The MMR Debate

[Guest guest]

THE MMR DEBATE Mark of The Times believes that vaccines do have risks. He believes that these are outweighed by the risks of the disease themselves. For EVERY MMR vaccine EVER developed the vaccine regulators and or the Government and vaccine companies withdrew the offending vaccine with but ONE exception. For MMR type vaccines this happened as recently as last year. So Mark believes MMR type vaccines do have risks and in agreement with evey regulatory, Government and vaccine producer. No controversy here. The ANTI-VACCINATORS, he says have a lot to answer for? HOLD ON, WOAH, STOP. Dr Wakefield is not an ANTI-VACCINATOR. He has been even accused of trying to make a bob or two by putting his own vaccine above the one he is has found SOME problems with. BUT he has recommended SINGLE vaccines. These do have SIGNIFICANT advantages even a Mark can understand. The SINGLE vaccines provide BETTER and LONGER protection for LESS insult to the infant child. Multiple vaccines need sometimes TEN times the dose of antigens and INSULT the immune system several times more so than with a single vaccine. So which is better Mark? A vaccine that has been linked to harm and which needs a booster a couple of years after the original and may cause anaphylaxis; or a SINGLE vaccine once only when the insult may be 30 times less. In a free world we give the choice to the CONSUMER. In this case the consumer is 1 year old and not in a position to UNDERSTAND the pros and cons of a ONCE ONLY SINGLE SAFE vaccine or a MULTIPLE but LESS SAFE vaccine repeated several times over? If as most of the recipients have no problems, that’s fine. But if the recipients degenerate into autism spectrum illness complete with fear of lights, fear of close spaces and indulge in head banging activities they will never be in a position to discover what modern vaccinology has done to them, especially with research that Mark speaks so highly of that explains these activites do not come from BAD VACCINES. So how come Dr Wakefield gets 100 per cent problems and these researchers get 0 per cent problems? Well the elimination of 60 per cent of the results may explain why there is 0 per cent harm? Or how about not looking at the gut to see if the gut is inflamed? Can’t find harm if you don’t bother to look. Oh yes, the controls that Dr Wakefield didn’t use. Well pull any 12 people of the streets and examine them to see if they can talk, and observe if they bang their heads so that blood spurts all over the lab? Now let’s get real. This ISN’T normal behaviour. Do we have to spend 400 000 pounds to check that Master Average doesn’t do these kind of things? There is a problem, and it is not with Dr Wakefield. The problem is with autistic children regressing to this condition AFTER an MMR vaccine when a SINGLE vaccine would expose these people to 30 times less risk. Now that’s clear to me. But if there rests any doubt Mark – go look at the QUARTER MILLION adverse reports after a vaccine for just ONE COUNTRY over the past years of the good old MMR vaccine? BUT remember one per cent of the records have been lifted and SEALED as the price of a deposit for the EXPENSIVE medical costs for a past MEDICAL CATASTROPHE. The 25 000 worst cases of BLATANT harm can be seen if you are a VACCINE DEVELOPER but if you are a reporter or interested in justice for SBS or MSBP prisoners who take the blame for VACCINE HARM go take a hike ‘cause those in prison are gonna stay there INNOCENT or GUILTY.