OT: Infant Vaccinations: My Dilemna

Rhys, my 8 week old baby boy, is due for his first round of shots tomorrow and I figured I would just hop online and look at the individual shots and compare their ingredients to each other.  I ended up finding quite a bit more information than I expected.  I realized that not only am I concerned about the immediate effects of vaccinations, but also the effects on Rhys between ages 3-17.  Straight from the CDC website found here http://www.cdc.gov/features/dsdev_disabilities/ it shows that from 1997-2008 developmental disabilities in children in the US have shot up.  1 in 6 children (as of 2008) have a DD.  The only two things I can think of that have changed since the 90's are the amount of vaccinations given and the amount of wireless frequencies surrounding us (cell phones, routers, etc).  The US is up to 26 vaccine doses in the first year of life which is the most of all countries.  The US is also ranked 34th in the world for infant mortality rates and still sliding. These facts are from the NCBI found here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/.  The top 3 countries for IMR are listed below and they require 12 vaccine doses in the first year.

Singapore vaccination schedule: http://www.kkh.com.sg/HealthPedia/Pages/ChildhoodIllnessesVaccinations.aspx
Sweden vaccination schedule: http://www.euvac.net/graphics/euvac/vaccination/sweden.html
Japan vaccination schedule: http://japanhealthinfo.com/child-health-and-childcare/vaccination/

One major difference Ive found is that these 3 countries start DTaP at 3 months instead of 2.  Dr Sears doesn't think Dyphtheria or Tetanus are necessary for infants but Pertussis is very high on his list.  Unfortunately you cannot do Pertussis by itself.  When a Pertussis outbreak occurs, the majority infected are children that have been vaccinated.  The plus to having been vaccinated is that the symptoms are lessened.  IMO I think delaying this vax to at least 6 months would be more beneficial than 2 months giving some extra time for the immune system to build up.  Or maybe never at all?  My kid is starting daycare next week so I have some decisions to make...

A holistic doctor I know has been helping autistic children for some time now, mostly by changing their diets.  He doesnt believe that vaccinations by themselves cause cognitive/neuro disabilities but he does believe that doing combinations of them at once and overloading the childs immune system may very well have negative neurological effects.  Thimerosal may be out of most vaccinations now but it has been replaced with aluminum phoshate and aluminum hydroxide which aren't necessarily a better alternative. There have been multiple scientific studies on rats that have been given aluminum and have proven that they developed learning disabilities during the trial.  Granted the rats were given larger amounts than humans would intake through vaccinations- its still concerning.  

The US also leads the world with autoimmune disorders.  I found this article very informative and a must-read. http://www.liveto110.com/vaccinations-cause-chronic-immune-system-dysregulation/

As a new father I would love to hear others parents takes on vaccinating.  Im scared of him growing up with neuro issues and am tempted to not do anything at all right.

I did read the vaccination discussion a year ago on here but it really wasnt geared towards infants.

The amount of glyphosate has increased in the crops also...this is another link in the chain, but yes vaccinations schedules have exploded.

I don't believe any vaccinations are good, and only challenges the immune system.

How would you suggest boosting the system of a 2 month old for daycare besides upping moms Vitamin C intake to get in to the breastmilk?

http://www.amazon.com/Colostrum-LD-Liposomal-Delivery-increased-bio-availability/dp/B009HCLX3A

This may arouse some ire around here, but the primary diseases we vaccinate against used to kill a significant portion of our babies and children.  If we all stop vaccinating, these diseases will come back, and possibly stronger.

I personally think the supposed connection between autism and vaccines is overblown if not non-existent.  Of course a segment of the population is going to react negatively to everything, and you're taking a chance.  But for the vast majority of people there's not much of a reaction, and the chances are good that your baby will not have an extremely negative reaction to vaccines.  If I remember correctly, the "Eat right for your type" guy even postulated that there was a connection between blood type and negative vaccine reactions...the most "recent" blood types (B and maybe AB) were I think supposed to have more negative reactions to vaccines than the rest of the population, for example.

The rise in autism is probably the result of other environmental factors such as diet, etc.  

If I had a kid I would get MMR, polio, and the DTaP.  I agree a baby probably doesn't need tetanus but if you can't get pertussis vaccine without it then you just have to take it or skip pertussis.  I personally wouldn't do that.  YMMV.

Those vaccines address the diseases that used to be virulent killers of babies and young children.  They may pollute the human body but the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks.  

But nothing else.  IMHO chicken pox, flu, etc., vaccines are just polluting the body without conferring substantial benefits.  

This is just my opinion.  But frankly it scares me how many people are becoming so cavalier about how very dangerous these childhood diseases really were and could be again, and how they think vaccines for these diseases are the bigger danger.  If the human immune system was capable of handling these diseases, there would have been no need for vaccines in the first place.  Regardless of the profit motive, there is no profit to be made off of a vaccine for something that the human body handles well in the vast majority of cases.  This is why, even if a vaccine for the common cold were to be developed, most people wouldn't pay much for it (or get it at all) because nobody dies from the common cold.

There is a point you are making.

Despite we all wish to have immune system capable of doing sufficient immunity and keeping problematic diseases away, there is no way this can be made mainstream, for everybody. In other words, some children would probably die without vaccination if different ways of dealing with disease would be taken, once they appear . (Please anybody correct me if i am wrong as this is what could be making a difference in my perception.) Spending some decent time in exploring natural options,  I dont see these ways (alternatives) very clearly, affordable and sufficiently available either. Put on heavy supplementation everybody? Rifing mainstream? Diet and managing lifestyle? But what's the outcome from all of these in the world we are living looking mainstream?

At the same time, vaccination might make one more susceptible to chronic diseases later. Sadly, it's the risk one has to take for their children. In spite of natural selection (which is not the case at all noways), i'd say not every sperm is sacred, but than again it could be me, or you dead fairly premature out of stupid infection.

I might be dead wrong here, but anti vaccination propaganda at our place show no decent alternatives. I'd suspect they would promote natural immune enhancements, genetic tests to get know data how to deal with things, dietary things, energetic medicine, etc., but they are just loud with disagreement to the mainstream with ''stop poisoning us''. And they are mostly right, but i have yet to decide if the story is black and white...

I am sure the profit is motivator for many vaccinations, and i agree with previous poster of how to deal with it. I am fairly new to the topic, as i ignored it completely before, knowing i wont put anything in myself until know the implications...

Angstman, I hope you can resist the cultural pressure to vaccinate your baby. Vaccinations don't do anything good and do a whole lot of harm:

THE MEDICAL TIME BOMB OF IMMUNIZATION AGAINST DISEASE

The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them

by ROBERT S. MENDELSOHN, M.D.

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/mendelsohn.html

You both bring up good points. When you look at the statistics from the CDC regarding pertussis, in 2012 there were roughly 48000 cases in the US with 18 deaths. Granted the majority of the deaths were from infants 6 months and younger- it is still a very small slice of the overall population. Also the majority of those infected had already been vaccinated...

I came across this article that breaks down the risks of contracting pertussis vs having DTaP vaccine related injuries:
http://www.whattoexpect.com/forums/february-2010-babies/archives/pertussis-vaccine-this-is-a-must-read.html

If I was a gambling man, it makes sense to roll the dice with no pertussis vaccination.

There is not only a profit motivator for the pharma companies but what a lot of people dont know is that the doctors get financial incentives also for having their patients fully vaccinated.
http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/health-concerns/vaccines/do-doctors-have-financial-incentive-get-their-patients-fully-vaccinated

angstman wrote:There is not only a profit motivator for the pharma companies but what a lot of people dont know is that the doctors get financial incentives also for having their patients fully vaccinated.
http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/health-concerns/vaccines/do-doctors-have-financial-incentive-get-their-patients-fully-vaccinated

Doesn't surprise me at all.

No vaccinations for the little man today. I ordered a bottle of Viralox and will give him 1 spray every morning before daycare.

Propaganda runs deep. Vitamin A (animal form) will reduce or eliminate all of these so-called "dangerous" childhood diseases. Getting vaccines however can actually not only damage the gut (mucous layer), but also reduce vitamin A absorption.

Children need plenty of vitamin A, vitamin D is as well. Add some vitamin C for good measure.

http://www.whale.to/a/children1.html

My question is...*WHY* are we so sure it's all propaganda?  None of us really knows what it was like back then, before antibiotics, vaccines, etc.  Certainly a confluence of factors occurred at approximately the same time as vaccines were emerging (better public sanitation and personal hygiene, etc.) that helped wipe out these formerly endemic diseases, but (for example) it can't really be all coincidence that outbreaks of these old diseases are recently occurring in places where there is the highest adult prejudice against vaccines (and therefore a correspondingly high number of unvaccinated children).

Unless you want to argue that big pharma controls the media and all current reports of disease outbreaks are simply being manipulated to look like they're occurring only where there are large populations of unvaccinated children, so as to scare everyone into vaccinating their kids.  In which case, I have no response because the argument could go on endlessly.

Just sayin'.  I think everyone here knows that I'm no fan of big pharma and that I am a BIG fan of natural health...but I also know not everything big pharma or big business has done is evil.  And it's okay to make money AND do good at the same time. I'm hoping that someday CS gets rich off his knowledge somehow, for example.

I guess we'll have to wait another 40 years or so when there are more unvaccinated children around to see which side is right.  I fervently hope you of the total anti-vaccine crowd are right about it all, and I am wrong in my fear for the future.

Which, BTW, angstman, totally respect your decision as a parent.  If I were a parent I would make plenty of decisions that would go against the "cultural grain", as Delphine might put it.  This is just a discussion on my part and in no way is intended to be a criticism of you.

whodathunkit - In my observation, unvaccinated children are always healthier than vaccinated ones.

The "outbreaks" were already on their way out before the introduction of the vaccines. The CDC's own statistics prove this. There's never been a double blind randomized placebo controlled studies showing safety (the claim its unethical), however the few that exist outside the US of course absolutely show harm.

http://progress.umb.edu.pl/sites/progress.umb.edu.pl/files/129-141.pdf

The premise of the "germ theory" is one that caught wild fire because it suits the profit system and is easy to understand.

However, the other theory of disease, one that I've seen in practice is more real to me, yet unfortunately is more complicated and not easily assimilated into an already complacent public who trust medical authorities.

Even small amounts of adjuvants, whether they are aluminium, mercury, are extremely damaging to the brain and gut.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791857/

We need nutrients instead (for example):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3437709/

The government and their health/virus warnings, they literally makes this stuff as it goes along. Usually as a cover something else. Before I got into medicine I use to think these sort of things seemed awfully far fetched, until I realized
it is just business as usual. Critics always dismiss this stuff as "conspiracy theories," however, in many aspects, there is a racket in virtually industry that takes advance of people's ignorance. It's a case of "Wizard of Oz" the person behind curtain propagandizing the perception that eventually becomes reality.

It's a similar scenario in the cancer industry. All the billions donated to the America Cancer Society and others...it never goes to real cures...never, just goes towards business as usual, which only promotes its industry survival.

The other theory of disease:

It is the law of the terrain, developed by Antoine Beauchamp. Louis Pasteur (promoter of the germ theory) admitted on his death bed that he was wrong about Pasteurization or "Germ Theory". Basically Germ Theory promotes good and bad germs ignoring the environment or terrain. The terrain theory promotes environmental factors which make germs morph (pleomorphically change) from good to bad or bad to good concerning health of a host body.

This is why good minerals or bad toxins can determine basic health by supporting the immune system or impairing it.
If you stick a foreign object in someone's body it will raise virus levels. The germs viruses did not originate from the outside, no, they arrived by the altered milieu in the body.

Antioxidants in (active, negatively charged minerals), toxins out = high immunity. However, those people taking drugs, and no nutrients = sickness.

Those who are pro-vaccination are quick to scoff when it is suggested there is a link between vaccines and autism.
They will still deny it in the face of such cases as these:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html

Delphine wrote:Those who are pro-vaccination are quick to scoff when it is suggested there is a link between vaccines and autism.
They will still deny it in the face of such cases as these:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html

Yep, and there's never been a wrong verdict or award *ever* in the history of the American judicial system ever, has there?

Honestly, I think some kids are probably hurt by vaccines.  The toxic adjuvants mentioned by CS in an earlier post are not to be dismissed.  I knew about those, of course, but believe that many if not most of us can probably detox them fairly well.  

But also, as I said earlier, there's always going to be people who react negatively to things.  Vaccines or anything.  A good case in point is iodine.  Culturally, most people (doctors and laymen) believe it's poison.  Some people have really bad reactions to it (remember Fred?).  But many of us here know differently about iodine from first hand experience.  We also allow that everyone is different and some may really have a problem with it.  

The poor children mentioned in the HuffPo article may be two such that were genuinely hurt by vaccines.  

But given the crap condition of our food supply over the past few generations, the increasing toxins and additives in our foods and environment, etc., I *do* think it's kind of ridiculous to place all or even the majority of the blame for the steep rise in autism spectrum disorders across the entire population on vaccines.  

Rather, I believe it's due to passing down damaged DNA over successive generations of exposure to a corrupted food supply and increasing environmental toxins.  I suspect many parents don't want to look at that angle when it comes to autism because they think (wrongly) that somehow it places the blame for their kid's problems on them.

A possible analogous example of this is a married couple and their child that lives across the street from me.  These people are not terribly bright, and although they are functional, had the husband been in school today he would have been diagnosed with ADHD in a heartbeat.  He tried three times to take a fairly simple test to judge his ability to become a lineman for a local utility company, and failed every time.   I tried to help him study for it once, and that's when I realized that although they were functional and seemed normal, there was something not quite right with these people.

The wife's sister suffers from epilepsy, and decades ago, when still young, she gave birth to a severely retarded child who is now 35 years old.  Her son's problems were so severe that she could not care for him.  He has been institutionalized since birth.

The child of my neighbors just turned 21 and was diagnosed with schizophrenia not long before her birthday.  She had been diagnosed with ADD and other learning disorders very early on.

The wife likes to blame everything under the sun (including vaccines) for the problems her daughter has.  

But the evidence points to a strong genetic predisposition for behavioral and intellectual problems.

This is just an anecdote, but it's true and adequately illustrates my point.

So we are just going to have to agree to disagree about this, Delphine.  HuffPo articles have never persuaded me of anything in general, let alone an issue of this magnitude.  Unless you can come up with something way more substantial that concretely ties vaccines to autism, that's where we're at.  Sorry if that offends you, but it's the truth.

The core issue is actually not whether vaccines are harmful, although I happen to agree with CS that they are.  The real issue
is whether they do any good at all.  Again I agree with CS that the germ theory of illness is in error, and the true causes of illness
(and health) are far more intricate (and at the same time, more simple). If germs/viruses are not the cause of disease, this brings the whole vaccine house of cards crashing down.

By the way, did you look at the link to Dr. Mendelsohn's take on this?  As a pediatrician of many years' standing, perhaps you will give his
opinion a bit more weight. than that of the flighty HuffPost. :)Here it is again:
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/mendelsohn.html

Oh, and the case of the Amish is often cited in arguments about whether vaccines are linked to autism. Rates of vaccination in the Amish are low
compared to the general population, and their rates of autism are correspondingly lower.

whodathunkit - I agree with you that vaccines are not solely to blame for autism. I think the best evidence I've seen so far points it towards glyphosate (herbicide) that is loaded in GMO crops. I should point out though that the last I checked, of the two of three Amish who have been vaccinated, two of them got autism. It's not known if the 3rd one has vaccinated or not, however it is interesting because Amish people do not eat GMO's.

It's funny that this thread popped up today, because literally just a week ago, I spent a week arguing with a pediatrician on facebook on this very issue. I think we were equally intrigued with how the other could believe our positions. He quoted me his CDC statics and I quoted mine.

The big problem is, very well meaning people will look at research that 'proves' vaccines are "safe." The problem is that the research is fraudulent.

"Critique of Destefano et al. 2013 J Peds. Study
By Brian S. Hooker, Ph.D., P.E.

The recent CDC study “Increasing Exposure to Antibody-Stimulating Proteins and Polysaccharides in Vaccines Is Not Associated with Risk of Autism” by Destefano et al. 2013 was released in the Journal of Pediatrics last week. This study purports that “increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines during the first 2 years of life was not related to the risk of developing an ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder).” Of all of the papers I have reviewed over my 26-year career as a research scientist, this is perhaps the most flawed and disingenuous study I have encountered. The Destefano et al. 2013 study is to science what the movie Ishtar was to cinema"

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/can-we-trust-the-cdc-claim-that-there-is-no-link-between-vaccines-and-autism/

Establishment uses antibodies to measure what they believe to be immune protection. I see it as an immune challenge.

In the 2000's I began to observe first hand the myths I used to believe crumble in front of me. For example, person A, B or C who has "X" disease who establishment "virus" load signature or label attached....the real cause of the affliction is discovered (oral pathology, body implant, etc) and the so-called virus disease, suddenly disappear.

Also, the effect that heavy metal chelation has or the effect of IV-antioxidant therapies.  Mainstream always responds in similar ways--dismissively. Ridicule is the mantra. I think of it as an allopathic medical monopoly.

Many people rely on the Internet to "check out" various 'facts' on some practitioner's or methods...often they are relegated to "quack medicine" pieces. I'm not sure how long it will take the people at large to wake to the facade, maybe not in our lifetime.

Thanks for the info about prions, one more piece of the puzzle.

Heh, I've been debating this at Facebook also, with similar results.  I was facing a big crowd of people, many of them college professors.
 As you say CS, ridicule is the mantra. I finally told them, "You believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe."

As I said to whodathunkit, I feel the fundamental issue is a misunderstanding of the true nature of health and disease.  I worked for 15 years editing a magazine promoting
the tenets of Natural Hygiene.  I didn't agree with everything in Natural Hygiene (I'm not a raw vegan for one thing)  but we were certainly in agreement that the
body is self-healing and disease is corrective, not something we've got to avoid at any price.

Great article, maybe I'll post it at Facebook.

Delphine - You probably noticed in those Facebook discussions that if you have some solid arguments, they usually just skirt around them.

There's some interesting stuff on this page here about autism correlations.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/

rdkml - I agree. The telecommunications industry has prevented important research from being published, showing the effects of autism with sleeping mothers near EMF's, wi-fi, smart meters, etc. And yes, mycoplasma is routinely found to be contaminated in vaccines. Even if their theory of disease were true (which it isn't), the mycoplasma alone is a reason to avoid them.

Those that have recovered (autism reversals) have heavy metal cleaning, parasites, no more GMO's, and avoidance of dirty electricity/EMF/Wi-fi (especially smart meters).

CS, reading your many posts, i came to conclusion you in fact don't care about germs very much if at all... Would you want to give us some more reference points where we can read about ''the other disease theory'' that would be awesome. I like what dr. Wilson has to say about it, but in my defense there is not a lot other info i found worth reading while doing a google search...

Pleomorphism is well known fact. I'd speculate it's happening all the time on most every disease progression or regression. Also many observations in the Rife community showed many times that after prolonged bio-resonance sessions, the frequency have to be changed to still show inhibition effect of desired microbes, particularly the ones difficult to treat this way. It's almost certainly that pathogens change their forms while you start to radiate them. How this relates with ''changing terrain'' nobody really knows as there is no studies that would monitor steady state changes that happens after the session. I am certain that nutrition part has a lot to do with the progress, but is also where (specific) depatogenation brings decent results. This would support germ theory, more than not...

Examining some medical history from my relatives the way i did things for myself, with doing prolonged google searches, examining their dietary styles over the years, and some other health related things as toxicities bring to mind also genetic aspect of the story very fast. There are sure some genetic co(epigenetic)-causalities, that cant be ignored - and some of you don't seem to give it much attention either. I might be wrong but i found it like, what was life changer for me this way...
Based on what i've found about myself over the years is i am sure applicable also to some of my relatives -genetic part has a role not worth ignoring! Luckily for the science, nobody did nothing before to prevent things from happening, so the symptoms and disease progression (mainstream thought about it as ''getting old'') show some useful medical data. I am not sure if this can be done mainstream, and i have still troubles believing we (science) know enough to prevent diseases (as vaccination are supposed to help us with) so confidently as it reads out from some of your fingers...

It's topic that i don't know and think if anybody is capable of seeing through, and it's where there belief sooner than later start to feel in the conversation so i start to have problems going further. Comparing how things were back then, when food supply was different, environmental toxins were not so big part of the story, and there were no vaccination, antibiotics and other means of medical interference - terrain changers; with the life of today where electrical part is a big part of the story (being ADHD predisposed, i can actually sense some of those stressors - as the lightning in the supermarket, strong near fields from the industry wiring, etc...) is also heavily present now days, and adding some chaos theory concepts into the non very linear equation, makes one think if we are (science) really in charge at all. I think we are not, despite will try to study and read as many scientific literature as possible and scientific way it's a common sense here...    

Different said than that, there is surely no recipe (or single recipe) everybody can follow to achieve great health. Managing hair loss looks like a proof for this. And just imagine how much time it takes to found things out. Another thing i don't seem to get is, how to expect lame-stream to follow the ideas the way some people here (those who have a lot of success with hair loss) did in order to make some decent progress. It's not very simple, either. As for the most successful there is time measured in months and years to be able to show some benefit, if any benefit at all. I like how things paid off for myself, but looking over the boards is still far from - very successful. And i am the one that will tell everybody that there are chances for improvement, speaking from personal experiences and dedication it have taken from me...

I guess its a bit paradoxical, on one side of medical possibilities, on the other side of the sad health reality that rules the world. I don't think ''organic, grain fed, nutritious soil based,...''  can feed 7+ billions apes all over the world; environment (including electrical infrastructure) can be changed very fast for the good of all, the same as toxins and poisons,... etc. Going progressively and as as educated about it as possible looks like best bet, but still not all will study those things, nor have the privilege to do so. And to be fair, i think the most ill (unhappy with their particular health status) are the ones most predisposed to study such and found out the missing links. Not surprising at all on how i see the ''how motivation works''...

From all mentioned, i intentionally dropped mind aspect from equation, as i am pretty sure nobody exactly knows where exactly does it 100% fit, but i have a feeling that more of scientists as dr. Bruce Lipton, dr. Sapolsky,... the future will reveal...

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/

Treasure chest for many! But reveals also some conflicting data (as usual, no surprises there)...

Let's say ADHD as proposed from this link, a little mind complexity further, hehe:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/adhd_low_fat_diet.html

I researched a whole lot about ADHD from the most different possible angles (it some some common causes than hairloss, no doubt about it), and can paste many different references that incorporate natural treatment and ''cures'' for the condition, yet non of it works for everybody due uniqueness that rules from the individual...

Conclusion would be the everybody ''knows'' how to treat it, and how ''Ritalin is not the way'', but trying different, even conflicting things (MTHFR vs high dose niacin vs high quality fat vs parasites treatment and gut attention vs nutrition balancing, vs teeth issues, vs overall nutrition balancing vs chelation vs mental aspect vs biofeedback vs antioxidant therapy vs thyroid vs structural things vs...it goes endlessly) just showed me how the diagnosis is not exact and how combining multiple ideas, has the only bet in reversing condition. Orthomolecular show the most chances, no doubt about it, but it's also not so straight forward for how one would like it to be. Also there is no doubt it's also better than taking ''magical pill''. All i want to say, i don't see things so simple as many of orthomolecular promoters do (maybe cause the chances you can talk with an expert on the field are very small - what are we doing online if this is not the case, and DIY is usually like this).

Every body welcome to provoke this philosophy of healing and sorry it doesn't belong to the thread of vaccination - my fingers would not listen nor stop today...

I just came across this article regarding pesticide spraying and pertussis in California, coincidence?

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/harpub/whoopindex.htm

Beebrox - I would defer those questions/answer to this thread: https://immortalhair.forumotion.com/t5830-std-aids-very-worried

It goes on for a while, yet many questions were asked. The change (pleomorphism) you asked about has been seen live many times. It was assumed before that a natural germ existing in the environment would alter itself depending on its condition/environment would change, and it has been proven out visually using tools such as phase contrast microscopy.

I think the only reason health has been so complicated is because of all the health influences industry has created. The worse offender is dentists and second goes to iatrogenic doctors.

The soils have not been the same in a long time and this new generation is expected to die off sooner (unless we take appropriate preventative action).

Since I now lumped in AIDS within the top link above, here's is more to say about it:

What is AIDS? It's a dysfunction of the immune system, but it is caused by some virus that everyone has on the human genome in Chromosome # 6?

A research biologist Christl Meyer Scientific evidence on the biological disconnect between HIV and AIDS.

HIV.http://www.christl-meyer-science.net/en/aids

www.christl-meyer-science.net

whodathunkit - I forgot to mention something (about Fred). SSRI's, which he took suppress the thyroid (any drug that does so can increase potential problems with iodine). This is another iatrgenic problem, not such much exclusive to a natural substance everyone needs.

CS, Fred's problem was...well, let's just say I think a lot of Fred's problem was Fred.  LOL  YMMV.  Point being is I don't take him as any kind of verdict on the value of iodine.  But he was a good example of an extreme reaction that the mainstream considers normal and valid that the natural health community actually knows to be extreme, so I felt his case was relevant to make a point here.
 
Another question I have is, where are all the cases of autism in "primitive" populations that get vaccinated?  I mean, places like India, Africa, etc. Are they simply not being recorded?
 
I'm acquainted with the different theories of disease (thanks to this board but also some previous knowledge), and frankly don't necessarily see them as incompatible.  It's not either/or.  They fit together.  I'm not an expert and I don't really have the wherewithal (or time, even if I had the wherewithal) to elucidate what I think right now, so I'll take a pass at further argument.
 
I'll bow out of this discussion by saying (again) that I truly hope you all are right and my fears concerning the increasing prevalence of non-vaccine are proven flat-ass wrong. I don't mind at all about being wrong about stuff like that, and my mind can be changed. But right now I'm just not entirely persuaded.

whodathunkit - One point I did not make is about vaccine adverse events reporting. This also applies to adverse drug reactions as well, being that only 1% go on being reported/recorded. In the case of vaccines, the reaction usually doesn't manifest into full blown autism until later on, there is not clear eye witness evidence by pediatricians. Moreover, many adverse events that are reported are not recorded. I have some references on these figures somewhere if anyone wants to see them.

We could switch gears a bit here....here's an interesting video that sums up some writing I've done on the origin of tooth decay. Most people will never hear of this information. The truth doesn't make the dental industry any money.