However, the coverage percentage for infants is not clear. What is clear, interestingly, are many papers investigating the “temporal” accounts of serious/permanent/SIDS incidents. These “temporal” reactions eventually brought about changing the “P” “aP” standing for acellular pertussis, licensed by the FDA in 1996:

http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/d642.htm

Otherwise, the Natl. Acad. Scien. Feb., 2002 already cited is a basic benchmark to give a grasp, particularly compared to today’s Schedule (see either of our urls above).

“The immunization schedule in this country has grown complex over the last 20 years. In 1980, infants were vaccinated against four diseases — diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and polio.”

However, my major point, in combination with with sparse vaccinations themselves, was/is that no vaccinations in 1980 were injected into kids until age 3+ (still finding all the facts on this).

This is light years apart from injecting foreign substances (and such as mercury/preservatives and aluminum adjuvants) at age of Birth and then the onslaught from 2 months on (still extremely vulnerable/sensitive to these toxins).

But, back to your reliance on Studies you have read, or have been mentioned by the NYT, or from CDC for that matter:

These Studies are laughable, horse-laughable. Why? Well, first they are done by the vaccine manufacturers; Two, when tested versus a ‘placebo’ they only leave out the attenuated virus in the placebo, but keep in all the other toxic components you now know about; Three, the duration of checking for ’side effects’ only goes on for several weeks; Four; they are tested on animals/rats, not human babies just born — do I have to keep going?

So, yes, to agree with your above thought: The “vaccines are an assault on the unformed immune system (and) multiplied beyond reason and moved up towards birth by a radical amount.” However, this ramping-up started around 1990, and not “the last ten years” (from your comment).

Of course we all know the old saw that correlation is not causation, yet the exact correlation of exponential rise of autism, ADD, muscular dystrophy, life-threatening allergies, autoimmune afflictions such as lupus, all matching the exponential rise in vaccinations looks as suspicious as it gets. Yes, there have many studies with rats, petri dishes, etc., that do show how brain-destructive the vaccines are at a microbiological level, but I won’t get into them here.

The “changing the criteria for autism diagnoses” is a completely bankrupt position held by vaccine advocates. The simplest analysis is usually the best, and school teachers are unanimous they have been besieged from this exponential increase, compared to 20 years ago. Applying the test of common sense and observation and school teachers experience and our own life experience certainly prevails over what the vaccination companies contend.

I am serious, TS, do you really put any trust in studies published in the NYT? From either the CDC or the vaccine makers? Seriously, do you? Just like Hiv? Just like Aids? Just like Hep C? Just like H1N1/Swine Flu? Seriously?

One series of shots is illustrative, the Hepatitis B (aka Hep B) given at day of birth, and then another at 2 months, another at 4 months. This is perfect example of the “tail wagging the dog” and making the con artists that scammed this poisonous shot into 100% of American newborns unless waivers are asked for and signed by parents.

The Hep B vaccination has some legitimate value if the baby’s mother has ongoing infection with Hep B herself, but this is a tiny percent of pregnant women, almost 100% being hard-core drug abusers with heroin, etc. Since mothers are tested (or asked) if they have Hepatitis B infection, and in fact they do after this is verified, then ok, maybe there is some justification for shooting up the baby too. But, this is literally insane to be mandatory for everyone – yet it typifies the world of vaccinations.

The science of course is immense on this whole topic, but here’s something everyone should read:

http://www.medicalvoices.org/en/vaccination/articles/a-pretty-big-secret.html

As usual, please pardon the inevitable typos. Happy trails for the weekend.

The absence of evidence emerging from the major studies on this topic gives anyone who trusts science and its institutional practitioners serious pause, but, again, the correlation seems to be there in so many people’s minds that one suspects there may be something to it somewhere, though it is hard to imagine what. Andrew Wakefield the English doctor who first suggested this effect in the Lancet in February 1998, has been accused of being in it for the money because his court payments as an expert have been as high at three quarters of a million dollars, according to NBC Dateline recently, but he gives us a good impression on camera.

Perhaps the answer is suggested by Ms Roberts’s revelation that vaccines are not very well prepared and therefore challenge the immune system more than they should, but the whole concept of challenging the immune system too greatly with impurities seems prima facie wrong by definition, and the tone of her texts is too amateurish to be convincing to us. “In an earlier chapter I explained that all the viruses that exist are made by cells – both healthy and ill cells – so when they need viruses for a vaccine, they get cells from monkeys, chicken embryos etc and put these in an incubator. These cells are called the vaccine “substrate” – the vaccine is drawn from the incubator, filtered so nothing bigger than viruses remain in it and then given to our children… the problem is – lots of things are smaller than viruses… read on”. What exactly is that meant to mean? It is almost illiterate.

The sentence “a veritable witches’ brew of DNA fragments, added chemicals, proteins and, even possibly prions and oncogenes, all of which would easily pass through the filters used to be injected into our children” is plain silly. Prions and oncogenes? Please.

By the way, MMR is not given at birth but 12-15 months later, as per the case against causation summarized on this Quackwatch page:

” The CDC continues to recommend two doses of MMR vaccine for all children who do not have a known medical contraindication; the first dose is recommended at 12-15 months of age and the second dose is recommended at either 4-6 years of age or at 11-12 years of age (Measles prevention: Recommendations of the immunization practices advisory committee. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol.38 , No.S-9, Dec 29, 1989; Measles, mumps, and rubella-vaccine use and strategies for elimination of measles, rubella and congenital rubella syndrome and control mumps: Recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol 47, No. RR-8, May 1, 1998.)

Now your current schedule from the CDC reveals that this seems to have changed radically in the last ten years for other vaccines, since there are now many given before that date. What is going on?

This table would seem to suggest that if vaccines are an assault on the unformed immune system if multiplied beyond reason and moved up towards birth by a radical amount in the last ten years, complacency is not in order.

Is this what has happened – that early vaccines have multiplied beyond reason?

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/roberts3.html