Cynthia A. Janak
Why should the vaccinated worry about the unvaccinated
By Cynthia A. Janak
I have found this argument to be laughable. Why, because if a child is vaccinated then there should be no issues as to the vaccinated child getting a disease from the unvaccinated. The non-issue in the eyes of the vaccinated should be that the vaccinated child is protected and safe from any diseases that they are vaccinated against. So those parents and legislators should not have to worry about the choice of the parents to not vaccinate their children. But, for some reason the legislators of New Jersey feel that the parents of the unvaccinated children are putting the vaccinated children at risk. Why is it that this does not make any logical sense to me? I mean think about it.
You have two children, one vaccinated and one un-vaccinated on a diet high in anti-oxidants and takes vitamins everyday so their immune system is at its peak performance. The vaccinated child received a flu shot with strains of the flu that the manufactures think will be predominate that year. The flu of a strain not in the vaccine goes around the neighborhood and some people get sick. The likelihood of the un-vaccinated child getting the flu is less than the vaccinated child because the cells of the un-vaccinated child are protected against the virus because of the anti-oxidants. The flu strain enters the un-vaccinated child's system and is immediately attacked by the healthy immune system and now the immune system is programmed to destroy that strain of the flu. Whereas, the vaccinated child has no immunity and has a better likelihood of contracting the flu.
I know you big pharma types are going to throw a fit with this scenario but read the papers written by Dr. Lester Packer and you will see that I am right. Anti-oxidants and the immune system were Dr. Packers' main focus and his theories on this are proven.
Why am I bringing this up? It is because New Jersey has mandated that all children who are attending pre-school and day care to get the flu shot. They have decided to take away the freedom of the parents to not vaccinate their children at such an early age. The New Jersey legislature has decided that the government has the right over and above the rights of the parents to protect the health of the children. In essence the parents have no rights. I thought this was a free country without oppression.
I say without oppression because these un-vaccinated children will be denied their rights to an early education via pre-school because the state government of New Jersey has decided to do so. These children will be denied access to pre-school and day care with vaccinated children because the New Jersey government says they are a threat.
Oh, and there is more. Check this out.
Besides the flu shots, New Jersey also will require preschoolers to get a pneumococcal vaccine and sixth-graders to get a whooping cough booster shot and a meningitis shot.
"Implementation of these rules will save lives and prevent disease and suffering in children, their families and the community," deputy health commissioner Dr. Eddy Bresnitz told the council Monday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22190084
They also have added additional vaccines to the already overcrowded vaccine schedule the children already have. They want pre-schoolers to get the pneumococcal vaccine also. That will boost the number of vaccines for the pre-schoolers to (age 2–3 years) to 8 and the day-care children to 15 (ages 6–18 months).
When my children were young they received the DPT, MMR and Polio between 6–18 months.
Let us look at how much aluminum and mercury these children will receive. I am going to use the 2–3 year old range first.
Now let us look at the 6–18 month range.
I wanted to find out what the minimal risk levels were for aluminum and mercury so I went to the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, MRLs.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.html
The ATSDR Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) were developed as an initial response to the mandate. Following discussions with scientists within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the EPA, ATSDR chose to adopt a practice similar to that of the EPA's Reference Dose (RfD) and Reference Concentration (RfC) for deriving substance specific health guidance levels for non neoplastic endpoints. An MRL is an estimate of the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. These substance specific estimates, which are intended to serve as screening levels, are used by ATSDR health assessors and other responders to identify contaminants and potential health effects that may be of concern at hazardous waste sites. It is important to note that MRLs are not intended to define clean up or action levels for ATSDR or other Agencies.
As you can see the trace amounts for mercury are way over the minimal risk level. The aluminum is just under the minimal risk level in the 2–3 year old age group. Now if you look at the 6–18 month old age group the numbers are astronomical in my opinion. These babies are expected to get unsafe amounts of aluminum and mercury (Thimerosal) injected into their little bodies. You wonder why the rate of Autism is so high (1-67). You cannot dispute the numbers.
We do not know how fast a baby's tiny little body is able to dispel these toxic chemicals safely. We do not know what damage can be done to that little baby's digestive system, kidneys, liver, etc. We do not know. If someone can send me a study proving how fast a baby is able to process these chemicals please send it to me. I want to know.
To convert mcg and mg I used this site.
http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/weight#microgram
Now this does not take into account what we receive via our foods, water, etc. This is just the vaccines. So if you take all the other factors into account these children and babies are over the daily minimal risk level for both aluminum and mercury by adding these vaccines into the mix.
I wonder if the legislators or the governor of the state of New Jersey ran the numbers before deciding to put their young children potentially over the edge with mandating these additional vaccines as far as the possibility of neurological damage due to aluminum and mercury poisoning. I have a feeling that they did not. If they did run the numbers or were presented with the numbers and still mandated the vaccines then they are all guilty assault upon a child in my opinion. If they did not run the numbers then they are all guilty of neglect and should not be allowed to mandate any vaccine or medication and should stay out of the medical field that they are so ill equipped to rule on in my opinion.
With this information laws should be passed that demand that a safe vaccination program be implemented and that the Pharmaceutical industry that creates these vaccines make them safe for all citizens, young and old.
For more information go to my website www.cynthiajanak.com/Health I have many more articles on vaccination and other health issues.
© Cynthia A. Janak
December 2, 2008
I have found this argument to be laughable. Why, because if a child is vaccinated then there should be no issues as to the vaccinated child getting a disease from the unvaccinated. The non-issue in the eyes of the vaccinated should be that the vaccinated child is protected and safe from any diseases that they are vaccinated against. So those parents and legislators should not have to worry about the choice of the parents to not vaccinate their children. But, for some reason the legislators of New Jersey feel that the parents of the unvaccinated children are putting the vaccinated children at risk. Why is it that this does not make any logical sense to me? I mean think about it.
You have two children, one vaccinated and one un-vaccinated on a diet high in anti-oxidants and takes vitamins everyday so their immune system is at its peak performance. The vaccinated child received a flu shot with strains of the flu that the manufactures think will be predominate that year. The flu of a strain not in the vaccine goes around the neighborhood and some people get sick. The likelihood of the un-vaccinated child getting the flu is less than the vaccinated child because the cells of the un-vaccinated child are protected against the virus because of the anti-oxidants. The flu strain enters the un-vaccinated child's system and is immediately attacked by the healthy immune system and now the immune system is programmed to destroy that strain of the flu. Whereas, the vaccinated child has no immunity and has a better likelihood of contracting the flu.
I know you big pharma types are going to throw a fit with this scenario but read the papers written by Dr. Lester Packer and you will see that I am right. Anti-oxidants and the immune system were Dr. Packers' main focus and his theories on this are proven.
Why am I bringing this up? It is because New Jersey has mandated that all children who are attending pre-school and day care to get the flu shot. They have decided to take away the freedom of the parents to not vaccinate their children at such an early age. The New Jersey legislature has decided that the government has the right over and above the rights of the parents to protect the health of the children. In essence the parents have no rights. I thought this was a free country without oppression.
I say without oppression because these un-vaccinated children will be denied their rights to an early education via pre-school because the state government of New Jersey has decided to do so. These children will be denied access to pre-school and day care with vaccinated children because the New Jersey government says they are a threat.
Oh, and there is more. Check this out.
Besides the flu shots, New Jersey also will require preschoolers to get a pneumococcal vaccine and sixth-graders to get a whooping cough booster shot and a meningitis shot.
"Implementation of these rules will save lives and prevent disease and suffering in children, their families and the community," deputy health commissioner Dr. Eddy Bresnitz told the council Monday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22190084
They also have added additional vaccines to the already overcrowded vaccine schedule the children already have. They want pre-schoolers to get the pneumococcal vaccine also. That will boost the number of vaccines for the pre-schoolers to (age 2–3 years) to 8 and the day-care children to 15 (ages 6–18 months).
When my children were young they received the DPT, MMR and Polio between 6–18 months.
Let us look at how much aluminum and mercury these children will receive. I am going to use the 2–3 year old range first.
Now let us look at the 6–18 month range.
I wanted to find out what the minimal risk levels were for aluminum and mercury so I went to the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, MRLs.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.html
The ATSDR Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs) were developed as an initial response to the mandate. Following discussions with scientists within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the EPA, ATSDR chose to adopt a practice similar to that of the EPA's Reference Dose (RfD) and Reference Concentration (RfC) for deriving substance specific health guidance levels for non neoplastic endpoints. An MRL is an estimate of the daily human exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to be without appreciable risk of adverse noncancer health effects over a specified duration of exposure. These substance specific estimates, which are intended to serve as screening levels, are used by ATSDR health assessors and other responders to identify contaminants and potential health effects that may be of concern at hazardous waste sites. It is important to note that MRLs are not intended to define clean up or action levels for ATSDR or other Agencies.
As you can see the trace amounts for mercury are way over the minimal risk level. The aluminum is just under the minimal risk level in the 2–3 year old age group. Now if you look at the 6–18 month old age group the numbers are astronomical in my opinion. These babies are expected to get unsafe amounts of aluminum and mercury (Thimerosal) injected into their little bodies. You wonder why the rate of Autism is so high (1-67). You cannot dispute the numbers.
We do not know how fast a baby's tiny little body is able to dispel these toxic chemicals safely. We do not know what damage can be done to that little baby's digestive system, kidneys, liver, etc. We do not know. If someone can send me a study proving how fast a baby is able to process these chemicals please send it to me. I want to know.
To convert mcg and mg I used this site.
http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/weight#microgram
Now this does not take into account what we receive via our foods, water, etc. This is just the vaccines. So if you take all the other factors into account these children and babies are over the daily minimal risk level for both aluminum and mercury by adding these vaccines into the mix.
I wonder if the legislators or the governor of the state of New Jersey ran the numbers before deciding to put their young children potentially over the edge with mandating these additional vaccines as far as the possibility of neurological damage due to aluminum and mercury poisoning. I have a feeling that they did not. If they did run the numbers or were presented with the numbers and still mandated the vaccines then they are all guilty assault upon a child in my opinion. If they did not run the numbers then they are all guilty of neglect and should not be allowed to mandate any vaccine or medication and should stay out of the medical field that they are so ill equipped to rule on in my opinion.
With this information laws should be passed that demand that a safe vaccination program be implemented and that the Pharmaceutical industry that creates these vaccines make them safe for all citizens, young and old.
For more information go to my website www.cynthiajanak.com/Health I have many more articles on vaccination and other health issues.
© Cynthia A. Janak
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
