My Stance on Vaccinations

Posted 02/4/15 in [Non-Nutrition Thoughts and Kudos] | 2 Comments

This week I was asked for my stance on vaccinations, an extremely hot topic in today’s society. It was a reasonable question for me as an allied health professional, to answer. From personal experience, I understand the deep pain parents feel at seeing their infant suffer after a vaccination battery (and see a corresponding alarming physical reaction or illness or permanent birthmark); I can only imagine what it must be like to have complete long-term/permanent personality change afterwards.

The bottom line for me is that we vaccinate TOO EARLY in this country. I actually feel vaccination is merely mimicking what our bodies do anyway when we have a healthy immune system. Just as our bodies create complex antibodies to fight of invaders so we are not impacted when they are re-introduced, a vaccination simply purposely introduces parts of those invaders so our bodies will create the antibodies. Like it or not, I do believe in the autism connection, and you can click here to watch an outstanding testimonial about a woman who saw changes in her autistic son© Mlizal | Dreamstime.com - Hypodermic Photo after starting Body Balance. But we have to view this as a connection in a very complex situation. I just believe we need to rethink and re-tool the medical profession’s opinion about what the human body can handle in the first 3 years.

I do not support vaccinations for things that will not maim or kill us, should we contract them. Good examples are the flu shot and chicken pox. Also, I absolutely do think we need to wait much, much longer to vaccinate our children, and those vaccinations need to be spread out in smaller doses. We are overwhelming our children’s bodies with disease, too much at once. Further, we have to get a better way to keep the vaccine sterile over using heavy metals. This is a very complex issue and the answer is not to throw out the baby with the bath water, but to leverage our medical technology knowledge to benefit the human body in a gentle way.

I respect and hurt for people who have had loved ones damaged by vaccines. I believe you. I just don’t agree with the fix proposed by the anti-vaccine advocates.

2 Comments

  • Researcher says:

    I was nodding my head in agreement as I read your post–until I got to your last sentence.

    What?

    What fix are you talking about?

    Which “anti vaccine advocates?”

    I’m afraid you just lumped everyone who criticizes vaccine safety/efficacy/necessity in one category, and labeled them all “anti vaccine advocates.” And that’s exactly what is being done by those who are trying to mandate vaccines without exemptions.

    Most of us believe that vaccination–like any other invasive medical procedure–should be left up to the individual, or to the parent of a minor individual. I may no longer believe that vaccines are something I can trust, but if you believe that they are, I will fight for your right to choose to take them, assuming that you have been truthfully and completely informed of the risks. That’s called “informed consent;” it does not happen with vaccines. AT ALL.

    And THAT’s the crux of the issue that you neglect to mention–the fact that those whose children were adversely affected by vaccines were NEVER told of the damage that could occur from vaccines, and most of their reactions were actually denied to BE reactions by local health officials, who then turn it around and say, “look! vaccines are safe and effective!”

    Shouldn’t that be part of any conversation about vaccines?

    We can’t discuss any “fix,” even the sensible one you describe, until both the government and the medical community
    1) admit the damage
    2) halt all discussion of mandatory vaccination.

    Sadly, I don’t see either one happening any time soon. 🙁

    • Carolyn says:

      Thank you for your insightful comments to this emotionally charged topic. I hadn’t thought about the fact that my stating a category which I named “anti vaccine advocates” would also include a spectrum of people who are (rightfully so) just wanting to be allowed to choose when, where, and how much they expose themselves and their children to vaccines, but feel their right is so compromised that they are going to fight on current “side” (and I use that term loosely) which will protect that. I apologize for using that term; it never occurred to me it could be seen as degrading.

      The reaction one of my children had to her MMR in the 1990s woke me up to the whole vaccine thing. I identify with being told her immediate reaction was not related to the vaccine (which was preposterous), that the permanent mark she has on her thigh all these years later which appeared after her terrible reaction was “just a coincidence” (even though it appeared within 24 hours at the injection site and grew as her fever grew), and the continue wondering about her very mild learning challenge (which we attended to successfully in our homeschool) wasn’t a result of the vaccine. I have skin in the game. In the end, though, it was MY responsibility to my daughter and other children to better educate myself about this and use my smart brain to figure out a path forward which would allow them to be protected from some devastating diseases without suffering consequences and to advocate for our position with our healthcare providers. This is where I think we are saying the same thing.

      I needed to write this post because professionally, I was receiving some questions about this. Some people will not work with my Nutrition counseling services side nor buy my products because I do support vaccination with the modifications stated above. I respect that. However, I needed a place to send them to read my position so they might make that decision based on the entirety of my position and not just a soundbite.

      Your points are completely valid and add a great dimension to this post. Thanks for taking your time to improve this content!