not opposed to vaccines, but...
- 79125I am not opposed to immunization, however...
- Expand Messages
- Jared Zeff, NDAug 1
- I am not opposed to immunization. I think that it is a useful technique in the right circumstance. I think that the Yellow Fever and the Small Pox immunization were probably great benefits to the world. I am opposed to doing things, especially to infants and children, that do not need to be done, and that carry a risk of harm. Take the obvious example of the Hepatitis B immunization given to neonates. Why is this done? The immune system is not mature. From what is this immunization protecting the infant? In the rare circumstance that an infant may be put into a day care situation where there might be a potential exposure to HepB, this immunization may be useful. But how about the infant that is going to stay at home with mom, who is breastfeeding her? Does she need a Hep B immunization? If there were no potential for any harm from the immunization, then why not? Maybe it will protect her in 20 years (doubtful) if she becomes an IV drug user, or even an EMT. But let us consider the extensive safety studies done on HepB immunization: oh, there aren’t any significant and real and in-depth safety studies.
- Consider that prior to the extensive immunization schedule we currently use the incidence of autism was 1:10,000. Now it is 1:50. The increase parallels the increase in immunization quantity. Although that is not a proof or relationship, the CDC did studies on the potential relationship between immunization and autism in the late 1990’s, and found a very high cause-and-effect relationship, and they manipulated the statistics to claim there was no relationship because they feared a disruption on their immunization program goals. This is sick and this is criminal, in my opinion. They lied to us!
- My concerns regarding immunizations are based on several considerations, after many years of trying to understand the question. One is obvious and is referred to above, that immunization will, in some cases, confer harm on a child. I saw this early in practice when I began to encounter moms who told me how their normal kids were suddenly neurologically damaged following immunization. Was this real? The pediatricians claimed there was no relationship. Could they be wrong? So I kept an open mind and began to read and think. But there was very little research. In fact, I discovered that research was actually discouraged by the NIH. So my first concern became safety. I could not bring myself to immunize a child if I might harm the child. After all, I am a naturopath and I believe in not harming my patients.
- As more and more immunizations were added to the CDC schedule, more controversy arose. As I began to think about it, a second concern developed. We are seeing a change in what I will call the “immune biome”, a term I just made up because I do not know a better term. This is what I mean. When I was a kid, all kids got the measles. Maybe one kid in 2,000 was harmed by the disease, some severely, and some even died. But this was a very rare occurrence, and most kids just got sick for a few days and fully recovered, with life long immunity to measles, and a few other benefits, including a stronger immune system. We just saw this in the so-called Disneyland epidemic. About 100 kids got the measles at Disneyland a few months ago and ALL OF THEM RECOVERED, with no difficulty or damage. That is how the measles used to be.
- But now we have a new situation. Recently, it was reported that an immune-compromised adult in her 20’s died from a measles infection. She did not have the life-long immunity we used to obtain, because she was immunized as a child. But that is not a “natural immunity”, and it wears down over time. The problem with measles is that it is a much more dangerous illness in adults than in children. Children get sick for 7-10 days, and then usually fully recover with nothing but life-long immunity. Adults have a significant morbidity and mortality increase with measles. Where the population as a whole, except for young children, maintained this life-long immunity for the past several thousand years, this is no longer the case. The young adults of today, and the old adults of tomorrow will require a regular “booster” immunization. The immune biome has changed. There is not longer this population-wide immunity to measles among the adult population, and measles can kill adults. Is this a good change, a good trade? I do not think so. The natural situation resulted in significant morbidity in 1:2,000. Now the figure is 1:50 for neurological disturbance, and there are other problems that are being revealed as well. And this is just for measles. Measles, chicken pox, mumps: these are not problems from which we require protection, and they are easily treated with homeopathy, hydrotherapy, and other measures. And there are other, very safe, ways to provide protection if needed or wanted.
- Immunization for Yellow Fever or Small Pox were very likely a general benefit to the world population. These diseases carried high mortality. There are good homeopathic and naturopathic treatments for these diseases, but for the general population immunization may be quite valuable in these diseases. But for measles, mumps, or chicken pox? We are altering the immune biome and this will likely create significant problems for our society into the future. I see no one considering this, and no one from the CDC seems to be thinking about this, and they are conducting this huge uncontrolled experiment with our children, and generating billions of dollars doing it.
- So I am opposed to doing things that may cause harm, either immediately to a child, or to the larger population, things that do not need to be done. I do not oppose immunization. I oppose immunizing children, especially against the will of their parents, for every possible illness for which a vaccine manufacturer can develop an immunization. Especially when there are no significant safety studies, and when the manufacturer and the healthcare community administering the immunizations cannot be held liable for harm. And when the diseases themselves are hardly significant.
- When my young adult children needed to get a Hep B immunizations to complete their EMT training, I had no problem with this. But I see no reasonable rationale for immunizing a neonate against Hep B because one in a million might be exposed to Hep B in a day care setting, especially when there is potential harm conferred by the immunization.
- So immunizations can harm children, and they are changing the immune biome of the population. And then there is the growing risk of government mandated forced immunization with no exemptions. This medical tyranny will create a whole new can or worms that I will not consider here.
- Historically the naturopathic community was a haven for the parent who desired health care for their child, but who did not want the CDC scheduled immunization, for health reasons or for other concerns. We were a small community of trained physician who understood how to treat the measles or the mumps, who know other means of prophylaxis, and to whom this small group of parents could turn. The generally population in the US is nearly fully immunized, anyway. We are talking about, more or less than 5% of the population. Herd immunity, such as immunization can actually provide, is intact. There are just a few dissenters, and most states have provided religious and conscious exemptions, as well as medical exemptions. For reasons that I do not understand, outside the problem of tyranny and profit, (which have plagued our little profession since its inceptions for a variety of reason), there is a movement, particularly within the progressive political community, for eliminating these exemptions.
- I must express my deep concern against this movement. In this regard I oppose the proposed AANP position paper on immunization that comes out in favor of the CDC approach to immunization. I have expressed above the basis of my concern.
- Jared Zeff, ND
- Salmon Creek, Washington
RAW Paste Data