This was a story that nearly sent my blood pressure through the roof when I heard it on the radio whilst taking in the delightful scenery of North Yorkshire last week.
When I finally got back and read the story on the BBC website, it did little to make that blood pressure calm down.
If you read the article, it is so heavily biased towards pregnant mothers having the vaccination. There are experts from every medical angle, agreeing that this is the right approach. Well when all your experts are from the medical profession, it is very unlikely that there would be dissent.
The BBC yet again have not bothered to quote an opposing view to this, yet there are many groups and organisations that I am sure would have only been too willing to offer a different view - I'm sure if the BBC wanted they could find a medic with an opposing view, but they night not be allowed to express it.
So having gone through pregnancy myself, I remember very clearly that midwives actively discourage mothers-to-be from taking as much as an aspirin during pregnancy, as it all has the potential of crossing the placenta and of course the effects on the developing foetus are unknown.
Ethically that study couldn't be done. Who would offer their unborn for trial in that way?
Yet in a sense, that is what mothers taking this vaccine will be doing but under a different guise
Mothers-to-be taking their own medication for their own health have this monitored and reduced as much as possible during this time. A friend taking drugs for rheumatoid arthritis was advised to reduce them right down even when trying for a baby and a friend with epilepsy was advised to do the same.
Suddenly it is ok for mothers to have a vaccine. It of course isn't just for Whooping Cough or Pertussis as it is known. It is the DTaP vaccine and so contains Diphtheria and Tetanus.
We are exposing unborn babies to 3 viruses - nature is never that unkind!
Where would anyone ever contract Pertussis, Diphtheria and Tetanus all at the same time, yet we are happy to give all three to a developing foetus.
Let us leave aside the contents that we know about, what about the adjuvants that go into vaccinations, do we really want our unborn exposed to that cocktail. Aluminium, a neuro-toxin. Latex, MSG, Formaldehydes, Triton( a detergent) Acetone, human serum albumin, to name a few.
Not looking such a good idea really now is it?
Again women are advised to quit smoking and their intake of alcohol both prior to conception and during pregnancy. Can we all drink and smoke as much as we like now?
There are of course no studies done to see if vaccination on the unborn have side effects, yet we are told by these medical professionals that it is safe. How do we know that, if a trial hasn't been done?
We wouldn't consider someone innocent or guilty without a trial. People are not declared a danger to the public without the evidence being weighed up and this isn't going to effect your health.
Yet here we are quite happy to accept 'opinion' This is not scientific. Yet science constantly wants evidence of effectiveness from all other approaches to health - except it's own it seems. We have to take as 'red' that it is safe, just through opinion. Wow that is some arrogance and this arrogance could impact on the mothers health and that of her unborn child.
The effect of vaccinations on the body may not always materialise straight away, it may lay dormant and fester away or make the immune system weaker, not stronger and thus make one more prone to developing the types of systemic disease we all fear and see increasing in our society.
How effective do they think these vaccines are? The article states that women are to have this vaccine in all pregnancies. Well does that mean every year for a few years or every 18 months. Most women have their children quite close together. Is the vaccine so ineffective that it needs renewing so often? and if that is the case why when we were all given DTaP as small babies, haven't we been given top ups in adulthood as standard practise. By this definition, have the medics been playing fast and loose with our health??
Suddenly pregnant mums need it every time they are pregnant?? Interesting!
What for our babies then? Are they to receive this so called protection in the womb that we are told will protect them and then get the shots again from 2 months. Well these don't work it seems, but we are willing to vaccinate and just remember it is not just the vaccine but all the 'extra' bits it needs to break down cell walls to allow the vaccine to penetrate.
Not the way the body contracts viruses and so therefore doesn't allow the natural immune system to work.
Babies immune systems take time to work, so how will it generate antibodies to vaccines and what will be the effect? Well BBC, why don't you ask the questions that need the answers and not just be the mouth piece for the next government announcement.
Yes, I understand that we want perfect health for ourselves and our children. I have a child myself and of course numerous children that I have care and concern for, but is this the right way?
Because I care about the health of our children in a non reactionary way, I want the safest protection for them. Health isn't perfect sadly and epidemics come along for a reason and of course none of us want to be caught up in them, but how we cope with disease has got to be better than the disease itself, not just seemingly in the short term, but the long term effects on our health and that of our children has to be considered also.
Are we to vaccinate pregnant mothers for every illness we have a vaccine for?
If the government decided that all pregnant women should have 10 vaccines, would we still be comfortable with that? How many is too many?
Pregnant women are offered the flu jab also. You can get a measles shot as well.
Already with this whooping cough vaccine you are getting three vaccines in one, not quite as the story was presented or headlined.
I could go on and show how vaccines have not had the impact on health we are lead to believe and that these diseases were already on the decline as vaccines were introduced. Much to do with improved sanitation and environment. Quality of nutrition also a major factor.
May be we should look back to nutrition again. We are food rich and nutrition poor in the main. Perhaps if we considered food as nutrition, mothers-to-be would have healthier immune systems and thus so would our newborns. This would make them less vulnerable to illness and disease, which no matter how hard we try are a fact of life.
I could quote various side effects and the documented dangers of vaccination. It is all out there, so why doesn't the BBC quote some of it?
Please read around opposing views to vaccines before you are manipulated at a very vulnerable time to conceding to medical opinion. It is not medical fact as we established no one is quoting a medical trial here. If it exists, let us see it then.
Let us also see the results of health in the vaccinated compared to the non vaccinated, or is that another trial that has never been carried out - may be for fear of what it will show and that can only be that vaccines wouldn't show as favourable as the medics want.
In all these decisions, follow the money trail, sad but true perhaps. Government concern for our health may have little to do with health at all. So we are the guardians of our children's health and must equip ourselves with the knowledge from all sides before making health effecting decisions that could have long lasting impact on our growing and precious children.
No comments:
Post a Comment