AIHM Student Reasearch Papers
|
Immunisation Debate
Student Name: Carol-Anne Bradley
The case AGAINST immunization
Immunization has been used for years to reduce, and even eliminate disease. Small pox, for one, in countries that immunize, has all but been eradicated. However improved hygiene has shown significant results in reducing diseases that we vaccinate against.
It is of great concern that there is a risk associated with immunization. Research is becoming more available to show this. Links to asthma, brain damage, attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity disorders, allergies, cot death, autism, Crohn’s disease, immune disorders and even death have all been shown to result from immunization in some way. This creates a huge debate over whether we should be forced to immunize or not.
This early introduction to ‘shooting up’, or having a needle in our arms or leg, cannot possibly send a correct message to our children. With the initial immunization and then the follow up boosters at age 6 and 12, we are telling our children it is all right to inject substances into our body, as "it will make you better". Is this what we want to say to our children?
There is documentation relating the spread of AIDS in Africa, to an immunization program that was undertaken there.
Huge research grants are distributed yearly to eradicate diseases, but could this money not be better spent elsewhere in educating people on better nutrition and hygiene, or implementing programs to produce first class organic and nutritional food. Such a diet has been shown to successfully improve, or even cure such diseases as cancer and diabetes. (Phillip Day, 2001).
There is evidence of ‘politically manufactured’ epidemics designed to boost pharmaceutical industries’ revenue through our fear of disease. It is only recently that evidence is being published to show parents have been misled by the Government or pharmaceutical companies. Phillip Day and Scheibner are only two of the people speaking out in an attempt to let people know. It is a huge effort to take on the pharmaceutical companies as they have such huge finances and control. They are buying health food companies so they can control ‘alternative’ medicines, they give huge grants to Governments and research, and they control many doctors by their ‘generous’ donations in return for product endorsement. This is a huge scam that was never conveyed to the public before, for fear or reprisal.
There is research to show that allowing children to have chicken pox and other childhood diseases, develops their immunity. We know there are complications, even death that can arise from having some of these childhood diseases in adulthood, but if we were all exposed to them, we would build the immunity. A healthy mother with strong immunity can pass this immunity on to her child in the womb via the placenta and again after birth, via breast milk. This is the best immunity we can offer children, yet in some third world countries, mothers are encouraged to use formulas. Why don’t we improve their hygiene, standard of living and diet, rather than funding immunization and substitute formulas? The death rate of babies since the introduction of formula in such countries has risen, not from malnutrition as much as it has from disease. There is no natural immunity in formula!
Out breaks of highly contagious diseases, such as small pox, can wipe out whole villages in third world countries, but if we worked to improve sanitation and natural immunity, we would be just as successful, if not more so, than introducing immunization. Pharmaceutical companies and governments are not always truthful in the information released about such epidemics. Information on the foot and mouth outbreak in England, and the subsequent cattle culling and vaccination program suggests there are financial motives for the action. (Phillip Day)
As so many bacteria have become immune to antibiotics and disinfectants, so our bodies may become immune to strains of vaccination. The mutation of bacteria and viruses is clearly seen with the need to introduce a new Influenza vaccine every year. This further invades our bodies and disturbs the natural immune response. If more attention were paid to building our natural immunity, we would not need the artificial one.
The case for homeopathic remedies and the use of nosodes, works by giving minute doses of the remedy to our body so we build our own immunity to it. It is similar to giving a vaccine, but it is not injecting the live virus in a mixture of chemicals or allergens. The homeopathic treatment is becoming more and more popular as it encourages the natural immune response.
Our bodies have an excellent natural immunological process, and when we are in a healthy state, it is able to cope with invading pathogens. Our main aim should be to keep this state of optimum health.
People should be given the right of choice and the huge multinational drug companies and the Governments should not be able to dictate to us that we should put foreign substances in our body, through immunization. They should not be allowed to frighten people into this course of action.
Our team will discuss many of the issues in further depth, to argue our case, "That immunization should not be compulsory."
Bibliography.
The Australian Vaccination Network Western Australia. 2001.
Day, Phillip. Health Wars. Credence. UK. 2001.
Day, Phillip & Ransom, Steven. Plague, Pestilence and the Pursuit of Power. Credence. UK. 2001.
Marshall, L.J. (MBBS) Immunisation A Rationale for Use. June 1991.
www.phillipday.com
www.credence.org
|
