The National Institute of Health recently announced an expansion of its funding of nine Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Units with an annual budget of $135 million dollars of government money. Each of the nine research centers can compete with each year for the next seven years for a portion of this funding. 
The effort to decrease disease outbreaks by increasing the funding of vaccine studies is misguided. Financial and medical resources could be better spent focusing on the underlying causes of illnesses. Functional medicine has established that most diseases are caused by nutritional deficiencies and toxic overload, which together suppresses the immune system, making one susceptible to disease. 
Vaccines Decrease Immune System Functioning and Fail to Prevent Disease
The National Institute of Health established Vaccine and Treatment Evaluation Units in 1962 to conduct hundreds of vaccination clinical trials. The VTEUs include Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Cincinnati’s Children’s Hospital, Duke Medicine, Atlanta’s Emory University, the Group Health Research Institute in Seattle, Saint Louis University, the University of Iowa, Baltimore’s University of Maryland and Nashville’s Vanderbilt University. Clinical vaccine trials involve the following diseases: influenza, pneumonia, pertussis, haemophiles influenzae Type B infection, cholera, anthrax, malaria, tuberculosis, childhood vaccines and combination vaccines. 
While the idea that vaccinations can safely prevent disease is an attractive one, unfortunately research and data do not support this theory. Ironically, the actual impact of vaccinations is to increase one’s exposure to dangerous toxins and poisons, which weakens the immune system, making one more susceptible to disease.
Renowned neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock has established that vaccinations decrease cellular immunity which is critical for fighting diseases. Vaccinations have been shown to increase the antibodies for a particular targeted disease for a limited length of time. Scientists mistakenly equate this increase in antibody creation to immunity from disease. Unfortunately, increasing antibodies has never been proven to be effective in reducing disease likelihood. 
Population studies universally show that vaccinated populations experience more disease outbreaks than those with no vaccinations. In a 1992 New Zealand study comparing 226 vaccinated to 229 unvaccinated children, the results overwhelmingly showed that the unvaccinated children suffered far less from chronic childhood illnesses including tonsillitis, sleep apnea, hyperactivity, ear infections, and epilepsy.
An Africa study done in 2000, covering a six-year period and examining the health of 15,000 children, showed that the death rate from diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough was twice as high in vaccinated children compared to unvaccinated children.
A 2011 German study of 8,000 unvaccinated children, with medical documentation from birth to age nineteen, showed vaccinated children have at least two to five times more diseases and disorders than unvaccinated children. 
Vaccinations have never been proven to prevent illness and are, in reality, one of the greatest medical myths in existence. Research comparing unvaccinated to vaccinated children consistently show that unvaccinated children enjoy better health compared to those vaccinated.
In addition, when there are outbreaks of diseases such as whooping cough, studies show that the majority of those with the disease have received immunizations for the illness. This data provides additional evidence that vaccines do not provide immunity to disease.
Vaccines Injure and Kill
Vaccinations, which promise immunity from disease, have been shown to injure and kill those receiving them. A 2013 search of the National Vaccination Information Center database showed that 52,835 negative reactions were reported for the DtaP vaccine alone. 
An examination of the HPV vaccination shows that by 2012, there were 119 reports of death from the HPV vaccine, along with 894 cases of disability and 9,889 documented emergency room visits.
Regarding the Hepatitis B vaccine, as of March 2012, there were 66,554 reports of serious adverse reactions to the vaccine, along with 1,500 deaths, including those officially reported as sudden infant death syndrome.  This data is just a sampling of the many vaccines in use at the present time.
How the Vaccine “Myth” Began
Edward Jenner is given “credit” by many as being the first to experiment with small pox vaccinations. He first did this experiment with an eight year-old boy named James Phipps on May 14, 1776. He then repeated the procedure on several other children.
Convinced of his success, he persuaded George III that his vaccine would protect individuals from small pox. The king awarded Jenner community money to be used to inoculate the public. The money awarded was comparable to half a million dollars today. From that point onward, a group of zealous paid vaccinators continued the practice up until the present time. It proved to be a very profitable industry.
Small pox vaccinations were actually shown to increase the likelihood of small pox outbreaks. The Smallpox Hospital in London reported a steady, alarming increase in smallpox incidents after the established practice of immunizations. The incidence of smallpox began at five percent at the beginning of the century, rising to 44 percent in 1845, 64 percent in 1855, 78 percent in 1865, 90 percent in 1875 and 96 percent in 1885.
There were more cases of small pox and more deaths from small pox after compulsory vaccinations occurred. From 1850-1869, the mean annual mortality rate from small pox for 10,000 individuals was at the rate of 2.04, whereas after compulsory vaccination in 1871, the death rate was 10.24.
In the 1800s, the small pox vaccine caused many diseases including syphilis, tuberculosis, and leprosy. In 1867, M. Depaul, the chief of the Vaccination Service of the French Academy of Medicine, published an essay on the dangers of syphilitic infection through vaccination, describing the infection of 160 children with it.
Dr. A. Wilder, Professor of Pathology and former editor of the New York Medical Times, reported in 1901 that “vaccination is the infusion of a contaminating element into the system, and after such contamination you can never be sure of regaining the former purity of the body. Consumption (TB) follows in the wave of vaccination as certainly as effect follows cause.”
Despite the statistics and evidence against small pox vaccination success, the pro-vaccinators continued to support their stance and continue to do so today. The practice was too lucrative to give up. After a disastrous small pox epidemic in 1872, a Royal Commission on Vaccination was appointed in 1889 to examine the situation. Seven years and 136 meetings later, in spite of the significant evidence of small pox vaccine failure, the committee concluded with the falsehood that the small pox vaccine prevents small pox.
Dr. Maclean, a well-known medical authority at that time, recommended that the pro-vaccinators disprove the numerous facts against vaccines, but also recognized that the practice of vaccines was too profitable to discontinue. He understood that profits and greed would trump the obvious failure of vaccinations.  Nothing has changed in the world of vaccines, except the situation has become worse through the exponential growth in the number of mandated vaccination in this country.
The polio vaccine continued the small pox vaccine myth. Individuals receiving the polio vaccine continued to develop polio. Statistics were manipulated by changing the definition of the disease after the creation of the vaccine. The polio diagnosis requirements were made more restrictive after the polio vaccine creation.
This change in diagnosis criteria had the effect of reducing the number of polio cases reported. Diagnostic changes, statistical manipulations and treatment improvements were responsible for any reduced number of reported polio incidents, not the creation of the vaccine. 
Vaccine graphs also show that polio outbreaks were reduced in many countries prior to the introduction of the vaccine, along with other illnesses which vaccines took credit for eradicating.  In reality, improvements in sanitation were responsible for disease reduction.
The above extract should provide plenty of incentive to read the complete article and access the references, follow the complete story here.
- Vaccine Facts You’re Not Supposed to Know (thelibertybeacon.com)
- Dr. Rima Responds to a Vax-pushing Bio-ethicist (thelibertybeacon.com)
- Taking the sting out of vaccines (sophiaakl.wordpress.com)
- Evidence Shows Many Vaccines are Ineffective and Actual Contribute to Rise of Outbreaks (drrobsite.wordpress.com)
I’m sure there is a good case to be made, against vaccination. Similarly against pasteurization of milk. For it allows standards of cleanliness to drop, throughout society. – I’m mostly vaccinated. Society makes it easier to say yes, than to deny.
How do you get the standard of cleanliness required to reduce these diseases, when it only takes a few to disrupt the whole program?
It seems that we are very much in agreement about this issue.
Vaccination in principle, MAY be beneficial to some and PERHAPS should be strongly encouraged IF:
Thorough safety tests are independently and correctly carried out.
Dangerous elements used in many vaccines are prohibited.
Side effects are proven to be minor and very exceptional.
Benefits are known to justify the cost and inconvenience.
Public safety has a higher priority than profits.
Transparency and honesty prevail.
There are no other effective methods of controlling spread of diseases.
Which brings us to your point of cleanliness, presumably encompassing healthy drinking water and foods, and safe sanitation.
Again, as you say, how to successfully institute alternative methods?
No profit incentive, of course, no mandates possible.
Thanks for your comment.
Too many people cannot be bothered. Humans seem to be, in general. Walking cesspools of indifference. Which makes it so easy. Science for profit.
Another study area should be interactions of various vaccines. It may be possible that one specific vaccine, taken by itself, is beneficial. But take five vaccines against five different diseases (even assuming that each vaccine is safe by itself) and combine them into one great injection. Is that injection still safe? At what point does the immune system of a child or adult suffer the vaccine equivalent of “the death of a thousand cuts”? At what point is the patient unable to deal with the combined effects of multiple assaults (each not too dangerous!) all combined into too brief a time period?
Very good point!