 |
|
|
|
| First Time Moms |
| Public online group |
|
|
| |
|
|
My daughter is two months old today and had her first set of immunization shots. It was absolutely horrible! The nurse didn't even try to be gentle and my daughter wailed!! She is a very happy baby and rarely gets upset. My brother-in-law accidentally hit her with a pen from across the room (I beat him up for it, don't worry!) and she didn't peep! But the nurse ruthlessly stabbed her poor little legs and she screamed until she was purple and couldn't even breathe. It was utterly tragic.
What are your opinions on immunizations? I'm starting to rethink them now. Some of my husband's siblings weren't immunized and they seem to be fine. I hate that these immunizations hurt her so much. All day she's been sleeping and when she's not sleeping, she's not happy, which is so not like her. I hate it! My husband isn't too keen on immunizations because of his family, but I need some other opinions. |
| Posted by Caryn on 12/29/2008 09:28 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Hi Caryn
There is an amazing website that goes over vaccines and an alternate vaccine schedule.
It is Generationrescue.org. Click on the top link on vaccines and it goes over safer guide lines and a slower schedule. It also goes over our rights to choose and not be forced.
My son is 11 months old, and I decide not to take risk of giving his MMR as one vacsine, and hold with single shots till he is 18 or 24 months old.
It is too much for a little body to get so many viruses at once. You can print it out and take it to any doctor and insist on single vaccines 6 months apart. Also, ask to read the ingredients. They say Thimerisol and mercury are not in some of them, but its not true.
Ask to see the insert.
GOOD LUCK !
|
| posted by MAG on 12/29/2008 09:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
My son has had his immunizations as recommended by his pediatrician. I did the research on them, but in my opinion, I want him protected against these deadly viruses. When he had to have one, I would give him a dose of Tylenol about an hour before the shot, and then every 4 hours after for that day and the next, which really helped with his mood. In regards to the shot being painful and how the nurse did it, I would suggest finding out who it was that did the shot, and then asking for another nurse the next time.
I know that some people say that immunizations are linked to autism, and depending on how you look at the reports, it can suggest that, or it can show the opposite. I think it really depends on what the people issuing the report want you to believe. Either way though, we no longer have pandemic virus outbreaks because of immunizations. Although this may not be the popular idea, I do agree with the regulations that require kids to be immunized to attend public school. I feel that a child who has not been imunized is putting the other children at risk becuase they could be carrying a fatal disease and it could be prevented. Granted the other kids were immunized and so the danger of them catching it is low, but there is still a chance.
Those are just my opinions on the matter though. In the end, it is up to each parent to decide what to do for their kids, and they are the ones that must accept the consequences of their choices, good or bad. |
| posted by Casey on 12/29/2008 09:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
We do not actually have to vaccinate at all. There is a waiver you can sign when entering them in school. They try to scare us unto saying it's "mandantory" but it's not,
IT IS PARETNS CHOISE.
I always followed their advice and gave to my son tylenol before and after vaccines, but it actaully adds to the toxicity of the vaccine. And now I check that they say use infant motrin and advil instead.
I feel it is like arguing what is better for you real butter or margarine :)
the true is in both sides, and is really your DECISION. |
| posted by MAG on 12/29/2008 10:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
| ....that is until that child who isn't vaccinated spreads it to another unvaccinated child. I'm a teacher and I've seen it happen!! It is now POPULAR to not vaccinate and in turn, children are at risk. Twenty years ago people would be laughing at us and thinking we're crazy for not vaccinating our children. |
| posted by Heather on 12/31/2008 11:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
yes they would be laughing at us because 20 years ego VACCINATION SCHEDULE was different then now !!!
In 1993 we had 10 and now we have 36 RECOMMENDED Vaccines.....
Vaccines can be poisoning to such a little body ...and so many of them in one time ... when immune system is still "developing", child at age 24 months is much stronger to deal with it ....
It really is shocking to look at the 1983 recommended vaccine schedule and compare it to 2008. Does a child really need so many more vaccines today? Quiz your doctor by asking them how many vaccines were on the schedule in the 1980s.
|
| posted by MAG on 12/31/2008 12:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
| I think you just had a bad experience w/ a bad nurse. I cried more than my daughter at her 2 months shot and the nurse was comforting my daughter AND me. The nurse had the attitude of "I hate doing this but its for your own good" and was real gentle w/ my baby. My daughter cried literrally for a few seconds. Just while she was on the table getting the shots and as soon as I picked her up and held her against me she stopped and I swear wrinkled her eyebrows in a mad way & gave me this look of "why did you let them do that to me?" By the time I got her to the car she was asleep. I too, like Casey, gave her Tylenol 1 hour before taking her and four hours after her shot. I stopped giving it to her after that because she got a fever. I gave her a normal bath that night and other than vomitting once the next day, my daughte was fine. |
| posted by April on 12/31/2008 02:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
i have had the regular vaccine schedule up until now (she's thirteen months) but now that its time for the MMR, i am choosing to delay them for a while and then do them seperately. also, im not doing the chicken pox vaccine. i feel it is unneeded. chickenpox is a right of childhood not something horrible like polio. i feel vaccines are needed to prevent outbreaks, but they should not be given to such tiny babies all at once...i do feel it has something to do with autism and that is one reason i am delaying her vaccines for a while...the MMR one scares me the most
also, that nurse needs someone to jab her with a needle to be reminded that patients are PEOPLE not oranges (they practice shots on oranges)...i would totally report her to the dr. and ask for a different nurse the next time |
| posted by nikki on 12/31/2008 02:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with the comment that chickenpox are a right of childhood, or some sort of passage. I don't think that something that causes pain, discomfort, ect to a child is a right of childhood. If there is something that I can do, such as have my son vaccinated (which causes pain for a couple of seconds verses a couple of weeks like the disease) to prevent him from having to go through that experience, I am going to do it. In addition to scarring, there can be other side effects from developing chicken pox. I have not heard of any danger in relation to the chicken pox vaccine. I have been around a lot of kids who have had it done, including my brother, and have not seen any sort of reaction. The reverse is true with the disease. I have seen kids with it so bad that they have the sores on their eyes, up their nasal passages, down their throat, ect. They are in so much pain, it is pitiful, and to imagine that their parent could have prevented it if they had wanted to makes it so much worse.
I want to do everything I can to make my son's life better, and to me, one of those things is getting him vaccinated to prevent him from contracting any number of diseases.
In regards to the amount of vaccines being given now versus in the 1980s, I would imagine that it has increased because our knowledge has increased, and with it, the safe vaccines. As we learn more about different diseases, and as our scientific abilities increase, so do our abilites to produce safe vaccines. Although I have not actually looked up the info, that would be a predominate reason for the number to go up, rather than that they just want to inject our kids with stuff. Doctors take an oath to provide the best care for their patients, and while not all abide by this, I think the majority do, and those doctors do not just want to give our kids shots because they can. There is a valid reason behind children getting vaccines, to reduce their risk of contracting the disease, and increase their life expetency and overall health. If you consider the health and life of children 100 years ago, compared to today, their mortality rate has dropped, in large part due to vaccines. |
| posted by Casey on 12/31/2008 03:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to start by responding the sentence "If you consider the health and life of children 100 years ago, compared to today, their mortality rate has dropped, in large part due to vaccines."
I found an interesting article on the subject of US infant mortality rates. Here are a few exerpts (from wsws.org):
Title: US infant mortality rate now worse than 28 other countries
By Patrick O’Connor
18 October 2008
A report issued Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) documents how the infant mortality rate in the United States is growing in relation to other countries. The study, "Recent Trends in Infant Mortality in the United States," found that at least 28 other countries now have lower death rates for infants in the first year of life.
The US's relative position has declined steadily. In 1960, it had the 12th lowest infant mortality rate, but by 1990 had dropped to 23rd place, and by 2004—the latest year of the CDC's comparative world figures on living standards—the US ranked 29th. The most recent study, published in July and titled "The Measure of America," estimated that the US is now in 34th place.
Several countries in Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway, Finland) and East Asia (Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore) have an infant mortality rate below 3.5, almost half the US rate. The CDC's 2004 rankings placed the US in a tie with Poland and Slovakia, and only marginally ahead of Puerto Rico and Chile. The US was behind EVERY developed country in North America, Western Europe, and Australia, as well as Cuba, Hungary, Israel, and the Czech Republic.
[Iceland has the lowest infant mortality rate and has no stringent rules on infant vaccinations]
Infant mortality is a critical indicator of social progress. As the CDC report explains, "Infant mortality is one of the most important indicators of the health of a nation, as it is associated with a variety of factors such as maternal health, quality and access to medical care, socioeconomic conditions, and public health practices [including vaccinations]."
So, I would have to disagree that our knowledge and ability to create 'safe' vaccines has improved the mortality rate of our children.
I have written extensively (in previous posts on this site and 'stay at home moms' site) on the dangers of vaccinations because of the preservatives, chemicals, route of administration, damage to the immune system and dosage on small infants/toddlers. If you look at the back of an ibuprofen, acetaminophen or benadryl bottle, you will always find dosage by weight. Vaccines are not given this way. Our kids should not go by 'one size fits all'.
What I don't understand is that parents' go nuts when they hear that lead may be in childrens' toys, but pay no mind to the toxins in the vaccines given. These toxins (or preservatives as the CDC calls them) are being placed in vaccines in increasing dosages because the vaccines are not 100% effective. The proper name for these toxins is 'adjuvants'. It is these adjuvants that are supposed to make the vaccines more potent and effective, but end up causing more harm to our children.
I googled 'Vaccine Ingredients by the Vaccine Information Service' and found the following:
Below is a list of ingredients in vaccines. (It is not exhaustive - there are other chemicals not in the list.)
If you are tempted to assume that these poisons would only be in harmless quantities in vaccines, note:
1) There is no safe level for some of these poisons, such as formaldehyde and mercury, even if one of them was consumed or injected on its own.
2) Even if the quantity of any given ingredient was within a safe level, remember that a large number of these are being taken in all at once, which can lead to the accumulative toxicity being much higher.
3) Poisons such as formaldehyde and mercury are well known to have a sensitising effect on the body, i.e. they cause increased susceptibility to any foreign substance that it might encounter at the same time or in the future.
4) Even the manufacturers admit to a large list of adverse effects of vaccines, including even death.
The resultant damage, including brain damage, from these toxins can vary from mild enough not to be apparent, through to severe, in some cases death. You cannot inject a living being with these poisons and expect there to be no adverse effect at all. What varies, and varies greatly, is merely the degree of damage. The reason for the large variation in this degree of damage include:
great genetic variations in recipients, affecting susceptibility in general and susceptibility to specific vaccines
variations within one recipient from one time to another (due to biorhythms, other work the immune system is doing already fighting other infections, how many vaccines have already been given, etc), and
variations between vaccine batches - there is an acknowledged weakness in the area of controlling the levels of toxins in vaccines, resulting in some batches being labelled "hot lots". (Sadly even this identification does not necessarily result in recalls, but rather in distributing the "hot lot" as broadly as possible, as revealed in a leaked letter from a pharmaceutical company.)
Post mortems on cot death babies [SIDS] indicate asphyxia, which can be due to the level of poisons being just that little bit too high for these individuals’ immature immune systems to mount a defense of the strength and sustained period of time required to deal with them. Adding to the difficulty in dealing with the large load of poisons is the fact that these poisons interfere with the activities of the immune system itself, and thus weaken its ability to eliminate any poisons. In the younger babies the battle is more often lost within hours or a few days from the injection. In the older babies they more often hold out longer and only lose the battle after a few weeks or longer (J Pediatrics 1982).
For chemical profiles and definitions, visit http://www.scorecard.org/.
Formaldehyde (the preservative we use to embalm dead people and used in vaccines as a tissue fixative):
Aust. National Research Council: Fewer than 20% but perhaps more than 10% of the general population may be susceptible to formaldehyde and may react acutely at any exposure level. More hazardous than most chemicals in 5 out of 12 ranking systems, on at least 8 federal regulatory lists, ranked as one of the most hazardous compounds (worst 10%) to ecosystems and human health (Environmental Defense Fund).
It is not safe at ANY level.
National Research Council:
Fewer than 20% but perhaps more than 10% of the general population may be susceptible to formaldehyde and may react acutely at any exposure level.
Formaldehyde is oxidized to formic acid which leads to acidosis and nerve damage. Acidosis can be described as a condition in which the acidity of the body tissues and fluids is abnormally high. The liver and the kidneys may also be damaged.
Other toxins (and I'll let you google the site and read the side effects on your own time) include: Mercury, Antifreeze, Aluminum, 2--Phenoxyethanol, Phenol, Methanol, Borax, Glutaraldehyde, MSG, Animal Organ Tissue and Blood, Aborted Human Fetal Tissue (for all you pro-lifers out there), Animal and Human Viruses...and so on, and so forth. A lot of these ingredients are proteins. Our bodies always consider foreign proteins as invaders, so the immune system is waaaay over activated to try to deal with all of these toxins.
So what are we doing here? We are trading diseases in which the body is fully capable of ridding on its own for vaccines loaded with toxins. Go to the Mayo Clinic website and look for the treatment of most of these childhood diseases. The treatment, most often, is to do NOTHING. Keep the child comfortable, hydrated and watch the fever. Since most of these diseases are viruses, there are no remedies for them. Some are bacterial in which antibiotics would be the appropriate treatment.
We no longer live in an unsanitary world without sewer systems and single family homes. This has helped to stop the transmission of a lot of these diseases. Case in point...the bacterium, Yersinia pestis, responsible for the Bubonic/Pneumonic Plague claimed over 200 million lives in Europe during the 6th century. This bacterium lives on flea infested rats and is still around today (especially in the south and southwest)
We tend to assume that this is not a present day disease, however we are mistaken. About 10 to 20 people contract the disease each year in the USA. Our main defense against the disease is hygiene. Our modern sewage systems and Public Health organizations keep this plague to a minimum.
So while vaccines are hailed as the magical medicines that have eradicated most disease, I tend to disagree. I think the COMBINATION of cleaner vaccines and better sanitation/hygiene have helped to keep these diseases in check.
While doctors do take oaths to provide the best care for patients, on the top of the list is 'first do no harm'. Since no one is sure whether or not vaccines cause irreparable neurologic and immunologic damage to children, this oath is not being used as intended.
I do concede that vaccines have saved the lives of children and eradicated certain diseases; but the number of vaccines given to children these days is rediculous. There is NOT always a valid reason as to why children are given vaccines. Immediately after birth, children are given the Hep B vaccine. The only ways a child can contract Hep B is if 1) the mother has Hep B and transmits it to the infant 2) the child exchanges bodily fluids with someone with Hep B (basically, the same way someone would contract HIV).
Additionally, while no mom wants to see her child in pain, vaccines such as chicken pox, rotavirus, flu, Hep A, etc..are unnecessary. It is a fact that the majority of children who contract a vaccine preventable disease recover without a major incident or death; although the CDC would like you to believe that if your child does contract one of these diseases, he/she will be on the brink of death. The 'measle epidemic' of 2008 infected 133,000 people in the US (the US population is roughly over 300 million)... WITHOUT ANY DEATHS. Poison Control estimates that 458 people die yearly from Acetaminophen (Tylenol) liver failure, but no one is causing a fuss demanding that Tylenol be pulled off of the shelves.
So, I just want to make my point very clear. I am not anti-vaccine, but I am anti-vaccine in the current form. I am not 100% sure that vaccines ALONE cause neurological damage, but if one looks at the current increasing vaccine schedule, suspicious is definitely warranted. I have said this before, and I'll say it again, studies need to be done on vaccinated versus unvaccinated children to put to rest, once and for all, if vaccines have anything to do with the astonishing rise in neurological disorders in children (same line of thinking as Generation Rescue). Nevertheless, the toxins listed above need to be out of the vaccines.
And before anyone starts quoting the CDC, please google and read this article first: 'Lawmakers sever ties between CDC and Big Pharma.' If you still feel your position is warranted after reading the article, then go ahead and quote the CDC. |
| posted by Allison on 01/03/2009 06:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
| Wow, this is a touchy subject. My daughter is going in on Wednesday for her 4 month checkup and to get her second set of vaccines. I go back and forth on this subject almost every day, but in the end I'm going to go with the schedule the Dr sets - I'd rather her go through a small amount of suffering than suffer through some of these diseases. Because many parents are skipping critical vaccines some of these diseases are starting to make a comeback - we just had a Whooping Cough outbreak in our area. |
| posted by joann on 01/03/2009 09:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
You're right. This is a touchy subject with some moms. When I post, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything; I just want both sides of the issue to be brought to light. Since there is so much info on pro-vaccinations, I like to provide the flip side.
Since you mentioned the Whooping Cough outbreak in your area, I'd like to post a bit of info I found on the subject. The following is from wrongdiagnosis.com, and is entitled: Prevalence and Incidence of Whooping Cough:
In the United States, 5000-7000 cases are reported each year. Incidence of pertussis has increased steadily since the 1980s. The highest incidence since 1967 (2.9/100,000) was reported in 1996, when 7796 cases of pertussis were reported. (Source: excerpt from Pertussis: DBMD)
Just a thought...but one would think with the more stringent vaccine schedules these days that the incidence of pertussis would have declined. It appears the opposite has occurred. |
| posted by Allison on 01/03/2009 03:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to post an interview with a former vaccine-maker which was conducted in 2002. Warning: it is very long, but anyone considering vaccinating a child should read this info, then do their own research.
SOURCE: JON RAPPOPORT
http://www.nomorefakenews.com/
Q: You were once certain that vaccines were the hallmark of good medicine.
A: Yes I was. I helped develop a few vaccines. I won't say which ones.
Q: Why not?
A: I want to preserve my privacy.
Q: So you think you could have problems if you came out into the open?
A: I believe I could lose my pension.
Q: On what grounds?
A: The grounds don't matter. These people have ways of causing you problems, when you were once part of the Club. I know one or two people who were put under surveillance, who were harassed.
Q: Harassed by whom?
A: The FBI.
Q: Really?
A: Sure. The FBI used other pretexts. And the IRS can come calling too.
Q: So much for free speech.
A: I was "part of the inner circle." If now I began to name names and make specific accusations against researchers, I could be in a world of trouble.
Q: What is at the bottom of these efforts at harassment?
A: Vaccines are the last defense of modern medicine. Vaccines are the ultimate justification for the overall "brilliance" of modern medicine.
Q: Do you believe that people should be allowed to choose whether they should get vaccines?
A: On a political level, yes. On a scientific level, people need information, so that they can choose well. It's one thing to say choice is good. But if the atmosphere is full of lies, how can you choose? Also, if the FDA were run by honorable people, these vaccines would not be granted licenses. They would be investigated to within an inch of their lives.
Q: There are medical historians who state that the overall decline of illnesses was not due to vaccines.
A: I know. For a long time, I ignored their work.
Q: Why?
A: Because I was afraid of what I would find out. I was in the business of developing vaccines. My livelihood depended on continuing that work.
Q: And then?
A: I did my own investigation.
Q: What conclusions did you come to?
A: The decline of disease is due to improved living conditions.
Q: What conditions?
A: Cleaner water. Advanced sewage systems. Nutrition. Fresher food. A decrease in poverty. Germs may be everywhere, but when you are healthy, you don't contract the diseases as easily.
Q: What did you feel when you completed your own investigation?
A: Despair. I realized I was working a sector based on a collection of lies.
Q: Are some vaccines more dangerous than others?
A: Yes. The DPT shot, for example. The MMR. But some lots of a vaccine are more dangerous than other lots of the same vaccine. As far as I'm concerned, all vaccines are dangerous.
Q: Why?
A: Several reasons. They involve the human immune system in a process that tends to compromise immunity. They can actually cause the disease they are supposed to prevent. They can cause other diseases than the ones they are supposed to prevent.
Q: Why are we quoted statistics which seem to prove that vaccines have been tremendously successful at wiping out diseases?
A: Why? To give the illusion that these vaccines are useful. If a vaccine suppresses visible symptoms of a disease like measles, everyone assumes that the vaccine is a success. But, under the surface, the vaccine can harm the immune system itself. And if it causes other diseases -- say, meningitis -- that fact is masked, because no one believes that the vaccine can do that. The connection is overlooked.
Q: It is said that the smallpox vaccine wiped out smallpox in England.
A: Yes. But when you study the available statistics, you get another picture.
Q: Which is?
A: There were cities in England where people who were not vaccinated did not get smallpox. There were places where people who were vaccinated experienced smallpox epidemics. And smallpox was already on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.
Q: So you're saying that we have been treated to a false history.
A: Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. This is a history that has been cooked up to convince people that vaccines are invariably safe and effective.
Q: Now, you worked in labs. Where purity was an issue.
A: The public believes that these labs, these manufacturing facilities are the cleanest places in the world. That is not true. Contamination occurs all the time. You get all sorts of debris introduced into vaccines.
Q: For example, the SV40 monkey virus slips into the polio vaccine.
A: Well yes, that happened. But that's not what I mean. The SV40 got into the polio vaccine because the vaccine was made by using monkey kidneys. But I'm talking about something else. The actual lab conditions. The mistakes. The careless errors. SV40, which was later found in cancer tumors -- that was what I would call a structural problem. It was an accepted part of the manufacturing process. If you use monkey kidneys, you open the door to germs which you don't know are in those kidneys.
Q: Okay, but let's ignore that distinction between different types of contaminants for a moment. What contaminants did you find in your many years of work with vaccines?
A: All right. I'll give you some of what I came across, and I'll also give you what colleagues of mine found. Here's a partial list. In the Rimavex measles vaccine, we found various chicken viruses. In polio vaccine, we found acanthamoeba, which is a so-called "brain-eating" amoeba. Simian cytomegalovirus in polio vaccine. Simian foamy virus in the rotavirus vaccine. Bird-cancer viruses in the MMR vaccine. Various micro-organisms in the anthrax vaccine. I've found potentially dangerous enzyme inhibitors in several vaccines. Duck, dog, and rabbit viruses in the rubella vaccine. Avian leucosis virus in the flu vaccine. Pestivirus in the MMR vaccine.
Q: Let me get this straight. These are all contaminants which don't belong in the vaccines.
A: That's right. And if you try to calculate what damage these contaminants can cause, well, we don't really know, because no testing has been done, or very little testing. It's a game of roulette. You take your chances. Also, most people don't know that some polio vaccines, adenovirus vaccines, rubella and hep A and measles vaccines have been made with aborted human fetal tissue. I have found what I believed were bacterial fragments and poliovirus in these vaccines from time to time -- which may have come from that fetal tissue. When you look for contaminants in vaccines, you can come up with material that IS puzzling. You know it shouldn't be there, but you don't know exactly what you've got. I have found what I believed was a very small "fragment" of human hair and also human mucus. I have found what can only be called "foreign protein," which could mean almost anything. It could mean protein from viruses.
Q: Alarm bells are ringing all over the place.
A: How do you think I felt? Remember, this material is going into the bloodstream without passing through some of the ordinary immune defenses.
Q: How were your findings received?
A: Basically, it was, don't worry, this can't be helped. In making vaccines, you use various animals' tissue, and that's where this kind of contamination enters in. Of course, I'm not even mentioning the standard chemicals like formaldehyde, mercury, and aluminum which are purposely put into vaccines.
Q: This information is pretty staggering.
A: Yes. And I'm just mentioning some of the biological contaminants. Who knows how many others there are? Others we don't find because we don't think to look for them. If tissue from, say, a bird is used to make a vaccine, how many possible germs can be in that tissue? We have no idea. We have no idea what they might be, or what effects they could have on humans.
Q: And beyond the purity issue?
A: You are dealing with the basic faulty premise about vaccines. That they intricately stimulate the immune system to create the conditions for immunity from disease. That is the bad premise. It doesn't work that way. A vaccine is supposed to "create" antibodies which, indirectly, offer protection against disease. However, the immune system is much larger and more involved than antibodies and their related "killer cells."
Q: The immune system is?
A: The entire body, really. Plus the mind. It's all immune system, you might say. That is why you can have, in the middle of an epidemic, those individuals who remain healthy.
Q: So the level of general health is important.
A: More than important. Vital.
Q: How are vaccine statistics falsely presented?
A: There are many ways. For example, suppose that 25 people who have received the hepatitis B vaccine come down with hepatitis. Well, hep B is a liver disease. But you can call liver disease many things. You can change the diagnosis. Then, you've concealed the root cause of the problem.
Q: And that happens?
A: All the time. It HAS to happen, if the doctors automatically assume that people who get vaccines DO NOT come down with the diseases they are now supposed to be protected from. And that is exactly what doctors assume. You see, it's circular reasoning. It's a closed system. It admits no fault. No possible fault. If a person who gets a vaccine against hepatitis gets hepatitis, or gets some other disease, the automatic assumption is, this had nothing to do with the disease.
Q: In your years working in the vaccine establishment, how many doctors did you encounter who admitted that vaccines were a problem?
A: None. There were a few who privately questioned what they were doing. But they would never go public, even within their companies.
Q: What was the turning point for you?
A: I had a friend whose baby died after a DPT shot.
Q: Did you investigate?
A: Yes, informally. I found that this baby was completely healthy before the vaccination. There was no reason for his death, except the vaccine. That started my doubts. Of course, I wanted to believe that the baby had gotten a bad shot from a bad lot. But as I looked into this further, I found that was not the case in this instance. I was being drawn into a spiral of doubt that increased over time. I continued to investigate. I found that, contrary to what I thought, vaccines are not tested in a scientific way.
Q: What do you mean?
A: For example, no long-term studies are done on any vaccines. Long-term follow-up is not done in any careful way. Why? Because, again, the assumption is made that vaccines do not cause problems. So why should anyone check? On top of that, a vaccine reaction is defined so that all bad reactions are said to occur very soon after the shot is given. But that does not make sense.
Q: Why doesn't it make sense?
A: Because the vaccine obviously acts in the body for a long period of time after it is given. A reaction can be gradual. Deterioration can be gradual. Neurological problems can develop over time. They do in various conditions, even according to a conventional analysis. So why couldn't that be the case with vaccines? If chemical poisoning can occur gradually, why couldn't that be the case with a vaccine which contains mercury?
Q: And that is what you found?
A: Yes. You are dealing with correlations, most of the time. Correlations are not perfect. But if you get 500 parents whose children have suffered neurological damage during a one-year period after having a vaccine, this should be sufficient to spark off an intense investigation.
Q: Has it been enough?
A: No. Never. This tells you something right away.
Q: Which is?
A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, "This vaccine is safe." But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine.
Q: There are numerous cases where a vaccine campaign has failed. Where people have come down with the disease against which they were vaccinated.
A: Yes, there are many such instances. And there the evidence is simply ignored. It's discounted. The experts say, if they say anything at all, that this is just an isolated situation, but overall the vaccine has been shown to be safe. But if you add up all the vaccine campaigns where damage and disease have occurred, you realize that these are NOT isolated situations.
Q: Did you ever discuss what we are talking about here with colleagues, when you were still working in the vaccine establishment?
A: Yes I did.
Q: What happened?
A: Several times I was told to keep quiet. It was made clear that I should go back to work and forget my misgivings. On a few occasions, I encountered fear. Colleagues tried to avoid me. They felt they could be labeled with "guilt by association." All in all, though, I behaved myself. I made sure I didn't create problems for myself.
Q: If vaccines actually do harm, why are they given?
A: First of all, there is no "if." They do harm. It becomes a more difficult question to decide whether they do harm in those people who seem to show no harm. Then you are dealing with the kind of research which should be done, but isn't. Researchers should be probing to discover a kind of map, or flow chart, which shows exactly what vaccines do in the body from the moment they enter. This research has not been done. As to why they are given, we could sit here for two days and discuss all the reasons. As you've said many times, at different layers of the system people have their motives. Money, fear of losing a job, the desire to win brownie points, prestige, awards, promotion, misguided idealism, unthinking habit, and so on. But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know that may be hard to accept, but it's true. The medical cartel, at the highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests. There is an underground, shall we say, in Africa, made up of various officials who are earnestly trying to change the lot of the poor. This network of people knows what is going on. They know that vaccines have been used, and are being used, to destroy their countries, to make them ripe for takeover by globalist powers. I have had the opportunity to speak with several of these people from this network.
Q: Is Thabo Mbeki, the president of South Africa, aware of the situation?
A: I would say he is partially aware. Perhaps he is not utterly convinced, but he is on the way to realizing the whole truth. He already knows that HIV is a hoax. He knows that the AIDS drugs are poisons which destroy the immune system. He also knows that if he speaks out, in any way, about the vaccine issue, he will be branded a lunatic. He has enough trouble after his stand on the AIDS issue.
Q: This network you speak of.
A: It has accumulated a huge amount of information about vaccines. The question is, how is a successful strategy going to be mounted? For these people, that is a difficult issue.
Q: And in the industrialized nations?
A: The medical cartel has a stranglehold, but it is diminishing. Mainly because people have the freedom to question medicines. However, if the choice issue [the right to take or reject any medicine] does not gather steam, these coming mandates about vaccines against biowarefare germs are going to win out. This is an important time.
Q: The furor over the hepatits B vaccine seems one good avenue.
A: I think so, yes. To say that babies must have the vaccine-and then in the next breath, admitting that a person gets hep B from sexual contacts and shared needles -- is a ridiculous juxtaposition. Medical authorities try to cover themselves by saying that 20,000 or so children in the US get hep B every year from "unknown causes," and that's why every baby must have the vaccine. I dispute that 20,00 figure and the so-called studies that back it up.
Q: Andrew Wakefield, the British MD who uncovered the link between the MMR vaccine and autism, has just been fired from his job in a London hospital.
A: Yes. Wakefield performed a great service. His correlations between the vaccine and autism are stunning. Perhaps you know that Tony Blair's wife is involved with alternative health. There is the possibility that their child has not been given the MMR. Blair recently side-stepped the question in press interviews, and made it seem that he was simply objecting to invasive questioning of his "personal and family life." In any event, I believe his wife has been muzzled. I think, if given the chance, she would at least say she is sympathetic to all the families who have come forward and stated that their children were severely damaged by the MMR.
Q: British reporters should try to get through to her.
A: They have been trying. But I think she has made a deal with her husband to keep quiet, no matter what. She could do a great deal of good if she breaks her promise. I have been told she is under pressure, and not just from her husband. At the level she occupies, MI6 and British health authorities get into the act. It is thought of as a matter of national security.
Q: Well, it is national security, once you understand the medical cartel.
A: It is global security. The cartel operates in every nation. It zealously guards the sanctity of vaccines. Questioning these vaccines is on the same level as a Vatican bishop questioning the sanctity of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church.
Q: I know that a Hollywood celebrity stating publicly that he will not take a vaccine is committing career suicide.
A: Hollywood is linked very powerfully to the medical cartel. There are several reasons, but one of them is simply that an actor who is famous can draw a huge amount of publicity if he says ANYTHING. In 1992, I was present at your demonstration against the FDA in downtown Los Angeles. One or two actors spoke against the FDA. Since that time, you would be hard pressed to find an actor who has spoken out in any way against the medical cartel.
Q: Within the National Institutes of Health, what is the mood, what is the basic frame of mind?
A: People are competing for research monies. The last thing they think about is challenging the status quo. They are already in an intramural war for that money. They don't need more trouble. This is a very insulated system. It depends on the idea that, by and large, modern medicine is very successful on every frontier. To admit systemic problems in any area is to cast doubt on the whole enterprise. You might therefore think that NIH is the last place one should think about holding demonstrations. But just the reverse is true. If five thousand people showed up there demanding an accounting of the actual benefits of that research system, demanding to know what real health benefits have been conferred on the public from the billions of wasted dollars funneled to that facility, something might start. A spark might go off. You might get, with further demonstrations, all sorts of fall-out. Researchers -- a few -- might start leaking information.
Q: A good idea.
A: People in suits standing as close to the buildings as the police will allow. People in business suits, in jogging suits, mothers and babies. Well-off people. Poor people. All sorts of people.
Q: What about the combined destructive power of a number of vaccines given to babies these days?
A: It is a travesty and a crime. There are no real studies of any depth which have been done on that. Again, the assumption is made that vaccines are safe, and therefore any number of vaccines given together are safe as well. But the truth is, vaccines are not safe. Therefore the potential damage increases when you give many of them in a short time period.
Q: Then we have the fall flu season.
A: Yes. As if only in the autumn do these germs float in to the US from Asia. The public swallows that premise. If it happens in April, it is a bad cold. If it happens in October, it is the flu.
Q: Do you regret having worked all those years in the vaccine field?
A: Yes. But after this interview, I'll regret it a little less. And I work in other ways. I give out information to certain people, when I think they will use it well.
Q: What is one thing you want the public to understand?
A: That the burden of proof in establishing the safety and efficacy of vaccines is on the people who manufacture and license them for public use. Just that. The burden of proof is not on you or me. And for proof you need well-designed long-term studies. You need extensive follow-up. You need to interview mothers and pay attention to what mothers say about their babies and what happens to them after vaccination. You need all these things. The things that are not there.
Q: The things that are not there.
A: Yes.
Q: To avoid any confusion, I'd like you to review, once more, the disease problems that vaccines can cause. Which diseases, how that happens.
A: We are basically talking about two potential harmful outcomes. One, the person gets the disease from the vaccine. He gets the disease which the vaccine is supposed to protect him from. Because, some version of the disease is in the vaccine to begin with. Or two, he doesn't get THAT disease, but at some later time, maybe right away, maybe not, he develops another condition which is caused by the vaccine. That condition could be autism, what's called autism, or it could be some other disease like meningitis. He could become mentally disabled.
Q: Is there any way to compare the relative frequency of these different outcomes?
A: No. Because the follow-up is poor. We can only guess. If you ask, out of a population of a hundred thousand children who get a measles vaccine, how many get the measles, and how many develop other problems from the vaccine, there is a no reliable answer. That is what I'm saying. Vaccines are superstitions. And with superstitions, you don't get facts you can use. You only get stories, most of which are designed to enforce the superstition. But, from many vaccine campaigns, we can piece together a narrative that does reveal some very disturbing things. People have been harmed. The harm is real, and it can be deep and it can mean death. The harm is NOT limited to a few cases, as we have been led to believe. In the US, there are groups of mothers who are testifying about autism and childhood vaccines. They are coming forward and standing up at meetings. They are essentially trying to fill in the gap that has been created by the researchers and doctors who turn their backs on the whole thing.
Q: Let me ask you this. If you took a child in, say, Boston and you raised that child with good nutritious food and he exercised every day and he was loved by his parents, and he didn't get the measles vaccine, what would be his health status compared with the average child in Boston who eats poorly and watches five hours of TV a day and gets the measles vaccine?
A: Of course there are many factors involved, but I would bet on the better health status for the first child. If he gets measles, if he gets it when he is nine, the chances are it will be much lighter than the measles the second child might get. I would bet on the first child every time.
Q: How long did you work with vaccines?
A: A long time. Longer than ten years.
Q: Looking back now, can you recall any good reason to say that vaccines are successful?
A: No, I can't. If I had a child now, the last thing I would allow is vaccination. I would move out of the state if I had to. I would change the family name. I would disappear. With my family. I'm not saying it would come to that. There are ways to sidestep the system with grace, if you know how to act. There are exemptions you can declare, in every state, based on religious and/or philosophic views. But if push came to shove, I would go on the move.
Q: And yet there are children everywhere who do get vaccines and appear to be healthy.
A: The operative word is "appear." What about all the children who can't focus on their studies? What about the children who have tantrums from time to time? What about the children who are not quite in possession of all their mental faculties? I know there are many causes for these things, but vaccines are one cause. I would not take the chance. I see no reason to take the chance. And frankly, I see no reason to allow the government to have the last word. Government medicine is, from my experience, often a contradiction in terms. You get one or the other, but not both.
Q: So we come to the level playing field.
A: Yes. Allow those who want the vaccines to take them. Allow the dissidents to decline to take them. But, as I said earlier, there is no level playing field if the field is strewn with lies. And when babies are involved, you have parents making all the decisions. Those parents need a heavy dose of truth. What about the child I spoke of who died from the DPT shot? What information did his parents act on? I can tell you it was heavily weighted. It was not real information.
Q: Medical PR people, in concert with the press, scare the hell out of parents with dire scenarios about what will happen if their kids don't get shots.
A: They make it seem a crime to refuse the vaccine. They equate it with bad parenting. You fight that with better information. It is always a challenge to buck the authorities. And only you can decide whether to do it. It is every person's responsibility to make up his mind. The medical cartel likes that bet. It is betting that the fear will win. _________________________________________________________________
Dr. Mark Randall is the pseudonym of a vaccine researcher who worked for many years in the labs of major pharmaceutical houses and the US government's National Institutes of Health.
Mark retired during the last decade. He says he was "disgusted with what he discovered about vaccines."
As you know, since the beginning of nomorefakenews, I have been launching an attack against non-scientific and dangerous assertions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
Mark has been one of my sources.
He is a little reluctant to speak out, even under the cover of anonymity, but with the current push to make vaccines mandatory -- with penalties like quarantine lurking in the wings -- he has decided to break his silence.
He lives comfortably in retirement, but like many of my long-time sources, he has developed a conscience about his former work. Mark is well aware of the scope of the medical cartel and its goals of depopulation, mind control, and general debilitation of populations.
|
| posted by Allison on 01/03/2009 04:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
allison,
thanks that was very informative |
| posted by nikki on 01/03/2009 08:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
allison,
thanks that was very informative |
| posted by nikki on 01/03/2009 08:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
| No problem, there's a lot more that I have in my back pocket concerning vaccines. I just wait for people to ask the appropriate question, and then I go to my resources to give credible researched answers. I will almost always try to cite my sources so you mothers' can go to these sites yourselves and conduct more research. |
| posted by Allison on 01/04/2009 12:38 AM
|
|
|
|
|
So I called my daughter's doctor's office today and explained to the receptionist that my husband and I have decided not to vaccinate our daughter and I wanted to know what the protocol was. She didn't know so she left a message for the doctor and said that someone would call me back today.
A nurse called me back a few hours later and not-so-subtlely tried to convince me that my decision was a bad one. She said that the doctor was an big advocate of immunizations, but they wouldn't turn us away or refuse to treat my daughter because of our decision. She asked me why I didn't want to vaccinate my daughter, I gave her some general reasons as first, just to see if she would try to further convince me. She proceeded to tell me that there was a lot of mis-information on the internet and that I shouldn't trust what I read. I gave her more detailed information about why I made this decision and explained that I had also spoken to many people who hadn't been vaccinated and gained my information from credible sources. She didn't say anything. Hah. She wasn't nice to me, but oh well. It was the same lady that gave my daughter the shots a few weeks ago. |
| posted by Caryn on 01/06/2009 03:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
| Good for you. Keep researching and NEVER accept anyone else's opinion on what you should, or should not do in regards to your child. Trust your gut and never stop educating yourself on matters of importance. |
| posted by Allison on 01/06/2009 03:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with what Allison said in regards to not stopping to educate yourself of matter of such importance. I also agree with something the nurse said though too. You can't trust everything on the internet. Often, articles that appear credible are false and documentation that people use is not reliable.
It can be difficult to et correct information these days. Try to find articles from Universities, websites with .edu at the end. Those tend to be the most credible.
It's hard to know what to trust anymore. |
| posted by Casey on 01/06/2009 03:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
And, I definitely agree w/ Casey regarding the credibility of articles. I also like to look for articles written by credible physicians, researchers and others who state their sources.
I just found this article regarding vaccine research. It's about time, in my opinion. I also like the fact that they're trying to investigate other reasons for autism other than just the vaccines.
TOP FEDERAL AUTISM PANEL VOTES FOR MILLIONS IN VACCINE RESEARCH:
By David Kirby
January 5, 2009
The Inter-Agency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) has voted to recommend earmarking millions of dollars in research funds from the Combating Autism Act of 2006 to study the possible role of vaccines in the causation of autism.
The panel also proposed spending an additional $75 million to study a wide variety of other environmental factors in autism, possibly including parental age, infections, heavy metals, neurotoxins, occupational exposures and "other biological agents."
The decision, made last month, received little or no attention in the media. The vaccine research provisions are now included in the official IACC Draft Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Research.
The IACC has 12 members from various health-related branches of the Federal Government, plus six "Public Members," including representatives from Autism Speaks, the Autism Society of America and the Coalition for Safe Minds, as well as Stephen Shore, an adult on the autism spectrum.
Section III of the Strategic Plan is titled, "WHAT CAUSED THIS TO HAPPEN AND CAN THIS BE PREVENTED?" The section is divided into various parts, including short- and long-term research objectives. Much of the section is devoted to studying the interactions of genetic susceptibilities with potential environmental triggers, including vaccines.
In fact, two vaccine-autism studies have been approved by the IACC, which has proposed spending $16 million to:
1) "Study the effect of vaccines, vaccine components, and multiple vaccine administration in autism causation and severity through a variety of approaches, including cell and animal studies, and understand whether and how certain subpopulations in humans may be more susceptible to adverse effects of vaccines by 2011. Proposed costs: $6,000,000
2) Determine the feasibility and design an epidemiological study to determine if the health outcomes, including ASD, among various populations with vaccinated, unvaccinated, and alternatively vaccinated groups by 2011. Proposed costs: $10,000,000
Additionally, under "Research Opportunities," the panel also endorsed this objective:
"Monitor the scientific literature regarding possible associations of vaccines and other environmental factors (e.g., ultrasound, pesticides, pollutants) with ASD to identify emerging opportunities for research and indicated studies."
For proponents of vaccine-autism research, this is a resounding victory. It covers much of what these advocates have been supporting for a number of years. It is also sure to enrage those who are opposed to such research.
But for now, it has been recommended that the US Federal Government spend millions of dollars to study not just thimerosal, (a mercury based vaccine preservative), not just the triple live virus MMR vaccine, but vaccines in general, all ingredients that go into vaccines and, most surprisingly, the effect of "multiple vaccine administration" in the causation of autism.
This document also marks the closest we have come, perhaps, to conducting a study of health outcomes among vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children in the United States. With a price tag of $10 million just to study its feasibility and to design a study, such a project would indeed be costly and cumbersome. But, as CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding has said, this is a study that "should and could be done." (There is a bill pending in Congress right now that would provide funding for a vaccinated-unvaccinated study).
But vaccines, of course, are not the only candidates for study in the etiology of autism. There is a growing consensus now that most autism cases arise from an unknown combination of environmental agents, probably interacting with certain genetic predispositions.
The IACC Strategic Plan contains an impressive array of objectives and ideas on studying possible environmental factors. Not surprisingly, there was significant dissention on whether vaccines should still be considered among the list. On this thorny subject, the Strategic Plan says the following:
"Research on environmental risk factors is also underway. An Institute of Medicine workshop held in 2007 summarized what is known and what is needed in this field (Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2007). Numerous epidemiological studies have found no relationship between ASD and vaccines containing the mercury based preservative, thimerosal (Immunization Safety Review Committee, 2004). These data, as well as subsequent research, indicate that the link between autism and vaccines is unsupported by the research literature. Some do not agree and remain concerned that ASD is linked or caused by vaccination through exposure to Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR), imposing challenges to a weakened immune system, or possibly due to mitochondrial disorder.
Public comment to the Committee reflected opposing views on vaccines as a potential environmental cause. Some contend that cumulative research on this topic indicates no role of vaccines in autism. Others contend that definitive research has not been done. A third view argues that the persistent focus on vaccines and other possible causes is misplaced.
In addition, a number of other environmental agents are being explored through research that are known or suspected to influence early development of the brain and nervous system. Recent studies suggest factors such as parental age, exposure to infections, toxins, and other biological agents may confer environmental risk. These findings require further investigation and testing."
Meanwhile, on the critical subject of interactions between genes and the environment, the panel says this:
"Although most scientists believe that risk factors for ASD are both genetic and environmental, there is considerable debate about whether potential environmental causes, genetic precursors, or interactions between genes and environmental factors should be the highest priority for research aimed at identifying the causes of ASD.
To date, few studies have ruled in or ruled out specific environmental factors. While there are reports of associations of ASD with exposure to medications or toxicants prenatally, and to infections after birth, it is still not known whether any specific factor is necessary or sufficient to cause ASD. Similar to other disease areas, advancing research on the potential role of environmental factors requires resources and the attraction of scientific expertise. Bringing this to bear on autism will help focus the environmental factors to study, as well as the best approach for staging studies to examine environmental factors, interaction between factors, and between individual susceptibility and various environmental factors."
The panel also weighed in on the possibility that "de novo," or spontaneous changes in gene structure - perhaps triggered by environmental factors - may be a factor in the causation of autism:
"(Recent) findings have contributed to new hypotheses about the inheritance of ASD. In families with just one affected member, spontaneous deletions and duplications may be causal factors of ASD. However, what causes these spontaneous deletions and duplications is not clear and possibly could be due to environmental exposures."
It also voted to recommend the following studies of environmental factors in autism, for which it proposed a budget of more than $75 million:
1) "Initiate efforts to expand existing large case-control and other studies to enhance capabilities for targeted gene - environment research by 2011."
2) "Initiate studies on at least five environmental factors identified in the recommendations from the 2007 IOM report "Autism and the Environment: Challenges and Opportunities for Research" as potential causes of ASD by 2010."
3) "Determine the effect of at least five environmental factors on the risk for subtypes of ASD in the pre- and early postnatal period of development by 2015."
4) "Conduct a multi-site study of the subsequent pregnancies of 1000 women with a child with ASD to assess the impact of environmental factors in a period most relevant to the progression of ASD by 2014."
5) "Support ancillary studies within one or more large-scale, population-based surveillance and epidemiological studies, including U.S. populations, to collect nested, case-control data on environmental factors during preconception, and during prenatal and early postnatal development, as well as genetic data, that could be pooled (as needed), to analyze targets for potential gene/environment interactions by 2015.
Some people may object to even this moderate sum of federal research money going into possible environmental factors. After all, the 2007 IOM Report from which the "five environmental factors" to study will be chosen, includes the following suggested areas of inquiry:
Heavy metals and cosmetics
RhoGAM exposure (Rho-D immune-globulin, which contained thimerosal until 2003)
"Major priority" pollutants
Toxins from industrial disasters
Prenatal exposures to infectious diseases
Occupational exposures
People who would object to studying these factors, it should be noted, are a tiny minority and a dying breed.
Far more controversial will be the inclusion of any vaccine wording within the research matrix, even though Members of Congress made it clear in the Colloquy* and Report Language of the Combating Autism Act that vaccines and other environmental factors should be studied. But the dissenting voices are coming through loud and clear in the following proposed (but not yet finalized) passage:
"Those who are convinced by current data that vaccines do not play a causal role in autism argue against using a large proportion of limited autism research funding toward vaccine studies when many other scientific avenues remain to be explored. At the same time, those who believe that prior studies of the possible role of vaccines in ASD have been insufficient argue that investigation of a possible vaccine/ASD link should be a high priority for research (e.g., a large-scale study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated groups). A third view urges shifting focus away from vaccines and onto much-needed attention toward the development of effective treatments, services and supports for those with ASD."
Of course, it remains to be seen if these vaccine studies survive into the final version of the IACC Strategic Plan. And even if they do, that does not guarantee they will be fully implemented.
But one thing seems pretty clear, as we head into the last year of the century's first decade: Much to the chagrin of many, the vaccine-autism debate is anything but over.
*NOTE: In the Senate Colloquy, Sen. Mike Enzi, who was Chairman of the Committee (H.E.L.P.) that developed the bill, said this: "I want to be clear that, for the purposes of biomedical research, no research avenue should be eliminated, including biomedical research examining potential links between vaccines, vaccine components, and autism spectrum disorder. Thus, I hope that the National Institutes of Health will consider broad research avenues into this critical area. No stone should remain unturned in trying to learn more about this baffling disorder, especially given how little we know.
Meanwhile, Co-Sponsors Santorum and Kennedy agreed with Enzi's statement, and Senator Chris Dodd added this: Through the Combating Autism Act, all biomedical research opportunities on ASD can be pursued, and they include environmental research examining potential links between vaccines, vaccine components and ASD."
|
| posted by Allison on 01/06/2009 04:11 PM
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
| |  |
| |
|
|
|
