This is the month most children will be returning to school, and parents will be asked if not directed to have them vaccinated – for the good of all. However, a recent survey found a growing number of parents are planning on or considering not complying. Is that wise?
(The views expressed below are those of the individuals being quoted, and do not necessarily reflect the various views of the American Brain Council.)
A wide range of trusted organizations and experts advocate for childhood vaccination. For example the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends routine childhood vaccinations to protect against serious diseases like measles, polio, and whooping cough. The CDC emphasizes that "vaccines strengthen a child’s immune system and are thoroughly tested for safety and effectiveness."
The World Health Organization (WHO): Promotes global immunization programs as essential to reducing child mortality and preventing outbreaks; and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) strongly supports vaccination as part of standard pediatric care. Plus the fact that ailments like measles, polio, and whooping cough are virtually unheard of in recent decades, is a testament in itself that these have prevented much suffering in the world.
However, last week we (the American Brain Council) received an interesting email from a Pediatrician by the name of Paul Thomas, MD., who shared results from a study he conducted at his clinic over a 10 year period. In this study he claimed they found that the children in his practice who were unvaccinated had significantly fewer ailments than those who were vaccinated. More specifically to our interests he found that of his 561 unvaccinated patients, none of them developed ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), compared to 5.3% of those who were fully or partially vaccinated. He then went on to note that:
“As more parents weigh their options, fewer than 40% are choosing to follow the full CDC vaccine schedule for their children. What are the facts and where can these families turn for credible, research-backed guidance? In my practice and research, I’ve helped thousands navigate this journey safely and responsibly.
For the 60% of new parents who are not going to fully vaccinate, where do you get credible information on which vaccines, if any, to do and when?
The Vaccine-Friendly Plan, a book I published with Jennifer Margulis in 2016, offers one approach with health outcomes that are far superior to those of children vaccinated according to the CDC schedule.
BUT we have new data (10 years of Vaccine-Friendly Plan vs. non-vaccinated) from my practice: You can view the data in this peer-reviewed study [PDF)]. This was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health and viewed by 250,000 before being wrongfully retracted—the data is not disputed, only removed after a single complaint.” He then goes on to note that, “The unvaccinated have far less asthma, allergies, behavioral issues, ADHD, and all infections (ear, sinus, eyes, skin, GI, and all combined). Isn’t the purpose of vaccines to decrease your child’s chance of getting infections?”
He went on to note that, “This study and others, highlighted in my new book, VAX FACTS: What to Consider Before Vaccinating at All Ages & Stages of Life, make one thing abundantly clear: “If you want a healthy child that develops normally with a robust immune system that can fight all infections, don't vaccinate.” He went on to note that:
“Parents deserve clear, unbiased information to help make the best decision for their families. The data shows that careful consideration—and sometimes a lighter vaccine approach—can lead to far healthier outcomes. If you want more information on safer approaches, visit Kids First 4Ever.”
So who do we believe? And which is the safest approach? Could both sides be right or wrong? How do we account for unvaccinated children having fewer ailments without immunizations? Assuming Dr. Thomas and others is telling the truth. We might have that last question figured out.
On a hunch we asked our AI researcher how important nutrition is for a child’s immune system, and other factors that may affect that. Here is it’s reply: “Good nutrition is crucial for a child’s immune system. Here's how it plays a powerful role: Nutrients like vitamins A, C, D, and E, along with zinc, iron, and folate, help white blood cells fight infections and regulate immune responses.” However, it also noted “excess sugar can negatively affect a child's immune system in several important ways.” Moreover, there are genetic variants like MTHFR, toxic loads and other conditions which can adversely affect not only a mother’s immune system, but that of her child as well.
So if a child’s diet (or for infants, their mother’s diet during pregnancy and breast feeding), is lacking in important nutrients, contains too much sugar, or she has a toxic load or genetic variant like MTHFR, the child's immune system may be more easily overwhelmed by or vulnerable to any potential ill effects of vaccinations, or the vaccinations may not be as effective in fighting off viruses etc.
Dr. Thomas is an integrative medicine practitioner. Which means he likely understands the value of good nutrition, and has integrated that into his practice. And most likely counseled all of his patients, and/or their parents, on the importance of good nutrition. Which if followed, may have helped compensate for the lack of immunizations. Plus the likelihood that these families chose to see him in the first place, suggests most were aware of the importance of and practicing good nutrition principles already.
On the other hand, there may be a tendency to complacency in some who are vaccinated, to feel that when it comes to nutrition, their immunizations should help cover or compensate for suboptimal nutrition.
By the way here is a site with a good review of some of the best foods to help expecting mothers, fathers and children maintain a healthy immune system.
You may have heard last week that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and his cohorts, have formally banned thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative long used in flu shots administered to children and pregnant women.
In his statement Kennedy noted that “In early 2001, the director of the FDA Office of Vaccine Research and Review, the late William Egan, admitted under oath before Congress [that] thimerosal safety had never been studied in human beings.” And the CDC, he noted, had no guidelines for safe ethyl mercury exposure. Reference
The same year an Institute of Medicine (US) Immunization Safety Review Committee noted:
“At high doses, mercury and mercuric compounds—including thimerosal, its metabolite ethylmercury, and methylmercury—are well-established…neurotoxicants (ATSDR; 1999; EPA, 1997; NRC, 2000).”
He further stated that Government documents and industry disclosures have long acknowledged thimerosal’s dangers. Its own label warned against use during pregnancy and cited mutation risks in mammals. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) list toxic effects on the nervous and reproductive systems, and note potential for “mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe motor coordination impairment” in exposed children.
He cited a 2000 study by the National Research Council that found “prenatal and infant mercury exposure disrupted brain development by interfering with neuron division and migration.”
A 2001 report from the Institute of Medicine concluded that the connection between thimerosal and neurological injuries, including autism, is “biologically plausible.” That report recommended ending the use of mercury-preserved vaccines.
As a result of this and other evidence, in 2004, the European Union (EU) recommended that thimerosal be phased out of routine childhood vaccines. As a result, most childhood vaccines in the EU no longer contain thimerosal. The US however, for whatever reasons, chose not to follow it’s own scientists advice.
Kennedy claimed that a 2005 NIH study—commissioned by the FDA—"found ethyl mercury crosses the blood-brain barrier and lodges in the brain, converting into the most toxic form of mercury at twice the rate of methyl mercury found in fish.” Reference
In 2017, a CDC study linked miscarriage to flu shots, finding the odds of miscarriage within 28 days were 7.7 times higher among pregnant women who received the vaccine. That same year Yale came out with a study linking various mental disorders to recent vaccinations.
Additionally that year, Kennedy noted, a Journal of the American Medical Association study linked first-trimester flu shots with an elevated risk of autism spectrum disorders. But “Instead of immediately withdrawing thimerosal from flu shots to protect women and their babies, CDC issued a gag order instructing its personnel not to discuss that study,” Kennedy said.
Secretary Kennedy has been strongly criticized for some of his actions. He counters that he’s just trying to get government agencies to comply with what their own science has been saying for decades. In any event fortunately that vaccine has now been taken off the table. And with it hopefully some of the concerns about the potential for adverse neurological consequences due to vaccines.
For the Anti-vaxers and doubters Secretary Kennedy noted that he is not opposed to vaccines and vaccinations in general, in fact he called the U.S. decision “a major step toward restoring public trust in the safety of our medicines.” With thimerosal, having now been identified as the offending “fly in the ointment” so to speak, and with that now removed, the CDC hopes more people will now feel better about vaxing.
Certainly with this change and improved nutrition national immunization efforts will now be safer and more effective for future generations. But if you are still skeptical, you may want to pick up a copy of one of Dr. Thomas’ books for some guidance. Though controversial, for the sake of our children, it is an important subject to navigate.
