I have long been an extreme skeptic of vaccines, and to a greater extent the companies that manufacture them, however, in light of some additional data I have updated my stance on the subject. I will be exploring both the good, bad, and ugly of vaccines, but not in that order. So please don't write me off as an anti-vaxxer before you read both sides of the story. 
In my opinion, in a perfect world, pharmaceutical companies would see the importance of developing post-infection cures to immunizable infectious diseases and once such cures would be developed, vaccines would be used only as a stop-gap measure in communities where outbreaks occur (in combination with standard quarantine measures) to prevent the spread of the outbreak. Why do it this way? Well because, despite what some pro-vax or pro-pharma people might have you believe, vaccines are not without their side-effects.
Even with a less than 2% risk of severe adverse reactions, given that the bulk of the population of the worlds developed nations are exposed to not one, but a plethora of these preventative medications, it means there are many thousands of people (predominantly children) that will experience severe (in some cases life altering and even life threatening) reactions to these products. The precise level of risk relating to these side-effects is virtually impossible to determine with accuracy even taking the VAERS into account, since adverse reactions are, whenever possible, blamed on the spontaneous and purely coincidental expression of some pre-existing condition (sometimes using very imaginative logic). Yes, it is possible for a pre-existing condition to manifest in the days or even hours following a vaccination shot, but the probabilities of this are no where near what they would need to be to line up with how often this excuse is used. The VAERS only documents how often attempts to use this or other excuses fail.
Vaccines work by triggering an immune response to a dormant form of a virus (or parts of a virus) in order to allow the body to develop antibodies that will attack the active form. However, triggering a strong immune reaction within someone, most especially very young children and infants, is not without it's own risks. Everybody is different and some can react much more strongly than others. If a child's immune system reacts too strongly it can lead to very high fever and even the risk of encephalitis. When a persons body reacts to a new pathogen, it is possible that the antibodies it creates for this pathogen may target other microbes in the body, creating an imbalance in the persons internal micro-ecosystem.
Over 5% of a persons body weight is bacteria, and not all of them are bad. In fact, bacteria (and likely other microbes) are heavily responsible for health and survival. Some bacteria are only good in certain amounts, so other varieties keep them in check. The contributions of this vast microbial ecosystem within each of us to human health is only just beginning to be uncovered by science. Exposing a young child to vaccines or antibiotics (And yes I know those are two very different things) can affect this balance, and it is suspected by some that children with a specific gene may be at much higher risk of being adversely affected by vaccines in this way. If this is true then children should be screened for this gene prior to vaccination. I doubt this will ever happen even if further research definitively proves this link.
Now, the other side of the story. Because we do not live in a perfect world and drug companies have absolutely no monetary incentive to ever develop post infection cures to diseases immunized by their very lucrative vaccine products (and in fact it would be commercially counter-intuitive to do so) the method of handling immunizable diseases by exposing virtually everyone to the possible side-effects of vaccines shall remain in place for the foreseeable future. So the question then is, which is worse, the risks associated with the diseases or the risks associated with the preventative medication? And this is where information I've only recently taken into account has changed my opinion on the vaccine issue. You see, as it turns out, the risks associated with some of these diseases doesn't end with the infection itself. A 100% fatal, non-curible post infection complication called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis can occur in those who had previously been infected with measles (which is something which I had not previously known and therefore taken into account). Recrunching the numbers (or estimates) based on the addition of this information leads me to now strongly believe that vaccines are the lesser of two evils. But I personally feel that vaccines should not (except in rare circumstances) be administered to infants or children under 2 (except for the measles vaccine) nor should they be stacked (let's keep toxic load to a minimum and allow the patients immune system to react to one vaccine at a time. Better safe than sorry).
The current system that is in place for dealing with these diseases is far from perfect, and each year hundreds of parents of children who suffer severe adverse reactions to vaccines face not only a steep uphill legal battle to receive compensation (not from the vaccine makers by the way, but from you because the government shields the companies from liability) they also face the stigma of being demonized as an anti-vaxxer for daring to try. These folks are not the bad guys here, they simply want help with the very high cost of caring for their vaccine-injured child and this expectation is more than justified. Their children are the unfortunate ones who are suffering so yours hopefully won't and they need our support not our outrage. The big pharmaceutical companies that produce these products are far from infallible and the medical community is far from omniscient about human health. There are risks to vaccines, but there are greater risks associated with the diseases they protect against. So my best advice to you is to choose the lesser of two evils and pray that your child is not among those who have a severe reaction. If you can only be persuaded to get your child vaccinated from one thing, let it be measles. Herd immunity is not just a marketing catch phrase folks, it's the best shield we have. (At least until we come to live in that perfect world I spoke of earlier).
In my opinion, in a perfect world, pharmaceutical companies would see the importance of developing post-infection cures to immunizable infectious diseases and once such cures would be developed, vaccines would be used only as a stop-gap measure in communities where outbreaks occur (in combination with standard quarantine measures) to prevent the spread of the outbreak. Why do it this way? Well because, despite what some pro-vax or pro-pharma people might have you believe, vaccines are not without their side-effects.
Even with a less than 2% risk of severe adverse reactions, given that the bulk of the population of the worlds developed nations are exposed to not one, but a plethora of these preventative medications, it means there are many thousands of people (predominantly children) that will experience severe (in some cases life altering and even life threatening) reactions to these products. The precise level of risk relating to these side-effects is virtually impossible to determine with accuracy even taking the VAERS into account, since adverse reactions are, whenever possible, blamed on the spontaneous and purely coincidental expression of some pre-existing condition (sometimes using very imaginative logic). Yes, it is possible for a pre-existing condition to manifest in the days or even hours following a vaccination shot, but the probabilities of this are no where near what they would need to be to line up with how often this excuse is used. The VAERS only documents how often attempts to use this or other excuses fail.
Vaccines work by triggering an immune response to a dormant form of a virus (or parts of a virus) in order to allow the body to develop antibodies that will attack the active form. However, triggering a strong immune reaction within someone, most especially very young children and infants, is not without it's own risks. Everybody is different and some can react much more strongly than others. If a child's immune system reacts too strongly it can lead to very high fever and even the risk of encephalitis. When a persons body reacts to a new pathogen, it is possible that the antibodies it creates for this pathogen may target other microbes in the body, creating an imbalance in the persons internal micro-ecosystem.
Over 5% of a persons body weight is bacteria, and not all of them are bad. In fact, bacteria (and likely other microbes) are heavily responsible for health and survival. Some bacteria are only good in certain amounts, so other varieties keep them in check. The contributions of this vast microbial ecosystem within each of us to human health is only just beginning to be uncovered by science. Exposing a young child to vaccines or antibiotics (And yes I know those are two very different things) can affect this balance, and it is suspected by some that children with a specific gene may be at much higher risk of being adversely affected by vaccines in this way. If this is true then children should be screened for this gene prior to vaccination. I doubt this will ever happen even if further research definitively proves this link.
Now, the other side of the story. Because we do not live in a perfect world and drug companies have absolutely no monetary incentive to ever develop post infection cures to diseases immunized by their very lucrative vaccine products (and in fact it would be commercially counter-intuitive to do so) the method of handling immunizable diseases by exposing virtually everyone to the possible side-effects of vaccines shall remain in place for the foreseeable future. So the question then is, which is worse, the risks associated with the diseases or the risks associated with the preventative medication? And this is where information I've only recently taken into account has changed my opinion on the vaccine issue. You see, as it turns out, the risks associated with some of these diseases doesn't end with the infection itself. A 100% fatal, non-curible post infection complication called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis can occur in those who had previously been infected with measles (which is something which I had not previously known and therefore taken into account). Recrunching the numbers (or estimates) based on the addition of this information leads me to now strongly believe that vaccines are the lesser of two evils. But I personally feel that vaccines should not (except in rare circumstances) be administered to infants or children under 2 (except for the measles vaccine) nor should they be stacked (let's keep toxic load to a minimum and allow the patients immune system to react to one vaccine at a time. Better safe than sorry).
The current system that is in place for dealing with these diseases is far from perfect, and each year hundreds of parents of children who suffer severe adverse reactions to vaccines face not only a steep uphill legal battle to receive compensation (not from the vaccine makers by the way, but from you because the government shields the companies from liability) they also face the stigma of being demonized as an anti-vaxxer for daring to try. These folks are not the bad guys here, they simply want help with the very high cost of caring for their vaccine-injured child and this expectation is more than justified. Their children are the unfortunate ones who are suffering so yours hopefully won't and they need our support not our outrage. The big pharmaceutical companies that produce these products are far from infallible and the medical community is far from omniscient about human health. There are risks to vaccines, but there are greater risks associated with the diseases they protect against. So my best advice to you is to choose the lesser of two evils and pray that your child is not among those who have a severe reaction. If you can only be persuaded to get your child vaccinated from one thing, let it be measles. Herd immunity is not just a marketing catch phrase folks, it's the best shield we have. (At least until we come to live in that perfect world I spoke of earlier).
Last edited:
