Sunday, May 19, 2013

Vaccines Reduce Newborns’ Disease Immunity: Study

Death and the Maiden, by Catarina Carneiro de Sousa
(cropped, hypodermic images added)
Vaccines Reduce Newborns’ Disease Immunity: Study
May 17, 2013 | Gaia Health Blog | Heidi Stevenson

Every babies’ birthright is his mother’s disease antibodies. As this study demonstrates, that birthright is stolen by vaccinations. So how do the study’s authors hope to resolve the problem? It should come as no surprise that they propose earlier vaccinating, in spite of recognizing that the reason for not vaccinating so early is that they don’t work in babies that young!

One of the most significant factors a newborn child receives as part of the birthright is his mother’s antibodies to disease, which normally last long enough to prevent infectious diseases until the child’s immune system is mature enough to manage on its own. That birthright is now stolen by vaccines, as documented in a new study by a team of researchers in the Netherlands.
These researchers concluded:
Children of mothers vaccinated against measles and, possibly, rubella have lower concentrations of maternal antibodies and lose protection by maternal antibodies at an earlier age than children of mothers in communities that oppose vaccination. This increases the risk of disease transmission in highly vaccinated populations.
The Study

The study looked at the babies of two groups of women in the Netherlands: the majority, who are vaccinated significantly more than those in the other group, which they termed “orthodox Protestant”, who tend to avoid vaccinations. From several municipaliies, they selected unvaccinated infants under 14 months of age and women of typical childbirth age, 20-44 years (98.5% of women who gave birth in the Netherlands in 2007). The study ultimately included  1243 women and 434 children from the general population, and 53 women and 19 children from the orthodox population.

The focus of the study was on the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, and because no chicken pox (varicella) vaccine is given in the Netherlands, they used varicella as a control comparison. They took blood samples to analyze antibody levels of measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella.


The table to the right shows the numbers of women in each group who have been vaccinated for measles, mumps, and rubella broken down by age groups.

What’s most significant to note is that the average number of vaccinated women is far from either 100% or 0% in any group. Notice that, in terms of measles, the average number of vaccinated women in the general population is 51.2% and the average number in the orthodox community is 12.6%—only 38.6% difference between the groups. This will become significant shortly.

Study Results

The study found that:
  • The level of antibodies in babies at birth is the same as that found in their mothers.
  • The concentration of antibodies in the general population is lower than in orthodox women.
  • Babies of both groups lose their maternally-donated antibodies at the same rate.
  • Therefore, the babies of the more highly vaccinated general population group lose their antibodies earlier than those from the more rarely vaccinated group, the orthodox Protestants.
The most significant results related to how long infants maintain levels of antibodies that allow them to prevent disease:
  • Measles: The study found that babies born to mothers in the general population lose their maternally-given antibodies by age 3.3 months, but babies born to orthodox, less vaccinated, mothers hold onto their measles antibodies until 5.3 months.
  • Mumps: No statistically significant difference was found between the antibody levels of the two groups at the time of birth.
  • Rubella: Results are complicated by the fact that many mothers may have had rubella before they were vaccinated at age 11. Rubella is a very mild disease that often goes unrecognized. The confidence interval was very wide and the p-value was high, indicating that the results are not significant. Interestingly, they found the same length of time until loss of adequate antibodies in babies to be about the same, though they calculated that it could be as much as 0.8 months shorter in the general population.
  • Varicella: As expected, there was no difference in times for loss of varicella (chicken pox) antibodies between the two groups, since neither group received this vaccination.
The lack of results for mumps and rubella is not surprising. In the case of mumps, the vaccination rates between the two groups is fairly small, only 12.7% (25.3 – 12.6). In the case of rubella, which has a wider difference in vaccination rates, 48.4% (65.6 – 17.2), the results are confused by the likelihood that many of the vaccinated mothers likely had rubella before being vaccinated.

There is a highly significant difference between the length of time babies are protected from measles when their mothers had natural measles instead of vaccinations. That difference was a full 2 months, 5.3 months for orthodox babies and 3.3 months for general population babies.

The Groups Were Only Partially Vaccinated and Unvaccinated
 
Now, let’s consider that the difference in measles vaccination rates between the two groups was 38.6% (51.2 – 12.6). What if a study were to compare the babies of two groups of women, in one of which not a single member had been vaccinated and all the members of the other had received vaccines? That would mean there’d be a 100% vaccination rate distinction between the two groups.

Would the babies of nonvaccinated mothers keep their maternally-given antibodies even longer, and the group of babies from mothers who had all been vaccinated have been even shorter? We don’t know. Since the figures that the authors provided were averages, we don’t know the ranges of results. If only the babies whose mothers hadn’t been vaccinated were compared only with babies of mothers who had been, could the results would have been more dramatic?

The authors themselves note this problem:
This proportion of women of childbearing age who have been vaccinated with MMR will increase rapidly in the coming years because the vaccination coverage of each age cohort is >90%. We expect that this will further shorten the duration of protection against measles and rubella by maternal antibodies in infants and that a decreasing duration of protection against mumps by maternal antibodies will become more detectable among infants in the near future.
At this point, we know that, at least with measles, babies born to relatively unvaccinated mothers maintain their antibody protection about 61% longer than relatively vaccinated mothers. That’s significant, a clear indication that vaccinations reduce newborn babies’ immunity to measles, and very likely to other infectious diseases for which vaccinations are given.

This is one of the groups that vaccination proponents routinely use as poster children in their campaigns to shame poeple into getting vaccinated. The reality, though, is that the claimed vaccination need is created by the vaccines!

Sadly, the authors fall back on the idea that vaccinations are the solution, in spite of having demonstrated how the vaccinations themselves are creating the problem. They recognize that vaccinating at an earlier age is not a solution to the problem because babies’ immune systems are not mature, making early vaccines ineffective. However, they seem to forget this fact in their suggestion that babies who are at risk, such as those who may travel overseas to high measles infection areas or in the face of a local outbreak, be vaccinated. Just why they think that the vaccination would be helpful in immature immune systems simply because the babies might be exposed is not explained, nor how they expect a vaccine to help during an ongoing outbreak, since it takes time for antibodies to develop.

Oh well … I suppose it’s asking too much to expect scientists to offer the rational solution when they want their research to be published, though it is nice to see honest science that points out flaws in the vaccine programs.

Source:

No comments:

Post a Comment