A little over a month ago the book of Carlos Gonzalez which talks about vaccines, whose title is "In Defense of Vaccines" and which we already talked about in January, days before it could be purchased.
In Babies and more We have considered that it might be interesting to speak with the author to know the purpose of this book and to explain a little what are the most common doubts of parents regarding vaccines and to answer some of the arguments that those who They are against fencing vaccines.
Why a book about vaccines?
He was worried because he found parents who did not vaccinate their children, cheated by some anti-vaccine doctors.
One of the arguments against vaccination is the number of vaccines children receive at an early age. Under the slogan “Too many, too soon” (too many, too soon), many people explain that so many vaccines before the year can be dangerous for babies, is this true? Wouldn't it be better to vaccinate according to the characteristics of each child (weight, background, health status, ...)?
Sounds logical, right? Like that of "how do you breastfeed within three hours, do not you see that he has to do the digestion?" Or "do not take it in his arms, which gets used". They are things that sound superficially logical, but they are completely absurd.
All countries in Western Europe put the first batch of vaccines at two months, and although some Nordic countries are allowed to wait until three, others in Africa or Asia have to start a month and a half or earlier. What would be very dangerous is to vaccinate later, or to vaccinate each disease separately (which, in addition to multiplying the number of punctures, the risk of complications and the chances of error, would mean that some of the vaccines would get too late) .
The European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance has come to say that it is very possible that the number of victims as a result of vaccines is higher than the victims of the diseases against which they supposedly had to act and have also associated vaccines with sudden death and autism With arguments like this, it makes you want not to go to the pediatrician ...
The European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance, despite its pompous name, is neither a scientific society, nor a serious institution, nor an organism dependent on the European Union. And they show absolute disregard for the truth.
Serious information on vaccines in Europe can be found here: EUVAC, Europe for patients (EU) and WHO in Europe.
Theoretically, children are vaccinated to have antibodies and to protect themselves from diseases, however, it is said that people who get AIDS create antibodies and can die. They also explain the anti-vaccines that antibodies are achieved by the natural entry of the virus via mouth, nose, tonsils, skin, etc. catching the disease, but not through a vaccine. What is true in here?
Maybe that's why there is not yet a vaccine against AIDS: because antibodies against that disease are not able to protect us. If an AIDS vaccine ever exists, you will have to induce much larger amounts of antibodies, or antibodies of a completely different type than those that induce natural infection; because it is obvious that those produced by natural infection are not enough.
Vaccines are very effective in preventing diseases. We know this because there are hundreds, thousands of studies around the world that prove it. We also know that they act by inducing the production of antibodies (and there are also hundreds of studies that show the levels of antibodies achieved with the different vaccines), but vaccines already existed before the existence of the antibodies was discovered.
With respect to adjuvants, are there any that are carcinogenic? When viruses were inoculated into animal organs, could there be viruses from those animals in vaccines?
No, adjuvants are not carcinogenic. If they were, they would not get vaccinated.
Decades ago there were polio vaccines contaminated with a monkey virus, the SV40. Vaccine manufacturing systems are very different today, and that doesn't happen anymore.
One of the recommended vaccines is that of measles, since as the percentage of vaccinated decreases the risk of epidemic increases alarmingly (it has happened before), however we have been able to read that natural measles immunizes for life against both measles and against hundred tumors and immune diseases. I think I've never had measles, but it makes me want to catch it ...
Measles is a very dangerous disease, which still kills hundreds of thousands of children worldwide (and a few decades ago, when vaccination rates were lower, it killed millions). Even today, in Europe, with the best healthcare, approximately one in every thousand measles sufferers dies from the disease.
The possibility of modifying measles virus to attack cancer cells is being investigated. Maybe in many years there will come a new treatment ... or maybe not. Hence to say that measles prevents cancer, goes a world.
Tomorrow, in a second entry, you can read the rest of the questions that Carlos Gonzalez He answered us.
