Pro-Vaccine PhD Immunologist Admits No Scientific Merit For Vaccinating Infants - Insists It Only Trains The Parent
Not a single scientist, immunologist, infectious disease specialist or medical doctor has ever been able to establish a scientific foundation for the vaccination of infants (less than one year old). That's because the science is clear and there is no basis whatsoever either through empirical or any type of measurable evidence supporting the practice. As one immunologist has admitted, the reasoning vaccines are administered at pediatric wellness visits is to train the parent.
Infants in their first year mostly depend on generalized, non-specific immunity, including (hopefully) immunoglobulins from breast milk, to protect their young bodies from infection. Vaccines are not only ineffective in the first year of life, but they can cause harm through synergistic toxicity and a state of immune overload.
Despite this, the medical establishment insists administering a total of 19 shots, containing 24 vaccines, to infants on the 2, 4 and 6 month pediatric visits.
A PhD immunologist declined to be identified after she had revealed shocking information in panel of experts discussing vaccines. Perhaps she preferred to remain anonymous because she knew that anyone who spoke the truth about vaccines would be savaged by the medical establishment and their compliant lapdogs in the mainstream media. It is professional suicide for anyone in conventional medicine to question the unquestionable (yet unproven) assumptions about vaccines: that they are effective, safe and necessary.
The information was originally published on Michael Gaeta's blog, a visionary educator, clinician, writer and publisher in the field of natural healthcare.
You can listen to an audio file of an exchange between an attendee and the immunologist about a specific question.
Here’s the transcript of this shocking exchange:
Q. So the science seems fairly clear that for the first year of life, probably, that the immunization is not stimulating the kind of response we expect it to stimulate.
Q. So what’s the rationale for continuing to do that if it’s not doing what it’s supposed to be [doing]?
A. The vaccines are given at pediatric wellness visits, and the idea is that you are training the parent to bring their child in at all the pediatric wellness visits, and that it’s only the year visit that actually is truly important. But that for most parents you are not going to get them to bring their kid in if they don’t come in at two months, four months, and six months. And so it’s actually more of a training thing.
It’s interesting, I was on the phone with [?] county public health last week, with one of their vaccine nurses. She was like, ‘Oh, you’re talking about vaccines? Make sure you tell them they have to do that year shot because the first three [the 2, 4 and 6 month shots] don’t work.’ I was like, ‘Yeah, I know.’ [laughter].
What's interesting about this individual, is that she is an impeccably-credentialed, pro-vaccine PhD immunologist. She understands the immune system of the human body at one of the highest levels of education. Like her, there are thousands of specialists who do not believe in vaccines, yet they must play a role or risk losing their jobs.
Commenting on the outcome of this discussion, Dr. Bob Sears stated "I agree that the general medical teaching on immunology is that infants don't have much of their own immune system during the first year of life, and they rely heavily on the immunity they gain from mom through the placenta and from breastmilk."
Vaccine Science is Not a Science At All
Neonates do not develop the capacity to respond well to foreign antigens injected into the body. We do know that immune B and T cells are present in infants and express antigen-specific receptors, however that does not assume that vaccines can enhance the complex system that is immunity in infants. In fact, a growing body of evidence suggests that vaccines can inhibit the growth of essential immune cells early in life, and avoiding vaccines could actually improve an infant’s response to infection.
To suggest that fetal or infant immune system cannot respond to large numbers of foreign antigens without the assistance of vaccination is based on opinion, not science.
“What happens at early age is that natural killer cells, like many other immune cells, do not complete their functional maturation until adulthood,” says study senior author Yasmina Laouar, Ph.D., assistant professor in the U-M Department of Microbiology and Immunology.
There is a large gap in understanding infant immunity, specifically why the natural killer cell responses are deficient. The study by immunologists at the U-M demonstrates the role of a cell called transforming growth factor beta that can explain why most vaccine scientists mistakenly believe that suppression of the body's natural signaling mechanisms benefits immunity when it actively suppresses it.
The study showed the production of natural killer cells is controlled by TGF-beta, which is produced in the bone marrow. In infant mice, the maturation of natural killer cells progressed faster in the absence of TGF-beta signaling. Many vaccines are also designed to actively suppress TGF-beta signaling which results in a physiological consequence to the human body. It actually reverses the intended purpose, namely to immunize. Attempting to suppress natural killer cells artificially by blocking TGF-beta signaling, actually causes tumors to grow.
What many of these scientists fail to recognize is that that effects of TGF-beta on tumor cells and the tumor micro-environment exert both positive and negative influences on cancer development. By focusing on TGF-beta signaling to produce more natural killers cells, the consequence and risk of disease monitoring cells being impaired is very high. Thus, the risk exceeds any preliminary benefits claimed by producing more mature natural killer cells.
The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year--the most in the world--yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Australia and Canada are a close 2nd and 3rd respectively with 24 vaccine doses.
Some countries have IMRs that areless than half the US rate: Singapore, Sweden, and Japan are examples. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "The relative position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest infant mortality rates appears to be worsening."
Many nations adhere to an agreed upon International Classification of Diseases (ICD) for grouping infantdeaths into 130 categories. Among the 34 nations analyzed, those that require the most vaccines tend to have the worst IMRs. Thus, we must ask important questions: is it possible that some nations are requiring too many vaccines for their infants and the additional vaccines are a toxic burden on their health? Are some deaths that are listed within the 130 infant mortality death categories really deaths that are associated with over-vaccination? Are some vaccine-related deaths hidden within the death tables?
"A single vaccine given to a six-pound newborn is the equivalent of giving a 180-pound adult 30 vaccinations on the same day. Include in this the toxic effects of high levels of aluminum and formaldehyde contained in some vaccines, and the synergist toxicity could be increased to unknown levels. Further, it is very well known that infants do not produce significant levels of bile or have adult renal capacity for several months after birth. Bilary transport is the major biochemical route by which mercury is removed from the body, and infants cannot do this very well. They also do not possess the renal (kidney) capacity to remove aluminum. Additionally, mercury is a well-known inhibitor of kidney function. "--Boyd Haley Ph.D.