Are Vaccinations Right For My Child?

"Many complications of vaccinations including autism can be explained by vitamin D deficiency. Therefore, vaccinations should be avoided or delayed until the vitamin D deficiency has been corrected."
I indeed have indeed found studies connecting autism with vitamin D deficiency, and it may very well be an environmental factor that promotes autism. However, by and large the main culprit of autism is simply genetics. There is not single smoking gun for this issue. I have updated my google documents so I can now share my references :) (https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B0bW46S9m61Kbk5OcGpHXzRuYjA/edit). Calcifediol is a metabolite of Vitamin D(3), so higher levels of vitamin D will typically correlate to increased levels of calcifediol. Vitamin D has been attributed to have some effects as in reducing infection, but likely no to a significant degree. (Grant & Soles, 2009). By and large this is the hypothesized benefit of not being vitamin d deficient, by reducing infection. Oddly enough, the best way to stop an infection from ever occurring is vaccines lol, which essentially decreases the implications calcifediol may hold, so it is not likely an overt factor for autism.

"Indeed, vitamin D deficiency “is present in up to 50% of young adults and apparently healthy children. ” Rickets has been on the rise in infants. It is now well established that a vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of certain autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Additionally, an association of thin bones (which can be caused by a vitamin D deficiency) has been observed in children with autism."
I am not exactly sure where you received the 50% statistics. I have indeed come across papers saying proportions from 25% to 50%, with a higher proportion among individuals with darker skin, as they have a greater difficulty producing vitamin D at higher latitudes, which is why lighter skin was prevalent at higher latitudes. I believe this paper (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0bW46S9m61KV3RwazBVS2ptRUE) may be one source for such statistic. With vitamin D deficiency certainly increasing, you would expect increases in direct side effects (rickets), especially in the more at risk portions (darker skinned individuals). It does appear most rickets occur in darker skinned individuals, however, I am not apparent of the rise in rickets. If you could provide such a reference I would greatly appreciate this. With regards to the other disorders associated, this is likely the paper you are referring to (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0bW46S9m61KN2pxNWZhWk1JRDQ), so it does appear to be supported.

Vitamin D deficiency certainly does seem to have some detrimental effects associated with it, however, if you are looking for the smoking gun, it likely isn`t it. There is never a `magic sandwich` if that is what you're looking for. Nearly every disease is caused by multiple factors, with the exception of diseases caused by infections (then a pathogen is to blame), but even then, it can sometimes only account for a certain percentage.

For area's where consumption of certain foods is less prevalent, it might be smart for a government program to increase synthetic vitamin d use. The india deficiency may be explained as one of the larger sources of vitamin D in our diet (dairy products) as well as fish, are not at as high of prevalence within India. The latitude is not always a direct aspect, because yes, India is a very sunny country, but most residents have skin colour dark enough to make it similar to a Caucasian person at European latitudes. It may likely be a result of increase office work in India, basically reducing UVb irradiation... but that is just speculation on my part.

Dr. Laibow,

First and foremost, I would like an actual response to my post that deals with the factual claims you made in your previous comment. I have cited several (25) papers that are in direct contradiction to your claims.

"starting with the concept that papers published are not necessarily either accurate or definitive,and then getting ready to do what would basically be a review of publications of significance which you were apparently not able to find."

I will agree. Not all papers are factual. Some have had data skewed, or have flawed methodology. Some journals have less stringent standards, and some you can pretty much just pay to get it your article in. This I will not dispute. This is a problem with much research today. The standard level for publication has certainly lowered in recent years. However, I think you misunderstand the scientific method to a point. Yes, someone can publish an article with wild new claims, but it is not accepted until it is beaten and pummelled by scientific peers trying to falsify your results. This occurred with the Wakefield study. Every study found contradictory results, so the paper was dismissed. This didn't happen with germ theory, or the theory of relativity, or the theory of evolution. People tried to falsify it, but they didn't because the results were factual. I found studies in direct contradiction to all your statements, all within the first two pages of google scholar. The landmark value of each is not the point. The point is, there are LOADS of studies in direct contradiction of your claims, because researchers actually researched your claims and found contradictory results. You are fighting a loosing battle, with a lack of evidence. If I reference one paper supporting your claims, you would say it is exemplary, but if I find ten in contradiction to that exact paper, what then? Is the value of the one greater than ten? Wouldn't the sheer law of probability state the one is more likely to be statistically insignificant than all of the other ten?

"that is, I was until I read the last two paragraphs of your comment in which both my competence was impugned (based on the fact that you disagree with my position) and my right to speak authoritatively based on my academic bibliography a la PubMed."

Alas, I apologize for my ad hominem attack. This is below me and I should not have made this statement. I would attempt to report that your competence was called in to question by me based on supporting evidence. I think your claim of herd immunity may have been the most abrupt claim, as it is well demonstrated in not only human studies, but animal and plant inoculation tests. For example, treatment of ash trees with a chemical against the Emerald Ash borer is expensive. By randomly applying it to 20% of the trees, the actual protection is above 80% because of herd immunity. If you decrease the pool by which an organism can foster, and then dilute that pool with immunity, you can understand why it is more difficult for disease spread. As for your right to speak authoritatively, you do have some I suppose, but by no means does is give any weight to unsupported claims. Argument by authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) is a fallacy. This is why when someone like Linus Pauling, winner of a Nobel peace prize and Nobel prize in chemistry, one of only two people to win prizes in separate fields, makes the claim that mega doses of vitamin c cured cancer and the common cold it lends no weight to it without evidence. His results were falsified, and we know that if you take 3 grams of vitamin c, your body will absorb what it can, then urinate out the rest. Now, if you were to make a claim like live attenuated virus versus heat killed viral vaccines provide an increased incidence in disease (x) upon immunized individuals`` and you happened to be a virologist, or epidemiologist, or other related fields, your claims would have slightly more weight. If your field was say, proctology, I may be more sceptical unless the disease was say cancerous polyps in the colon. The pubmed search was just to see if you had published any papers with regards to anything you have actually mentioned. Unfortunately it appears you have made more claims then research.

"The articles you claim do not exits are, in fact, quite easily found, assuming that you wish to find them. Do your own research."

I don not believe I say the words do not exist once in my entire comment, with the exception of the quotation of your comment. If I can still read correctly I always mentioned "please show me" for the evidence you mention. I did not make claims the papers did not exist, if I did I regretfully retract my statements, as I cannot speak with full competency about that. The entirety of my comment was taking your "factual" claims and providing evidence in direct contradiction to that claim. You made comments such as
"Study after study shows that unvaccinated children are healthier, have far, far less asthma, autism, allergic response, deaths from all causes, days absent from school, behavioral and neurological problems, etc " and "On that basis, since placebo controlled double blind studies against NO vaccine, not a more toxic one, are never done." in which I provided evidence in direct contradiction. I even found several studies involving twins of placebo controlled double blind testing, which is about the best medical testing we can conduct... You made factual claims, I provided evidence of my claims, and evidence against yours. I provided citations as to where my evidence was located. You have not, although I still gladly offer this opportunity.

Assuming these articles are widely available, and the fact they would be landmark papers, they should be widely discussed and supported. I am not going to go looking for the needle in the haystack. I have searched before, but I search for unbiased strings, such as placebo controlled double blind vaccine testing. This is not a leading search, but would return results of such you requested. If I search for "evidence against vaccines" or "evidence for vaccines" that would be cherry picking evidence, although the fact I still find more papers in support of vaccines when searching for evidence against vaccines should say something in it of itself.

I have provided my evidence and made my claims. Provide your evidence to the contrary. I am fairly confident that I will be able to provide at least five papers in direct contradiction to each reference you provide. Perhaps that is cocky, but I suppose I am an optimist.

Braeden Cowbrough
THIRD YEAR Biochem. Student
Carleton University

Thank you Braeden, your comment is spot on and very well researched and referenced, while Drs Jones and Rima are irritatingly lazy. The "there is a unicorn in my garden, but you will have to find it yourself" argument doesn't really impress.
Dr Catherina (not MD)

Dr. Daemon Jones dismisses the information of a non physician. I am a licensed physician so it will be harder to high-handedly dismiss my comments.
There is no documentation that vaccines are either safe or effective although every vaccine must be both to be used in the United States. On that basis, since placebo controlled double blind studies against NO vaccine, not a more toxic one, are never done. Without them, how is it rational to hold to the belief that the vaccine has been proven to be safe, effective, or both?
The decline in infectious diseases began BEFORE the introduction of vaccines and went back UP again after their introduction in disease after disease since the decline was due, in each case, to the adoption of better hygiene and nutritional standards by the populace. The epidemiology is rock solid.
It is also rock solid on the fact, and it is not a theory, but a statistical fact, that the best way to predict epidemics and pandemics is to document where vaccination campaigns take place. That's where you will find the epidemic/pandemic of the disease supposedly vaccinated "against". Check the work of Professor Maniotes of the University of Pennsylvania. And check out the pertussis epidemic not in action: the vast majority of cases are in fully vaccinated children. Vaccine proponents still call for more vaccinations despite the fact that the logic is so flawed as to be non-existent. Brainwashing is working here, not science or logic.
Herd immunity simply does not exist. If vaccines work, then they work. If they do, then a vaccinated person is unaffected by whether or not another person is vaccinated. That is, after all, the supposed purpose of the vaccination, isn't it?
Study after study shows that unvaccinated children are healthier, have far, far less asthma, autism, allergic response, deaths from all causes, days absent from school, behavioral and neurological problems, etc.
Good for the kids, bad for the pharmaceutical lobby and bottom line.
I believe strongly that the real reason people are vaccinated is to enhance the bottom line of the aftermarket: cancer, including leukemia, diabetes, asthma, auto immune and neurological disorders, infertility, sterility, etc.
I also note that although supposedly mercury, in the form of thimerisol, was removed from pediatric vaccines, only 4% of the vaccines administered to infants and children is reduced in that toxic material. The rest, in multi-dose vials, is still rich in neurotoxic mercury and, in the case of vaccines which are packaged in single vials, these vaccines are bottled in vials which have been rinsed in mercury so they still contain measurable, and toxic amounts of mercury.
With the madly increased vaccine schedule from the CDC's ACIP, the amount of mercury in total is now far greater than it was BEFORE the supposed "removal" of mercury from those vaccines.
Oh, yes, the supposedly "necessary" annual flu vaccine, which children start receiving at 6 months, is not even remotely mercury free.
Then there is aluminum, and squalene, and Polysorbate 80 and fluoride and MSG and foreign DNA and stealth viruses like SMV 40, the known cause of much of the childhood leukemia epidemic.
So, just exactly why are we vaccinating our children and ourselves?
If you want to find out more, I urge you to sign up for the free Health Freedom Action eAlerts of the Natural Solutions Foundation, of which I am the Medical Director. Go to www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and enter your email.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation