Vaccination DESTROYS Natural Immunity!
Recently there has been an upswing of pertussis and 10 babies, mostly under the age of 3 months, died in California. News reports, doctors and parents were quick to blame the 'unwashed unvaccinated' for bringing about the epidemic but reality couldn't be further from the truth.
There hasn't been a 'scare' regarding DPT vaccines since the 1970's and 80's and the only 'controversy' in the news has been about the MMR, so the majority of parents still do get their children vaccinated with DPT containing vaccines, yet we have waves of epidemics occuring in all countries. Why?
The truth is, vaccination is destroying natural immunity and here's how:
1. In the pre-vaccine era, it was unusual for a baby to get whooping cough as a newborn. Average age at presentation varied somewhere between 1 and 5 but due to vaccination programmes the age of onset has shifted to an earlier age group when it is more dangerous.
The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal wrote:
'Pertussis notification data from the prevaccine era provide indirect evidence that maternal antibodies provide short lived protection against fatal pertussis by demonstrating that the rate of pertussis deaths in the first month of life was approximately one-third of that in the second and third months of life.24 In contrast, pertussis surveillance data in the vaccine era no longer demonstrate a substantial difference in pertussis-related mortality between the first and second months of life (Table 1). 25 This could be the consequence of reduced levels of circulation of Bordetella pertussis in young women of childbearing age after the introduction of mass immunization.'
This means that prior to mass DPT vaccines being used, non-vaccinated mothers would pass transplacental antibodies to their babies which would protect them from pertussis in the first month of life, when it can be deadly, due to the fact that they had had, or been exposed to the illness themselves. After mass vaccination, the pertussis death rate in babies one month or less actually INCREASED due to the fact that vaccinated mothers could no longer confer immunity to their babies.
In fact, they knew this way back in 1978, when they wrote in the American Journal of Diseases in Children:
'We reviewed 400 bacteriologically confirmed cases of pertussis in infants and children during the past 18 years. Several changes in the epidemiology have occurred in the most recent six-year period. The incidence of whooping cough in children has decreased by at least 50%, but the proportion of cases occurring in infants younger than 12 weeks of age has doubled to 30% of all cases. Formerly most young infants acquired their illness from siblings or other children, but in the recent period adults in the household were the most common source of infection to neonates and young infants. This observation plus the increasingly high level of immunization in preschool and school-aged children suggest that young adults with waning immunity and mild illness are a major reservoir for transmission of pertussis to infants too young to be immunized.'
(Am J Dis Child. 1978 Apr;132(4):371-3 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=645653&dopt=Abstract).
Of course, the point of pertussis vaccination is not to protect older children, for whom the disease is rarely fatal and for whom it represents a mere nuisence. The point of vaccination is to protect very young babies from getting it. However, vaccination has destroyed natural immunity so it has pushed the disease into the very age group it was designed to protect.
The same has occured with other diseases. Measles is now occuring in very young babies when it never used to and this is because vaccinated mothers cannot pass transplacental or breast milk immunity to their children.
The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene wrote:
'There is growing evidence that measles vaccine–induced antibody levels wane over time, raising a concern that such a decrease in antibody levels could affect
maternal passive immunity when vaccinated women reach childbearing years.9,10 Thus, the window of vulnerability of an infant may be even greater in vaccinated women than in with women with natural measles infection.'
(Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 79(5), 2008, pp. 787–792, http://www.ajtmh.org/content/79/5/787.full.pdf).
Measles is of course much more serious in very young babies and in adults.
The Israel Vaccine Research Institute wrote:
'We rely on herd immunity and passive immunity to protect young infants
before they can be protected directly by vaccination .
Diminishing maternal immunity increases the risk of infection
among the youngest age groups.'
(The Return of Pertussis: Who is Responsible? What Can Be Done?, http://www.ima.org.il/imaj/ar06may-2.pdf).
So who is giving pertussis and other diseases to newly born babies? The press and medical profession blame parents of unvaccinated children, but the truth is, the unvaccinated are not disease vectors and they cannot transmit a disease unless they actually have it. If you study percentages in epidemics of pertussis, mumps, polio and influenza, you will find that the majority, if not ALL of those affected are already vaccinated. For instance, the Turkish Journal of Pediatrics found that in an epidemic of pertussis, 97.1% of cases were in fully vaccinated people, and not only that, they didn't even know what level of vaccine induced antibodies correlates with immunity. They wrote:
'Thirty-four of the cases (97.1%) were fully vaccinated according to their ages. One case aged 2 months was not vaccinated. Because antibody levels were tested qualitatively and semi-quantitatively in our study and 34 of the cases (97.1%) were fully vaccinated according to their ages, a cut-off value to determine whether the positivity in their antibody level was due to vaccination or infection could not be specified. Although it has been reported that the detection of high levels of IgG antibodies against PT in a single serum sample is diagnostic of recent or acute infection with B. pertussis, when antibody levels according to age groups are known in the society19, the cut-off value indicating prevention has not yet been determined.'
When medical professionals have actually bothered to try to find out where newborn babies are getting pertussis from, they have found out that they have generally got it from their own (vaccinated) mother and from previously vaccinated siblings.
In the document, 'Pertussis: Not only a Disease of Childhood', the authors wrote:
'In cases in which the source of infection can be traced, half of the children have been infected by their parents – usually by the mother. Older siblings are another frequent source of infection even if they have been vaccinated, because often their immunity has waned in the absence of a booster vaccination.'
(Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2008 September; 105(37): 623–628, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680566/).
So in essence we have swapped lifelong natural immunity which was re-boosted by frequent exposures to the illness and protected our babies at their most vulnerable points, for vaccination which only delays disease and does not immunise, and severely hinders our ability to pass on transplacental immunity, thus putting our newborns at risk of infection from birth.
2. As the above research says, many cases of neonatal pertussis are actually contracted from the mother. If she had had pertussis as a child she would have gained lifelong immunity which would have made it impossible for her to infect her newborn baby. The vaccination industry, in destroying the natural immunity of mothers, have put this generation of children at heightened risk of death from infectious disease.
3. Most of today's mothers do not breast feed beyond six weeks of age. In the pre-vaccine era, many more babies were breast fed and this meant that in addition to transplacental antibodies, mothers could pass breast milk antibodies to their children for any diseases they had encountered. Because many vaccinated mothers have not experienced the wild infection, they are unable or severely limited in passing breast milk antibodies to their babies and many do not breast feed at all, which also greatly increases the risk of aquiring an infectious disease in the neonatal period.
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene wrote:
When breast milk PRN titers were stratified by the woman’s age (< 24 and ≥ 24 years), higher titers of neutralizing antibodies were observed in women ≥ 24 years of age than in women < 24 years of age (P
= 0.053). This finding could potentially be caused by a difference in vaccinated women versus women who had natural measles infection. Women greater than 24 years of age were born before the introduction of measles vaccine in Mozambique in 1981. In contrast, most women less than 24 years of age were born after the measles vaccine was well established in the EPI program.
Women whose immunity derives from natural measles exposure are likely to have generated mucosal SIgA antibodies, including breast milk SIgA, in addition to serum antibodies, consequent to the wild virus entering by the respiratory tract. In contrast, attenuated vaccine is administered subcutaneously and the mucosal SIgA titer may be lower. As is the case for waning of serum antibodies,9,36,40
vaccinated women reaching childbearing age may have lower titers of breast milk antibodies.'
(Am J Trop Med Hyg November 2008 vol. 79 no. 5 787-792, http://www.ajtmh.org/content/79/5/787.full).
Numerous Studies have showed the same thing. When researchers in Belgium studied vaccinated and naturally immune women, they found the vaccinated women lost antibodies faster and could not confer as many to their babies. The BMJ wrote:
'Vaccinated women had significantly fewer IgG antibodies (geometric mean titre 779 (95% confidence interval 581 to 1045) mIU/ml) than did naturally immune women (2687 (2126 to 3373) mIU/ml) (P<0.001). Maternal values were highly correlated with neonatal values (r=0.93 at birth). Infants of vaccinated women had significantly lower antibody concentrations than did infants of naturally immune women.'
(BMJ 2010;340:c1626, http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1626.full).
So the only reasons that parents are now being advised to get vaccinated to protect their newborns is because they are vaccinated and have diminished natural immunity and because most babies are formula fed from a very early age because parents aren't told how vital breast milk is for the development of their baby's immune system.
In fact, breast milk has been shown to NEUTRALIZE rotavirus vaccine - it is so potent it can kill rotavirus (and of course, today's mothers are not vaccinated for rotavirus so their immune response isn't impaired). Instead of celebrating how wonderful breast milk is at protecting our babies (after all, who needs a rotavirus vaccine if that's what breast milk does?), medics say mothers should DELAY breastfeeding to ensure that the vaccine will work. They have moved so far away from what is natural and normal, this suggestion is not even shocking to them.
Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal wrote:
'Breast milk from Indian women had the highest IgA and neutralizing titers against all 3 vaccine strains, while lower but comparable median IgA and neutralizing titers were detected in breast milk from Korean and Vietnamese women, and the lowest titers were seen in American women. Neutralizing activity was greatest against the 2 vaccine strains of human origin, RV1 and 116E. This neutralizing activity in one half of the breast milk specimens from Indian women could reduce the effective titer of RV1 by ∼2 logs, of 116E by 1.5 logs, and RV5 G1 strain by ∼1 log more than that of breast milk from American women.
The lower immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries could be explained, in part, by higher titers of IgA and neutralizing activity in breast milk consumed by their infants at the time of immunization that could effectively reduce the potency of the vaccine. Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated.'
(Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 Oct;29(10):919-23, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20442687).
4. Finally, vaccines are changing the clinical presentation of the diseases. It has now been discovered that pertussis can occur without symptoms in vaccinated children. What this means is, that the child wouldn't even be aware that he is sick, would still be going to school and mixing with lots of people including newborns and could pass on the infection to them without even knowing it. At least an unvaccinated child has a classic presentation so his parents would know to keep him at home during the 3 week infectious phase and away from newborns.
'The effects of whole-cell pertussis vaccine wane after 5 to 10 years, and infection in a vaccinated person causes nonspecific symptoms[3-7]. Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants[3-11]. The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection[15-17]. Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection.'
They blame this on the old whole cell DPT vaccine but in fact, according to Kaiser Permanente Division of Research, the acellular vaccine wanes 40% each year and is less effective. They wrote:
'Waning and less effective acellular whooping cough vaccines likely contributed to the 2010 California whooping cough outbreak, according to researchers from the Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center.
The Research is being presented this week at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, held in Boston MA.
Researchers found that DTaP vaccine (given to children younger than 7 to develop immunity for diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough) wanes about 40 percent each year. This means that if the vaccine is 90 percent effective after given, after the 5th dose (given before children enter kindergarten) it is less than 50 percent effective, according to the researchers.'
This means that even if you and your kids get re-vaccinated for whooping cough on arrival of a new baby, you can still be infectious, you can still get whooping cough and you can still pass it to your newborn baby, all courtesy of our modern vaccination programmes and the fact we have abandoned our own God given natural immune systems!
Measles immunity fades sooner in babies of vaccinated mothers
Babies born to mothers naturally immune to measles following infection are protected from the disease for longer than those whose mothers acquired measles immunity through measles-mumps-rubella immunisation, research has shown. Authors of the study, published online today in The Journal of Infectious Diseases, suggest that when the risk of measles is high, babies should receive their first MMR dose earlier than usual, even though the vaccine efficacy would be lower because their immune systems are not yet mature.
Researchers in the Netherlands compared the concentration of antibodies against viruses in blood samples taken from babies and women of childbearing age in the general population with the concentration in samples from babies and women in the orthodox protestant community, in whom vaccination uptake is low and in whom there have been recent outbreaks of measles, mumps, and rubella.
They estimated that protection by maternal antibodies among infants in the general population, most of whose mothers had been vaccinated, lasted just 3.3 months for measles, 2.7 months for mumps, 3.9 months for rubella, and 3.4 months for varicella. Babies living in the orthodox community, most of whose mothers had not been vaccinated, retained their immunity to measles for two months longer than babies in the general population. And mothers in the orthodox communities had higher concentrations of antibodies to rubella than those in the general population.
The study’s authors warn that as the first European cohort of vaccinated women is now reaching childbearing age, there could be a large pool of children unexpectedly vulnerable to infection because of the shortened duration of protection that they discovered. They suggest that when children’s risk of exposure to measles is high – for example, if they live in an area experiencing an outbreak, or if they are travelling to endemic areas – the age at which the first MMR dose is given should temporarily be reduced.
They conclude: “The average age at which a child loses the protection of its maternal antibodies and becomes susceptible to measles, mumps, and rubella lies well before the age of first MMR vaccination. It is extremely important to protect this large number of susceptible children, who have a high probability of a severe outcome when infected.
“An obvious solution is to lower the age at which the first dose of MMR is administered, but this could lower the vaccine efficacy because immunisation at a younger age is hampered by different factors, such as the immaturity of the immune response. An alternative solution is to temporarily lower the age at which the first dose of MMR vaccine is administered to one when the risk of exposure to measles is high.”
The authors of an accompanying editorial agree that early immunisation would be the most effective strategy to protect babies under a year old when the risk of measles is high.
Source: Onmedica, 9th May 2013. http://www.onmedica.com/newsarticle.aspx?id=7c4b2c09-5598-4935-8280-9b3ea650f54b
Waning of Maternal Antibodies Against Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella in Communities With Contrasting Vaccination Coverage
Background. The combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine has been successfully administered for >20 years. Because of this, protection by maternal antibodies in infants born to vaccinated mothers might be negatively affected.
Methods. A large cross-sectional serologic survey was conducted in the Netherlands during 2006–2007. We compared the kinetics of antibody concentrations in children and women of childbearing age in the highly vaccinated general population with those in orthodox Protestant communities that were exposed to outbreaks.
Results. The estimated duration of protection by maternal antibodies among infants in the general population, most of whom were born to vaccinated mothers, was short: 3.3 months for measles, 2.7 months for mumps, 3.9 months for rubella, and 3.4 months for varicella. The duration of protection against measles was 2 months longer for infants born in the orthodox communities, most of whom had unvaccinated mothers. For rubella, mothers in the orthodox communities had higher concentrations of antibodies as compared to the general population.
Conclusions. Children of mothers vaccinated against measles and, possibly, rubella have lower concentrations of maternal antibodies and lose protection by maternal antibodies at an earlier age than children of mothers in communities that oppose vaccination. This increases the risk of disease transmission in highly vaccinated populations.
In many industrialized countries, the introduction of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine into national immunization programs proved successful in reducing the incidence of these infectious diseases [1, 2]. Infants typically receive the first dose of vaccine around the first year of age . Maternally derived antibodies provide the primary protection for infants prior to this first vaccine dose. The initial concentration of maternal antibodies in a newborn is highly correlated with the antibody concentration in their mother [4–8].
Subsequently, there is waning of the maternal antibody levels in the infant, leaving the child susceptible to infections.
Optimal timing of the first dose of vaccine can contribute to keeping this period as short as possible. This is important because, among European infants aged <1 year, measles risk and severity are greater than the risk and severity among those aged ≥1 year . The optimal timing of the first MMR vaccine dose depends on 2 main factors. First, the infant's immune system should be sufficiently mature to respond to the vaccine antigens. Second, levels of maternal antibodies must be low enough to ensure that they do not neutralize the live, attenuated strains in the vaccine. Insight in the kinetics and determinants of maternal antibody concentrations is therefore very important .
A known determinant of the maternal measles virus antibody concentration is the vaccination status of the mother. Mothers who received MMR vaccine tend to have a lower concentration of measles virus–specific antibodies than mothers who naturally acquired measles [11–13]. Infants born to measles-vaccinated mothers are hence likely to have lower levels maternal antibodies at birth and a shorter period of protection than infants of mothers who acquired measles naturally [14–16].
Source: J Infect Dis. (2013) doi: 10.1093/infdis/jit143 June 1, 2013 207 (11)
Full paper available at the source.