by Higgenbotham » Mon Jul 13, 2026 2:12 am
tim wrote: Sun Jul 12, 2026 5:17 pm
Research the childhood vaccine schedule. Children are subjected to far more vaccinations today then the boomers were.
Next, research the percentage of diseases that today's kids have compared to the Amish population (or boomers as children).
The only question is, why isn't this research being conducted in an official capacity?
Vaccinations are part of the issue of epigenetic and transgenerational effects but I don't think in the way that most people believe, at least not entirely.
But first it's necessary to go back to 1991 when a group of scientists who had noticed similar things in their separate fields met to come to a consensus on what man-made chemicals were doing at that time. Much of it was related to wildlife which had never seen a vaccine. I vaguely remember that at that time down in the Everglades of Florida aquatic creatures (not sure it was fish or something else) were being found with male and female parts for the first time or more frequently than normal. The question was why and many researchers were trying to get answers in various ways according to their discipline.
Wingspread Consensus Statement
In 1991, scientists gathered at a meeting at the Wingspread conference center in Racine, Wisconsin. There the term “endocrine disruptor” was coined. Here is the text of the consensus statement from this historic meeting.
CONSENSUS STATEMENT
The following consensus was reached by participants at the workshop.
1. We are certain of the following:
[*]A large number of man-made chemicals that have been released into the environment, as well as a few natural ones, have the potential to disrupt the endocrine system of animals, including humans. Among these are the persistent, bioaccumulative, organohalogen compounds that include some pesticides (fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides) and industrial chemicals, other synthetic products and some metals. [footnote 1]
[*]Many wildlife populations are already affected by these compounds. The impacts include thyroid dysfunction in birds and fish; decreased fertility in birds, fish, shellfish, and mammals; decreased hatching success in birds, fish, and turtles; gross birth deformities in birds, fish, and turtles; metabolic abnormalities in birds, fish, and mammals; behavioral abnormalities in birds; demasculinization and feminization of male fish, birds and mammals; defeminization and masculinization of female fish and birds; and compromised immune systems in birds and mammals.
[*]The patterns of effects vary among species and among compounds. Four general points can nonetheless be made: (1) the chemicals of concern may have entirely different effects on the embryo, fetus, or perinatal organism than on the adult; (2) the effects are most often manifested in offspring, not in the exposed parent; (3) the timing of exposure in the developing organism is crucial in determining its character and future potential; and (4) although critical exposure occurs during embryonic development, obvious manifestations may not occur until maturity.
[*]Laboratory studies corroborate the abnormal sexual development observed in the field and provide biological mechanisms to explain the observations in wildlife.
[*]Humans have been affected by compounds of this nature, too.
https://heeds.org/wingspread-consensus-statement/
Where I think people are missing the boat on vaccines is, first I will give an example that I have seen. A woman who was pregnant got a flu shot as recommended by her obgyn. Her child after being born got the full vaccine schedule and had no adverse reactions from any vaccines. Plus the child's immune system seemed normal - no problems with covid, no allergies, no doctor visits and so on. No problems at all except for one thing. The child got a flu shot and had a very serious reaction. Nobody could figure out why. I said, well, did the mother get a flu shot when she was pregnant?
Second, generally, say in the 1960s kids were getting vaccinated for the first time, first generation on a vaccine schedule, but their parents hadn't followed a vaccine schedule. Because their parents hadn't, I would posit that part of the reason kids had fewer adverse effects may have also had to do with the fact that they were the first generation to be vaccinated. What I'm not sure of as far as the schedule is I think there are 3 or 4 polio vaccines now versus 1 in the 1960s and similar for other vaccines. But I'm not sure how the dosages compare. I've wondered that but haven't taken the time to look.
Another thing I've run across - pretty sure this was for measles. It is a series of 3 vaccines, if I recall correctly. The second vaccine confers something like 93% protection of the population and the third vaccine raises it to 96%, something like that. I thought and still think it is idiotic to require a third dose to raise the rate by only something like 3%.
AI Overview
The standard measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine is highly effective. One dose provides roughly 93% protection, and a second dose increases immunity to 97% to 98%. A third dose is generally only recommended for specific high-risk groups in outbreak settings, as the two-dose series yields lasting immunity for most.
Vaccine Dosing Schedule and Effectiveness Breakdown
First Dose: Typically given between 12 and 15 months of age. It provides about 93% protection. The small percentage who do not respond usually require the second dose to build antibodies.
Second Dose: Recommended between 4 and 6 years old (at least 28 days after the first). This brings protection up to 97%-98% and serves to catch the small percentage of people whose first dose didn't "take".
[quote=tim post_id=94824 time=1783891053 user_id=2211]
Research the childhood vaccine schedule. Children are subjected to far more vaccinations today then the boomers were.
Next, research the percentage of diseases that today's kids have compared to the Amish population (or boomers as children).
The only question is, why isn't this research being conducted in an official capacity?[/quote]
Vaccinations are part of the issue of epigenetic and transgenerational effects but I don't think in the way that most people believe, at least not entirely.
But first it's necessary to go back to 1991 when a group of scientists who had noticed similar things in their separate fields met to come to a consensus on what man-made chemicals were doing at that time. Much of it was related to wildlife which had never seen a vaccine. I vaguely remember that at that time down in the Everglades of Florida aquatic creatures (not sure it was fish or something else) were being found with male and female parts for the first time or more frequently than normal. The question was why and many researchers were trying to get answers in various ways according to their discipline.
[quote]Wingspread Consensus Statement
In 1991, scientists gathered at a meeting at the Wingspread conference center in Racine, Wisconsin. There the term “endocrine disruptor” was coined. Here is the text of the consensus statement from this historic meeting.[/quote]
[quote]CONSENSUS STATEMENT
The following consensus was reached by participants at the workshop.
1. We are certain of the following:
[*]A large number of man-made chemicals that have been released into the environment, as well as a few natural ones, have the potential to disrupt the endocrine system of animals, including humans. Among these are the persistent, bioaccumulative, organohalogen compounds that include some pesticides (fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides) and industrial chemicals, other synthetic products and some metals. [footnote 1]
[*]Many wildlife populations are already affected by these compounds. The impacts include thyroid dysfunction in birds and fish; decreased fertility in birds, fish, shellfish, and mammals; decreased hatching success in birds, fish, and turtles; gross birth deformities in birds, fish, and turtles; metabolic abnormalities in birds, fish, and mammals; behavioral abnormalities in birds; demasculinization and feminization of male fish, birds and mammals; defeminization and masculinization of female fish and birds; and compromised immune systems in birds and mammals.
[*]The patterns of effects vary among species and among compounds. Four general points can nonetheless be made: (1) the chemicals of concern may have entirely different effects on the embryo, fetus, or perinatal organism than on the adult; (2) the effects are most often manifested in offspring, not in the exposed parent; (3) the timing of exposure in the developing organism is crucial in determining its character and future potential; and (4) although critical exposure occurs during embryonic development, obvious manifestations may not occur until maturity.
[*]Laboratory studies corroborate the abnormal sexual development observed in the field and provide biological mechanisms to explain the observations in wildlife.
[*]Humans have been affected by compounds of this nature, too.[/quote]
https://heeds.org/wingspread-consensus-statement/
Where I think people are missing the boat on vaccines is, first I will give an example that I have seen. A woman who was pregnant got a flu shot as recommended by her obgyn. Her child after being born got the full vaccine schedule and had no adverse reactions from any vaccines. Plus the child's immune system seemed normal - no problems with covid, no allergies, no doctor visits and so on. No problems at all except for one thing. The child got a flu shot and had a very serious reaction. Nobody could figure out why. I said, well, did the mother get a flu shot when she was pregnant?
Second, generally, say in the 1960s kids were getting vaccinated for the first time, first generation on a vaccine schedule, but their parents hadn't followed a vaccine schedule. Because their parents hadn't, I would posit that part of the reason kids had fewer adverse effects may have also had to do with the fact that they were the first generation to be vaccinated. What I'm not sure of as far as the schedule is I think there are 3 or 4 polio vaccines now versus 1 in the 1960s and similar for other vaccines. But I'm not sure how the dosages compare. I've wondered that but haven't taken the time to look.
Another thing I've run across - pretty sure this was for measles. It is a series of 3 vaccines, if I recall correctly. The second vaccine confers something like 93% protection of the population and the third vaccine raises it to 96%, something like that. I thought and still think it is idiotic to require a third dose to raise the rate by only something like 3%.
[quote]
AI Overview
The standard measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine is highly effective. One dose provides roughly 93% protection, and a second dose increases immunity to 97% to 98%. A third dose is generally only recommended for specific high-risk groups in outbreak settings, as the two-dose series yields lasting immunity for most.
Vaccine Dosing Schedule and Effectiveness Breakdown
First Dose: Typically given between 12 and 15 months of age. It provides about 93% protection. The small percentage who do not respond usually require the second dose to build antibodies.
Second Dose: Recommended between 4 and 6 years old (at least 28 days after the first). This brings protection up to 97%-98% and serves to catch the small percentage of people whose first dose didn't "take".[/quote]