Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Deceitful vax schedule, HiB outbreak, etc....

"One of the five Minnesota Hib meningitis cases was in a 5-month-old child too young to have finished its first series of Hib shots. Another case was in a child who got all the shots but who turned out to have an immune deficiency."

In other words, that 5 month old baby was caught up on shots, but since it wasn't old enough to finish the shots, it was considered unprotected. Very convenient, considering the last HiB shot is not administered until 12-15 months (just a tidbit, CDC says children most vulnerable to HiB are UNDER 12 months). Also, I also find it a little "convenient" that the other fully vaccinated child had an immune deficiency...Did you know vaccines themselves can cause immune deficiency's?

Also, another blurb from the article which completely contradicts itself, now remember those 2 vaccinated children from the quote above:

"Hib vaccine not only protects your child, but also protects babies who have not completed their primary series or those who have immune compromise."

Well let's see, If that above statement were true then why did the baby who had not completed it's shots still get it, and why did the child with the immune deficiency still get it as well.

The one death that occurred was in an unvaccinated baby. According to the CDC, since it was a baby it could not have been caught up on it's vaccine's anyway since it wasn't old enough. So that baby would have been unprotected whether it was fully vaccinated or not. The CDC/Media still made it look like this death only occurred because the baby was unvaccinated? Alos, we don't know details about this baby other than it was in fact, a baby. We don't know if it was breastfed or formula fed, if it was generally healthy, if it was fighting off another illness at the time, if it lived in a healthy sanitary environment, if it was malnourished, etc. All these things need to be considered before you just assume she died because she was unvaccinated. Breastfeeding actually protects against Hib (which is a bacteria, not a disease)


The Hib outbreak just proves my theory about the deceitful vaccine schedule. The CDC admits themselves, that a child most vulnerable to HiB is UNDER 12 months of age, however, the last dose is not administered until AFTER 12 months, closer to 15 to be exact. So how do they get away with it when a fully vaccinated infant still gets the disease? They blame the baby's age, they say their vaccines "work" but only when the last dose is conveniently administered after the vulnerable 12 month period when a baby is not very likely to get the disease anyway, vaccinated or not.


***link to HiB article mentioned above*** http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20090123/hib-outbreak-kills-unvaccinated-child

2 comments:

briannalc said...

You definitely bring up some interesting questions-- ones you know the CDC would never answer truthfully.

Nina McDonald said...

Hey Mama- found your blog from DS :) I think it's great to fully investigate all sides of the vaccine issue.. I just had one comment about something you wrote...

"Hib vaccine not only protects your child, but also protects babies who have not completed their primary series or those who have immune compromise."

Well let's see, If that above statement were true then why did the baby who had not completed it's shots STILL get it, and why did the child with the immune deficiency STILL get it as well. I'm shocked the person who wrote this article didn't catch that major contradiction."

Each baby still got it because they are not immune to it. What they're saying is it's important for OTHER people to be vaxxed to protect babies who aren't caught up on their shots or immunocompromised. So like, if everyone is vaxxed and "herd immunity" is true- then the disease won't be floating around- therefor the baby whether vaccinated or not- wont' be exposed to it- thus- protecting the baby.
Did that make sense? lol