
On the face of it, suspicion of the new H1N1 vaccine is incomprehensible. Vaccination has been one of the biggest lifesavers of the past 200 years. It is the cornerstone of public health, directly responsible for the dramatic drop in infant and child mortality and the dramatic extension of lifespan we have enjoyed over the last century. Despite countless conspiracy theories advanced by vaccine rejectionists in the past 200 years, not a single one has turned out to be true.
True, there are side effects, some serious. However, serious vaccine side effects like brain damage or death are so rare as to be measured per 100,000 people or per 1,000,000 people. There has been no effort to hide these serious side effects. Indeed parents are required to sign consent forms acknowledging the risk of serious side effects before their children can be vaccinated.
So why are people suspicious of vaccines? There are many reasons including the American love for conspiracy theories, the public campaigns led by prominent celebrities, and the desire to assign causes to diseases like autism where the cause remains unknown. The most important cause of the suspicions, though, is one that is very easy to address. Most people don’t know how vaccines work.
To understand how vaccines work, you need to understand how the body defends itself from bacteria and viruses. Just like the body has a dedicated system to digest food (the gastrointestinal tract) or to remove waste products (the kidneys and urinary tract0, the body also has a dedicated system to fend off bacteria and viruses; it’s called the immune system.
The body actually has three layers of defense against bacteria and viruses. The first is the physical barrier presented by the skin or the lining (mucous membranes) of interior passages like the mouth and nose. Although we are surrounded at all times by bacteria and viruses, most of them never make it beyond the skin. Of course the integrity of the skin and mucous membranes can be disrupted by a cut or puncture, allowing bacteria or viruses to be introduced directly into the body.
The second line of defense is a non-specific immune response. If bacteria colonize a cut on your hand, your body reacts in a predictable way. There will be swelling, redness, and pain, a response that does not depend on the identity of the threat. Special immune cells will race to the site and engulf the offending bacteria. When they die in the attempt, they accumulate as pus.
Even primitive animals have non-specific immune responses, but higher animals and human beings have an additional, more powerful response. We can produce antibodies. Antibodies are proteins that recognize specific bacteria or viruses and bind to them, thereby signaling to other immune cells that they are targets for swift neutralization. Each antibody binds to a specific site on a specific bacteria or virus.
We’re not born with those antibodies, though. We make them in response to a threat. For example, we are not born with antibodies to the chickenpox (varicella) virus. When exposed to the varicella virus, though, we can learn to make antibodies to it. It takes time, but gradually we can produce enough antibodies to fend off the disease.
Unfortunately, we don’t always get the time we need. We can make antibodies to smallpox, for example, but many individuals are overwhelmed and killed by the virus long before they could make enough antibodies to fend it off. Those who do win the race and manage to produce enough antibodies to survive are now permanently protected. That’s because the immune system retains the ability to make the specific antibodies against the smallpox virus. Whereas it may take days to produce smallpox antibody when first exposed, a second exposure will be met with rapid and massive production of antibody, generally preventing the individual from getting sick at all.
So in order to be protected from the disease, you had to get the disease, and you might die before you were able to make enough antibody to protect yourself. Imagine, though, if you could learn to make the protective antibodies without actually getting sick. That’s the theory behind vaccines.
In order to make antibodies to a virus (or bacterium) the body need to “see” the virus. In other words, it needs to have direct exposure to the virus, but that virus doesn’t have to be functional, and it doesn’t even have to be whole. A virus can be inactivated (live attenuated) or killed and still produce an immune response. It can also be broken down into its constituent parts and the parts can produce an immune response. Any future exposure to the live virus (though contact with others who have the disease) will be met with rapid and massive production of antibody, preventing the individual from getting sick at all. A vaccine is merely and inactivated or dead form of the virus, letting you learn to make antibody without getting sick in the process.
Vaccines do not produce perfect immunity. The dangerous part of the virus might be the part that evokes the most powerful immune response. Rendering the virus harmless by inactivating it, killing it or breaking it up, may remove that part and the immune response to the less dangerous parts might be weaker. So actually getting the disease may produce a better immune response than the vaccine … but only if you survive the disease.
Successfully fighting off a disease depends on being able to produce enough antibody before the disease kills you. Until vaccines, the only way you could learn to produce antibody was to actually get the disease. Now, instead, you can learn to make antibody by being exposed to a harmless form of the virus or bacterium.


Salon.com
Comments
Not really. During the 1976 swine flu--outbreak? scare? situation?--the press reported more deaths from the vaccine than from the flu itself. Memories for that sort of thing last a long time, no matter what the facts.
That's not the issue. The real issue is that vaccination has been under sustained public attack from people who don't know anything about vaccination. Vaccine rejectionism is the intellectual equivalent of believing in UFOs with the added problem of exposing children to serious disease and death.
Vaccination is probably the most successful public health program of all time. And the swine flu incident of 1976 doesn't not undermine that in any way. Some people will die from vaccination (they will get Guillan Barre Syndrome, which they can get from the flu as well). The problem in 1976 is that the flu burned itself out very early. That's not what's happening here.
My primary purpose in writing this was not to convince people to get the H1N1 vaccine. My primary purpose is to explain vaccination so people can understand why vaccine rejectionists are wrong. Their claims are a direct result of the fact that vaccine rejectionists don't understand what vaccines are and how they work.
You don't know; you think. There's a big difference. In fact, it's the difference between knowledge and absurd conspiracy stories believed only by the gullible.
Meds don't really work for me. I got a case of hives up my neck when I took Benadryl for some poison ivy.
I did learn recently that a sufficient dose of Vitamin D (5,000 IU for women) has been determined to help people keep from getting the flu. I've started taking that in liquid form, as well as 1,000 mg of ascorbic acid (in powder form) daily, both in a glass of water.
One reason pills and such don't work for me is that I have a hard time digesting them, given the fillers they use: gluten, lactose, etc. Things I cannot eat because they seriously disagree with me.
I recently learned about these alternatives that would work for me from an orthopedic surgeon.
Oh well, it just means there will be more vaccine available for the people who want it to receive it.
I will be getting my shot at the end of the month.
Douglas satates "During the 1976 swine flu--outbreak? scare? situation?--the press reported more deaths from the vaccine than from the flu itself."
Amy T... "That's not the issue". Huh? I'll bet there are quite a few people who lost dear ones to vaccines, dear ones who would otherwise still be alive and healthy today; children, mothers or fathers, who would argue that that IS the issue.
Your compassion dear towards those who died unnecessarily from receiving experimental vaccines is to say the least LACKING.
As for me I'll take my chances without flu vaccines.
"I just wanted to say that your summary dismissal of Douglas Morans commentary sickens me worst than any flu could ever do."
You're in the ICU on a respirator?
"I did learn recently that a sufficient dose of Vitamin D (5,000 IU for women) has been determined to help people keep from getting the flu."
No, it's won't. That's not true.
Another reason is that visiting a prostitute is more culturally acceptable in Africa, which spreads the virus between the prostitute, the customer, his wife, and other prostitutes he may visit. I've read that, for various reasons, a prostitute who once would have stayed in her village and therefore have had a smaller circle of customers, and more influence in persuading them to use condoms, is now more likely to move (or be forcibly moved) to a city.
Also, as more adult women have HIV, adult men who want to avoid the virus have started having sex with teenagers and young girls. Many of those men already have the virus (though they don't know it OR are trying to cure it), so that spreads the virus onwards.
Another reason is that testing is unpopular because a positive test can bring problems to that individual's family. If someone dies of AIDS, his/her family will say it was cancer, to avoid the stigma and danger. That means prior sexual partners aren't warned. It also perpetuates the fallacy, to a much greater extent than we have here, that if someone seems "nice" and "clean" they couldn't possibly have HIV.
The bottom line, though, is that if people had a true understanding of how vaccines work, they wouldn't fall prey to the vaccine rejectionist nonsense.
The flu shot was added to the victims compensation fund, a government run program to compensate people who have been afflicted with flu-vaccine related deaths and paralysis.
It could be that people just don't want to be that 1 in 10,000, which is what these 2 doctors suggest. That's worse odds than dying in a car crash and look at what we go through to avoid that...
It's much better than the odds of changing the "dr"'s mind. She sees the world in black and white.
This country is awash in bad drugs pushed by big Pharma unopposed by an impotent FDA. Vioxx comes to mind along with Ambein and Zyprexa in all these cases are doctors who for whatever reasons poo poo the complaints of their patients. Doctors who prescribe medicines off label because the drug rep tells them how good it works with out any testing to back those claims up.
I was in an auto accident and suffered a brain injury, the doctor told me to report any unusual occurrences or symptoms. At this time I had not touched alcohol in over five years but after the accident I had almost a continuous craving for beer.
At my next appointment when I explained this to the doctor he shook his head and said, “No, that’s not a symptom.” As I left he gave me a prescription for an antidepressant because it was his opinion that I was depressed.
I never would have mentioned it to the doctor in the first place if he hadn’t asked me. Then to jump to a conclusion without knowing anything about me and outside of his area of specialty is absurd.
I was fortunate growing up to have an award winning cancer researcher in the near family. At gatherings he would lament the state of his field. “20% of them don’t know the difference between a sandbox and a cat box,” he would say. But they think they're Jesus Christ because they have an MD behind their name and repeat the latest theory that they read or heard around the water cooler.
When I was a child the doctors told my parents that if my sister and I didn’t have our tonsils out we would be in for a lifetime of trouble. Forty years later, Not! Doctors told my wife and I that our son needed tubes in his ears or he would be in for a lifetime of trouble, Not!
My wife was given a flu shot at her job, she became ill almost immediately. The doctor said, “That’s not unusual but she should be better by morning instead she was worse. Two weeks and two thousand dollars later she was hospitalized. What did the doctor have to say? “Well, sometimes that happens and it can’t be helped.”
I guess you would call it a statistical anomaly, but it was my wife and the mother of my children and “It can’t be helped doesn’t cut it!”
In my profession I have worked with thousands of mechanics and in that group maybe a dozen are what I would call master mechanics. They diagnose the problem correctly every time. The have almost second sight into problem solving, most of the rest I would say are journeymen that are at varying degrees of skills. Then there are some that couldn’t fix a headache with a bottle of aspirin. If they discover the problem right off it’s an accident yet they are all called Mechanic.
I once went to the doctor because I felt weak, just crossing the room and I’d have to sit down and rest. I felt feverish and had strange pains that ran through my body like I was being speared. The doctor seemed certain that I had pulled a muscle in my back even after I explained that the pains went through me from front to back. He could not explain my tiredness and prescribed vitamins.
When I returned to work a customer and friend commented that I looked like something that had been run over. I described the symptoms and he shook his head. “Boy” he said, “You got the shingles! You just wait till tomorrow your going have sores around your sides but don’t touch em it will just make it worse.” He was right of course and I later asked how he knew, “Shit son, A welder always knows more about real life that a doctor! By the way you owe me fifty bucks for the consultation!”
It is beyond disagreement that immunization has been a boon to mankind yet if the public is skeptical of medicine then who is to blame? Who prescribed the bad medicine in the first place? Who breached the public confidence?
Physician Heal thy self!
Dr. amy read this please...http://www.huliq.com/8059/87650/nfl-cheerleader-suffers-irreversible-dystonia-after-flu-shot"
I know you won't but that's ok.
And vaccines are still around, not because they're so efficient and effective, but because they're one of the biggest money makers the medical establishment has contrived and sold to a stupid public. You know very well that the "positive" effect that vaccines have supposedly had can also be attributed to better nutrition and sanitation and other causes. But you lie, distort, and propagandize for your seedy and morally corrupt profession!!
"but there was a manufacturing problem with the first batches of vaccine, hence the vaccine-induced deaths were more than the flu deaths."
No, the vaccine itself was safe. Exposure to influenza (by getting the flu or by getting the vaccine) leads to Guillain Barre Syndrome in a small proportion of those receiving the vaccine. In 1976, the decision was made to vaccinated against the flu after a new strain sickened five people and killed one. This year's flu has sickened tens of thousands and killed more than a thousand, many of them children and pregnant women.
"THIS FLU IS MAN MADE"
Really? Where's the proof for that? And why would anyone do that? And when in the entire history of human beings has anyone done that?
"I know 2 practicing neurologists."
So what?
Do you realize how ridiculous that statement is?
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
Scientific decisions should be made based on scientific data.
"And vaccines are still around, not because they're so efficient and effective, but because they're one of the biggest money makers the medical establishment has contrived and sold to a stupid public."
Do you believe in UFOs, too?Your statement is entirely absurd. Let's see you prove it.
"read this please"
How do you know it's true? Because someone printed it on a website? How do you know whether that is the diagnosis, whether the flu shot had anything to do with, and whether the person is even telling the truth prior to the inevitable lawsuit?
Vaccines of old were mostly killed virus vaccines. Now they shoot us up with modified live viruses, genetically engineered material, and the added compounds containing aluminum, mercury and the like.
When I was young I received a few vaccines and have a lived 50 years surgery free and prescription free, save for the occasional antibiotics. Now infants are vaccinated up to 16 times before they are two years old!
So, no, it's not just paranoid conspiracy theorists who question vaccines. Not all vaccines are bad. But neither are all vaccines desirable.
Thank you.
"The primary source of information for overworked doctors is pharmaceutical companies."
I've never met with a drug rep in my life.
What is amazing to me is how incredibly gullible vaccine rejectionists are.
Every seminar you attend is likely sponsored by a big pharma company.
Last comment from me. It's a waste of time writing to people like you.
Fairfax Inova and Johns Hopkins.... bet it could be verified Amy. Want me to, so you can summarily dismiss it?
"Dr" Amy is widely rumored to be a paid rep for several drug companies. She is always pro-medical establishment.
If you want to read how unbiased the medical community is, Google Doctor Offit Profit. The man who touts vaccines made $29 million from them.
By the way, "Dr" Amy will now call me a rejectionist, even though I do not reject all vaccines. I merely suggest that a critical eye be cast on all drugs because of their side effects. I do agree with some vaccines and have taken them gladly.
"Every seminar you attend is likely sponsored by a big pharma company. "
I don't go to those, either.
Vaccine rejectionists are people who are ignorant about immunology, virology and evidently, the practice of medicine as well.
When you make accusations against someone, you should be prepared to prove it. Of course, this will be your last comment. You have no scientific evidence to present, just lame conspiracy theories.
Widely rumored? I don't think be lied about by a few people who are embarrassed by being unable to discuss science qualifies as "widely rumored."
Do you believe everything you read on the internet? That would explain a lot.
"bet it could be verified"
Go right, ahead. Knock yourself out. I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to verify it.
Nope, don't believe you. Please explain to us why a non-practicing ob/gyn has any insight into immunology beyond the ability to read the PR from the CDC and goes to such great lengths to promote vaccines on a regular basis in so many venues. Seems a bit curious to say the least.
"Seems a bit curious to say the least."
To you.
Do you have ANYTHING to say about the science of vaccines?
your argument with jeffrey marks reminds me of my ex wife... answering a question with a question
and so sad it is... if it wasn't for me and jeffrey (and I'm here against medical advice) you would have no one to talk down to. No one comes to your blog anymore.
Do you have any statistical evidence that supports that claim? Because on it's face, it requires one to merely find a single person who expresses doubt about the efficacy, scheduling, manufacture, or administration of vaccines who is an M.D., virologist, immunologist, or indeed has just taken some pre-med biology and chemistry courses in college to disprove your assertion.
Really, you should stop making such sweeping statements. For a person who so frequently demands "hard data," it is fairly unreasonable.
And allow me to repeat my suggestion that you re-word your opening sentence to eliminate its inaccuracy.
http://www.huliq.com/8059/nfl-cheerleader-has-neurological-damage-after-flu-shot
"I could bring the REAL MD from Johns Hopkins directly to your house with documentations and DATA but you would still hold to your opinion."
In other words, you can't verify it.
You make a lot of unsupport sweeping declarations ("all vaccine rejectionists have no knowledge of immunology or virology"), and refuse to present evidence to support them. And when a poster here provides you with evidence of any kind, or even asks you to reword your declaration, you invariably dismiss or ignore it. Either it is "anecdotal," it's in the wrong journal, it's out of date, it's in disagreement with the AMA or the CDC, it's insufficiently sourced, it's incomplete, it's coming from a poster you distrust, it's not worded correctly, it's on the internet, it's only one doctor's opinion, that doctor is a shill for his own products, or some other problem (real, asserted, or implied). I have yet to see you admit to a mistake, even when you have clearly made mis-statements.
So in the case of trig, why should he bother to bring the head of Johns-Hopkins immunology to your house to verify his point? You'll just tell him, "That's only one doctor's opinion; the research says thus-and-so." When asked to quote the research, you'll refuse, and issue pointers, or perhaps issue a thinly-veiled insult at the poster ("you're simply gullible"). When other people give you pointers to information that contradicts you, you'll declare that they need to post the relevant text here, or that it's on the internet and so is unreliable, or use one of the other reasons noted in my previous paragraph.
You are a bad debater, Amy. You are disingenuous, deliberately inflammatory, frequently insulting, dismissive, and often just plain unpleasant. Whether you do this on purpose to enrage people and run up your hit count, or are simply an unpleasant person, I have no idea (nor could I without meeting you and taking your measure in person). But in an online environment, you are incredibly unpleasant to deal with unless one is in complete agreement with your point of view. (For example for my part, even though I have asked you repeatedly that, when you quote me, to please quote entire sentences at the least, you continue to clip them. A small thing, perhaps, but absolutely typical of your debate approach.)
My advice--which I'm reasonably sure you won't take, although it is well-meant, albeit perhaps somewhat-unkindly stated--is to climb off your high horse and acquire--or at least learn to simulate--a little humility. You're an OB who has not been in practice for a decade and a half and, so far as you have revealed, have little to no experience with non-traditional (which is to say, non-Western) medical techniques; it's not unlikely that there are people out there in the world who know more than you. In fact, the probability that is the case approaches unity. Try to keep that in mind.
Vaccines have saved millions of lives. They are one of the most important advances in the history of medical science. Thanks to the WHO vaccination program, smallpox, a highly contagious disease that caused millions of deaths and much suffering from complications such as blindness and brain damage, has been eradicated. Polio, which is also no joke if you contract it, is hopefully on its way out too.
No-one is denying that there are (very small) risks accompanying vaccines, but from both a public health and an individual point of view, vaccines are a no-brainer. They give you protection from diseases which are big and ugly and have killed or severely disabled large numbers of people. When enough people in a population are vaccinated against a disease, incidence of that disease drops, which contributes to greater societal stability and a general rise in the standard of living. Mass vaccination also has the nice knock-on effect of providing "herd immunity" protection to some very vulnerable people who cannot receive vaccines because they have compromised immune systems.
I believe that having a basic understanding of science is part of being a responsible citizen. If you refuse to engage with the basic principles of immunology as stated by a medical doctor or acquire knowledge of how to interpret statistics in favor of stating _what you think_, then you're behaving irresponsibly.
http://download.thelancet.com/flatcontentassets/H1N1-flu/vaccination/vaccination-12.pdf
When confronted with a doubling of febrile seizures, the CDC just removed its recommendation. The combined vaccine stayed on the market..
"If you refuse to engage with the basic principles of immunology as stated by a medical doctor or acquire knowledge of how to interpret statistics in favor of stating _what you think_, then you're behaving irresponsibly."
Absolutely. It is particularly irresponsible because the result is to put the lives of children at risk.
"Notice that there is no credible attempt to otherwise describe why we don't have outbreaks of smallpox, yellow fever, diphtheria, cholera, and other diseases that were part of human existence until near recent memory."
There's no credible attempt to explain anything. There's not a number to be found anywhere and certainly there's no evidence offered for any vaccine rejectionists claim.
I'm going to ask some basic questions explicitly to see how (or even if) any vaccine rejectionist responds.
1. What is the chance of dying of a vaccine compared to dying of a vaccine preventable disease?
2. How much money do doctors make each time they administer a vaccine?
3. Has there ever been a democratic country that promoted and financed an effort to poison its citizens?
These questions are the tip of the iceberg, but I'd bet that no vaccine rejectionist will address them.
"are you really advocating that some should die so that others might not get the flu this winter?"
That's not the philosophical issue that we face. People do not die so others might not get the flu.
Everyone faces the same risk of dying from the vaccine or dying from the disease itself. The risk of dying from the disease is massively greater than the risk of dying from the vaccine that prevents the disease. The philosophical question, therefore, is whether it is worth accepting the risk of the vaccine in order to avoid the risk of the disease.
You can only answer the question if you know the numbers. So please tell us: What is the risk of dying from a vaccine? What is the risk of dying from a vaccine preventable disease? (Numbers, only, not adjectives.)
In the Lancet article I posted (and you ignored as you have on other occassions!) they point out that there is a bias in the numbers because in the over 70 or over 80 crowd, some folks just aren't going to make it to spring, no matter what. That skews all the numbers in regard to mortality rates.
The same thing is true of deaths from the flu shot. There has to be someone available to the doctor or coroner to tell them that a flu shot was recently given or how will they know. So many of these deaths also are not attributed correctly.
However, since you're all black and white (and paid for), I'm sure you'll disagree with this.
In terms of how much a doctor makes from a vaccine, Paul Offit made $29,ooo,ooo.
"no one knows exact numbers for the flu"
That's not true, but let me make it easy for you: tell us the numbers for smallpox, polio, diptheria and pertussis.
"they point out that there is a bias in the numbers because in the over 70 or over 80 crowd, some folks just aren't going to make it to spring, no matter what."
Statistical analysis easily compensates for background death rates.
"Paul Offit made"
I didn't ask you that. I asked what a doctor makes for administering a vaccine.
I realize that none of the answers to the questions are to be found on vaccine rejectionist websites, which is where you get all your "information." That's why you don't know them. But the answers exist, and you need to find them if you expect to be taken seriously.
Statistical analysis does not easily compensates for background death rates. Statistics are my field, and you have NO idea what you're talking about.
"I read peer-reviewed medical journals to get my information. "
What information? You haven't answered any of the questions.
These questions are incredibly simple and basic to any understanding of vaccines. The fact that you appear to have no idea of the risk of vaccines compared to the risk of the disease it is designed to prevent is rather startling. How do you know if vaccines are unsafe if you have literally no idea of the death rate of vaccines and literally no idea of the death rate of the diseases they are designed to prevent?
I made it extraordinarily easy for you to answer that question. Just tell us the numbers for smallpox, polio, diptheria and pertussis. That data is easy to obtain. The fact that you haven't provided it suggests that either you haven't even bothered to look or you've looked and found to your embarrassment that the data is very different than what you thought.
Either way, you have zero credibility if you cannot answer the most basic question. What is the risk of dying of the vaccine compared to dying of the disease it is designed to present? How can you think you know anything about vaccines if you don't know that?
This "blog" was about h1n1. Why on earth are these other vaccines relevant to that discussion? In short, they are not. Flu vaccines do not fall into the same category as most other vaccines as the efficacy rate can be as low as 15% for the population that it's supposed to protect and it has many nasty side effects. That's why you don't want to discuss flu.
Do you think anyone is fooled by your pathetic attempts to disguise the fact that you don't know even the most basic facts about vaccines?
You are a highly privileged woman with a better education, and many more options and resources available to you than most people can afford, and yet, you don't seem to have grasped the concept that you attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. That glaring omission reflects on both your character and your judgment.
My grandmother, a simple farm woman, wouldn't have let me go to kindergarten without having taught me that simple principle. It has always been clear to me, no matter how far I travelled and what I learned that demonstrating respect does not depend on the behavior of others. I can't say I have always been good at this, but I work hard to do my best.
Your unkindness undercuts any benefit you feel inclined to render. That seems emotionally and deeply unintelligent to me.
Without deeper investigation of how vaccines work, your explanation may satisfy the curiosity of many. Your description leaves the reader thinking that the two approaches to triggering an immune response are the same. I am not a medical professional, only a parent that has actively educated myself about vaccines - pros and cons. My children are not vaccinated, but my reasons for not vaccinating have moved beyond the fears of autism or other possible neurological concerns.
I have to ask why you left out the important details about the immune system responds differently to natural exposure of bacteria and viruses compared to an injection of the live or inactivated material. A natural infection typically occurs at the mucosal layer (respitory passages or intestinal surfaces) stimulating a immunoglobulin gamma A (IgA) response then followed by a immunoglobulin gamma G (IgG) and immunoglobulin gamma M (IgM) antibodies. Injected vaccinations do not stimulate the full response because by being introduced into muscular tissue the IgA portion of the response is missing, therefore not allowing for complete response necessitating future boosters.
It is also my understanding that it is the introduction of such materials as squalene and formaldehyde through the route of vaccination that causes the body to see these as foreign invaders. Both squalene and formaldehyde are natural by products of processes in our body however when introduced through vaccines the body wants to get rid of all of it present in the body possibly leading to the cause of autoimmune diseases.
I am suspicious of pharmaceutical companies. I would be far more likely to vaccinate my children if I believed that they were interested in using the information we know about how the immune system works and creating vaccinations that triggered a response in a more natural way.
I think it is telling when doctors on mainstream media are stating they will not be giving their children a vaccination http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_rKKawZx0I