You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Your Genius Healthcare System: Babies Given Vaccines That Cannot Possibly Protect Them, But That CAN Do Harm - Just To 'Train The Parents'!?
As far as I know, a baby immune system is as developed as ours, they only need to be infected to create the corresponding antibodies.
As stated in the video and just about everywhere else that covers the topic - a baby's immunity is initially provided from the mother in the womb and then supported via the breast milk until the baby's own immunity is fully active a few months after being born.
I may be trained by the system, but isn't immunity provided by a mother the same as the baby's own immunity. If the goal of a vaccine to train the body to recognize a virus and kill it the next time. I think it is funny that people will believe that none of that immunity stay with a baby as it grow older. We will definitely not solve the debate over vaccines on social media, nonetheless I love the click bate.
If you can provide substantial scientific evidence that vaccines affect a baby's immunity when administered in the first few months after birth then you are welcome to provide it here - accusations of clickbait with no counter evidence are not helpful.
Sorry, but can you prove a babies immunity is not learning how to create antibodies with the support of the mothers immunity. The body needs time to create an immunity to a wide array of potential harmful bacteria and viruses. A vaccine helps the body to build up an immunity. Are they perfect, no, should we demand more from our medical professionals, absolutely. Are they dangerous, maybe, will you get a disease if you don't get them, probably not. Are they helpful for society, absolutely. Ask an old person about polo, they still remember. As a society we are starting to see a rise in diseases that we thought we eradicated with vaccines but due to the anti vaccine movement are coming back. We need to have a better dialogue about risks on both sides of the argument.
If you specific concerns about vaccines like the use of aluminum, we should work on finding an alternatives . There are some really bad bugs out there.
On different parts of the internet people are fighting over breastfeeding and if your immunity argument was valid it would show up very prodontly in infant mortality rates at constant time intervals.
Firstly, I am not a professional medical/bio-chemistry scientist by any stretch of the imagination - so I don't have a massive reference of studies to reply with and am not going to give as effective a reply as a seasoned specialist would do. I have put a lot of time though, into listening to many doctors who are qualified and well researched enough to respond to these issues in full depth - so while I don't have an answer to every question, I do have an overview understanding of the issues involved and could probably get the answers if needed by emailing relevant people.
It would be nice to think that these issues are clear cut and fully agreed upon, but it appears they are not. If we look at many websites they state clearly that a child's immune system is not capable of defending the child until the child is a few months old and that they are dependent on their mother for protection. However, published science documents make clear there is controversy and investigation ongoing about that.
This page from 2014 describes how there is speculation that baby immune systems might be more capable than previously thought and I have read other pages that go into a lot of detail rejecting these claims that baby systems.
In 2003, Pihlgren showed that if mammals are vaccinated too early, memory IgG responses to T-cell dependant antigens are suppressed. In mice it took 6 – 8 weeks for the immune system to mature enough to be able to start making long term Ig G antibodies. Pihlgren stated that in humans, the process is much longer, without specifying how long.