccines in one day.
  7. Discontinue the administration of live virus vaccines or give them one at a time at safe intervals.
  8. Make monovalent vaccines accessible.
  9. Commitment of the doctor administering the vaccine to conduct a preliminary interview with the parents about allergies, asthma and other autoimmune diseases and postvaccinal complications in family members, allowing them to predict whether a given child may experience severe postvaccinal reactions. Such a child should have an individual, very careful vaccination program developed.
  10. Monitor the health status of children after vaccination in order to notice life- or health-threatening conditions in time.
  11. Create a national program for compulsory registration of postvaccinal complications and deaths. These data should be reported to the WHO and information about complications should be provided in the child’s health record book [51].

CONCLUSIONS 

Despite the assurances of the necessity and safety of vaccinations, there are more and more questions and doubts, which both physicians and parents are waiting to be clarified. The paper describes several aspects of the childhood immunization program, including:

  1. The physiological development of the immune system,
  2. The immunization schedule adopted in Poland in comparison with other countries,
  3. Adverse reactions and complications following vaccination described in scientific publications,
  4. The natural course of infectious diseases in conjunction with the vaccination programs implemented and the problem of reporting adverse reactions following vaccination by medical personnel and parents.

Adopting the proposals for changes to vaccination in Poland, above, would be, according to the authors, part of a response to the concerns and doubts. A second part would be to commence extensive neuro-immunological research confirming or excluding the relationship of vaccines with the reported adverse events (early, late and/or long-term) and chronic diseases whose upward trend has been observed in recent decades in children.

It seems that it would be worthwhile to apply the precautionary principle – the ethical principle according to which, if there is a probable, although poorly known, risk of adverse effects of a new technology, it is better not to implement it rather than risk uncertain but potentially very harmful consequences.

 

Post Script: Well, maybe it’s not quite a white flag but at least it is a clear move towards understanding and accepting the need to address issues created by the gross interference with a superbly sensitive, vastly complicated and fully integrated natural monitoring and maintenance system, developed by nature over, yes, four billion years.

Jenner was a quack in an era lacking any of today’s technical sophistication. His work led to countless deaths and even more misery and yet we now use all our array of  modern tools to continue his folly. Taking up the highlighted suggestion, above, I suggest that, in fact, we should indeed create an “Institute of Vaccine Reaction” but couple this with a “Centre for Natural Immunity” to ground our understanding of the benefits of an uncompromised immune functionality.

Both funded by, shall we say, a tax on the derived profits of Big Pharm from the sale of vaccination products. The logic of this is derived, of course, from provisions now fixed to similar risk creating businesses, such as nuclear power. There, it is understood that substantial funding has to be set aside to deal with toxic wastes and, of course, staff and the general public are both protected from impacts and insured against negative, er, fall outs.

Similarly instead of investing so much effort into suppressing all discussions of vaccine damage, so sweeping the issue under the carpet, Big Pharm must underwrite full, independent analyses of all and any potential damage and of the natural system they seek to hijack. A system of funding by taxation would cut of any influence from vaccine producers over the researches and hosting universities would have to be similarly screened for direct or indirect influence (eg their other research funding sources). An alternative to taxation would be a legal “Precautionary Principle” levy, derived from the same logic.

Either way would be better for them than the colossal damages claims which could still come upon them and the whole MIC and it’s media and government minions as the truths becoming apparent in papers such as the above are more widely realised.

References – I have left in place the reference numbers used in the text, but copy them here:

4. Kubiak R. Legal basis for the implementation of vaccination. Opinions and interpretations. – Educational workshops: Vaccinations in medical practice – the clinical situation to the optimal decision Med Prakt. 2010; 1: 3-39. (Polish).

49. Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? J Inorg Biochem. 2011 Nov; 105(11):1489-99.

51. Majewska MD. Marie Curie Chair, Department of Pharmacology and Physiology of the Nervous System, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw. Nieznany Świat. 2010; 230: 62-70.

74. http://www.euvac.net/graphies/euvac/vaccination/sweden.html. [cited 2011 August 8]

Advertisements

About greencentre

Non grant supported hence independent scientist, green activist, writer and forest planter.
This entry was posted in IDPOV, Jenner and smallpox jabs, Vaccination, Vaccine damage. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s