RE: Vaccine Debate and Critical Thinking
The facts are that there have been entire libraries written about the scientific fraud that is vaccines, some go back 100 or more years. The other thing is this:
After reviewing the evidence independently, we suspect that adverse reactions to many vaccines are vastly underreported, as formal long-term studies of vaccine safety have not been completed. We are convinced that there is indeed genuine cause for concern, and have enclosed the letter outlining our questions to Dr. Harold Margolis of the CDC, one of the principal advocates of mandatory universal immunization against hepatitis B.
The rotavirus vaccine is another case in point. One day it was considered a "must," and the main issue for discussion was how to force HMOs to pay for it. Then, on July 16, CDC spokesman Barbara Reynolds told The New York Times that "no one should now be giving this vaccine to anyone." Despite the occurrence of intussuception in clinical trials, at a rate about 30 times that previously reported by the CDC, physicians were not warned to watch for this complication, which can be fatal in the absence of prompt treatment.
AAPS has called for an immediate moratorium on mandatory hepatitis B vaccines for schoolchildren. While Health and Human Services recently announced it would no longer recommend the vaccine for newborns, we are asking Secretary Shalala to further ask state health departments to place an immediate moratorium on all mandatory vaccines, particularly hepatitis B, pending further research about their effectiveness and dangerous adverse effects.
http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/hepbstatement.htm
It's following study is titled NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART, for one singular reason it seems, it details how the mechanism for acquiring immunity through antibodies is not effective, nor can they make any predictions with the current knowledge, let alone that this mechanism of lock and key is still taught to physicians everywhere still when it's a myth going back over 100 years. So in conclusion the data that comes from anything that has to do with antibodies and antigen reactions is sketchy at best, and has no basis to be used as a viable treatment for anything really.
A serious consequence of these facts is that an antibody against a defined antigen, e.g., a whole purified protein or a peptide, could bind to structurally related antigens that have a completely or partially different amino sequence (molecular mimicry). This means that, predicting an antibody has high affinity for the immunizing antigen is extremely difficult if not impossible.