Top 5 compelling reasons NOT to vaccinate? - Page 2

[SunshineJ]

Originally Posted by Anony-mouse

In an above post, someone is talking about how saving "thousands" of lives is insignificant. Yet, in your post, you state that Dr. Torch documented TWELVE cases of SIDS as being vaccinated related. TWELVE!?!? How many thousands of children die each year from SIDS, yet he was only able to link TWELVE cases together? To me, that seems like an insignificant number to base a life changing decision. It could be coincidence that these children had their vaccinations and passed away from SIDS.


Here's another scenario. I'm assuming your daughter has not been vaccinated. Let's say 30 years from now, give or take, she's pregnant...and she gets chickenpox. She's never had chickenpox, never been vaccinated. She passes this along to her baby, in utero. Are you aware of the risks of chickenpox in a newborn?


With one simple shot, her baby (your grandchild) could avoid all of the above and be born perfectly healthy.

I would like to see more research on what Dr. Torch was working on. However, before criticizing the limited number of children examined one would really have to know how many he actually had access to that died from SIDS and what if any roadblocks he encountered in trying to prove this theory. I guarantee it has not made him a popular person among his peers!

As for the cp vax, I assume you are aware that this isn't a lifetime immunity that you get from the vax? Neither is Rubella for that matter. I was one of the "lucky" ones in that my immunity was still good for rubella when I was pregnant - I know many, many women that wasn't true for who had to be re-immunized with the hope that it might take. Vax's wear off and there's no way of knowing, even if my DD was completely current on all her vax's, that she would still be protected when she's old enough to have a child. The odds of her still having immunity if she gets it naturally however are much greater. Really, there's no way to even know if giving it to her now will have any effect in 20 yrs, so I can't see that as a good reason to give it to her.

As for why we don't vax, the reason is twofold. First of all, much as it may be unpleasant, I believe that in order to have a healthy immune system you have to be exposed to diseases. In my book that means that you just might have to go through getting sick or watch your kids go through it. Sucks? Yep. But it's the way we were created to deal with illnesses. I had cp and I believe measles as a kid. DH had mumps. Barely a blip on the radar other than I was pissed I ended up missing the class field trip. The second reason is that while most people assume non-vaxxer's are afraid of autism, etc., there are other real reactions that people don't consider. My DD is probably permenantly damaged because of them. Within 2 hrs of having them around 18 months (I believe it was the Hib and Prevnar, can't swear to it without looking them up), her fever shot up to over 104. NO ONE on either side of the family gets fevers like that - ever. We all run less than 98.6 resting. She had been ill before and never had had a temp like that. She went into a seizure. We were told this was a "common" reaction in some children to vaccines, not a big deal. Yeah, it's such a "not big deal" that almost 3 yrs later she still spikes an insanely high fever with every.single.illness, still has seizures when ill (that we were told she'd grow out of by age 4 - no sign of slowing down) and within 45 days had developed allergies so severe that without medication for them she is effectively deaf. The kicker? No one would consider reporting it as it was such a common reaction. The kick in the teeth? Being told at the follow up visit "We need to go ahead and schedule her next set of immunizations". Yeah, no thanks.

[LindsayBee]

Originally Posted by lauradbg

SIDS used to be called "crib death", not "co-sleeping-as-people-have-safely-done-for-millennia-because-that's-how-we-evolved-death".

How do you know that you don't have some SV40 in you and that it will effect you later? You may or may not, but in any case it's not being looked at is it? How is that remotely scientific?

What I said isn't any less "scientific" than what I was responding to. And nowhere did I claim it was scientific. So I don't know why you're asking that.

As far as SV40 in relation to the polio vaccine (which is, I'm sure, why you mentioned it), I did not receive the polio vaccine in the 50's or 60's. I wasn't born until decades later.

I'll just keep my opinions to myself about co-sleeping since this isn't the forum for that. And I don't really see what co-sleeping or crib sleeping has to do with vaccinations (which is why I commented on someone's statement about it.)

[Pandme]

I found Mendelsohn, Aviva Jill Romm and Stephanie Cave's books helpful as a jumping off point. Mendelsohn and Cave are doctors.

[LindsayBee]

Originally Posted by Pandme

I found Mendelsohn, Aviva Jill Romm and Stephanie Cave's books helpful as a jumping off point. Mendelsohn and Cave are doctors.

The above is a helpful post. Thank you for that.

[Pandme]

Originally Posted by LindsayBee

The above is a helpful post. Thank you for that.

You're quite welcome! I found Romm's book to be very helpful too....it was balanced to view both sides as was Caves. Mendolsohn is in the "don't do them" camp.

As for me, I always remain open to new information and reserve the right to change my mind at any time. In fact, I am rereading chapters of Romm's book now. It could use an update (prevnar wasn't around when it came out, for example) but is still very good.

[phrogger]

Originally Posted by LindsayBee

Just because tons of people have had the disease, doesn't mean it's harmless.

Some info I found -
"MEASLES (RUBEOLA)
The word measles is derived from the German word for blister.
Before the advent of the current measles vaccine, there were about 500,000 cases of measles in the United States per year; almost everyone got the measles. But since 1963, the number has fallen precipitously (figure 1B) with a low of only 86 cases in 2001, all of which seem to be imported. In the less developed world, measles still takes its toll with an estimated 30 million illnesses and 770,000 measles-caused deaths in 2000 of which 58% were in Africa."

Some more statistic-
"Worldwide, more than 20 million people get sick with measles each year; of these cases, 345,000 are fatal. Measles cases occur in all regions of the world: Southeast Asia (14 million cases), Africa (3.5 million cases), Eastern Mediterranean (2 million cases), Western Pacific (1 million cases), Europe (170,000 cases) and the Americas (<1,000 cases). Mumps is endemic in all regions of the world, including in many developed countries."

Personally, I think 345,000 is a very large number. Large enough for me to want to vaccinate my children for MMR.

There have been less then 1000 deaths in the US due to measles. What is the biggest difference between the US and Africa? Clean food, clean water (well for the most part) medical care etc. Seems like your better bet is feeding your kids, building up their immune system, then giving them a vaccine that has KILLED people as well.

Of those less then 1000 cases in the US, how many of those children were already immune compromised? How many were sick with other illnesses such as HIV? That is another factor in africa, kids dying from measles, but had HIV and were starving.

It can be a big circle and some people don't believe that vaccines can injure kids, I disagree with that as i have proof in my step son, and frankly I would rather take the risk with the diease on a healthy body then having to deal with the life long neurological disorders we are dealing with now, but each family has to weigh their own risks.

Frankly I will take my chances with the diseases and try to boost my kids natural ability to fight viruses.

[phrogger]

Originally Posted by LindsayBee

I don't have a problem with people choosing not to vaccinate their children. It's their decision. I do think people need to be more informed. They need to look at all sides of the issues and not just read the articles by people on "their" side.

By your logic...you make it sound as if the children that are non-vaxed, breastfed for many years, and co-sleep will not get ill? And SIDS would not occur in those children?

I take real issue with the statement you made that I bolded above. I was only breastfed as a baby (not as a toddler or child.) I never co-slept. I was vaccinated. And I am perfectly healthy. As are my siblings, cousins, etc.

I appreciate modern medicine and I take advice from my doctor (he knows way more about this stuff than I do.) It just scares me a little that so many people make decisions about vaccinations based on weird studies and non-experts.

Do I think all vaccines are great? Definitely not. But I think some are very important.

Have you ever been to a medical conference? Have you ever talked to a Dr. about vaccines outside of your ped and on a more personal level?

I had the privlidge of getting to know a family practioner very well for a number of reasons, to the point that I lived in her home when my youngest was 18 months old. She BEGGED me not to get my son vaccinated at that age. She herself, a DR. had NOT been trained properly on vaccines, infact their "training" consisted of drug reps giving them all the pros and not even really discussing any of the cons. Infact she only knew of any cons by researching it herself and searching out the CDC reports. Dr's aren't exactly more educated then your average person, they are just fed the pros by the smooth talking drug reps.

I went with her to a drug conference one time. It was a "family event" they paid big bucks to get us all into a zoo, had great food, great drinks and a day with paid tours etc. of the animals, before we could do that, we had to sit in on a lecture on why their meds were the best for ear infections. I thought we were going to get kicked out when my friend actually brought up "why would we give antibiotics to kids with ear infections when 90% of them are viral". Basically calling them out on their "pro drugs" stance. The guy couldn't argue and in the end it was "well parents feel better about knowing they can have antibiotics". So THOSE are the situations that are training our Dr.'s about vaccines, medications etc.

I am glad I listened to her and I am glad she did her research. on the flip side, she DID vaccinate her kids who were extremely premature for a few things and did so because she did indepenant research and the pros outweighed the cons, but she still stuck to "healthy kids should NOT get vaccines but rather the disease".

[claddaghmom]

hmm, well to the OP, I would need to get a feel for the hypothetical person to decide what to say. Everyone has a perspective, KWIM?

For me, these are the top 5 reasons:

1. DH and I both almost died from our childhood vaccines. So DD will not be vaccinated due to her being genetically connected to us and possibly having the same allergic reactions.

2. The theory behind vaccinations is about as soft as you can get in the scientific world. It amazes me that an entire culture is built around rabidly protecting the act of injecting multiple doses of toxins and live/dead viruses into infants. And this is all done without any actual scientific studies. All the studies out there are epidemiological in nature, skewed, funded by parties w/ a conflict of interest, none of them are double-blind, they only focus on one vaccine or one chemical and they have controls that do not mimic real life (such as eliminating low birth weight children from the study when America is #1 in premature births). The CDC recently agreed that their studies have weaknesses and errors. If people want to do some real studies, I am open to re-evaluating things. Until then: vaccinations are quackery.

3. Vaccine ingredients. Disgusting. Immoral to some. Extremely dangerous to others. Let's see, most every American mother knows her baby can't have cow's milk until 1yr old (some say 10 months). But it's okay to shoot 'em up with casein? Egg? Baker's yeast? A neighbor's kid will die if he so much as breathes dust from a peanut. Allergies are serious. But vaccines are one size fits all, whether you have allergies or not.

What about the Hep B vax? Didn't a member on here calculate the amount of chemicals in that vaccine? I recall that you would have to be 256lbs to get the vax and remain under the FDA's safety level. But newborns get this vaccine. Here is what happens when a baby is allergic to the vaccine.

4. This one might not matter to others, but it was a clincher for me. I started thinking about how crazy people get over the topic of vaccines. I mean, the government, FDA, Merck, the media....they spend trillions of dollars on vaccines. Regular people get into huge crazy arguments about vaccines. Vaccines are hyped everywhere. But guess what? My child has a 1000% higher chance of dying every time I get in the car than she does of dying from a vaccine "preventable" disease. I think it's sad and ridiculous the way people freak out about vaccines, but I bet if you take a look in their car, the carseat is installed wrong, buckled wrong, not tethered, not rear facing, too small/too big, etc. I think the recent statistics are that 80% of carseats are installed incorrectly. THOUSANDS of children die from car accidents. But we better vaccinate the heck out of them!

5. Manipulation. Again, this might not be a big one for others, but I abhor the way parents are encouraged to remain uneducated and ignorant. Vaccines are big business. I do not appreciate having my emotions played on me. No, I will not let my kid be a human pincushion b/c some doctor or government official claims she'll die. You know what, all those starving, naked, homeless kids in third world countries don't want to be human pincushions either. Here's a novel idea: stop jabbing needles into kids and try offering the poor people some clean water and housing. Oh some food would be nice too.

[Pookietooth]

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

Do you have any links for this? I've seen this in the vax forum before - that they simply don't work. I've seen assertions about improved hygiene, etc. etc. being responsible for the decrease in these diseases. I'd like to believe that, but...when I went through school, there were at least two serious mumps outbreaks (the year I got it and another year) and three measles outbreaks (including when I got it, about a year before I started school). MMR wasn't around.

Was there no vax for mumps until recently? I thought that had been around for years. I got the mumps in second grade, it was not fun (and my tonsils were never the same again).

[lilbsmama]

Can't remember if this link has been posted already or not, and I'm too riled up to look. When you looks at this, how could you let someone stab your babies with $h*t like this?

http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/ingredie.html

[alegna]

Originally Posted by Pookietooth

Was there no vax for mumps until recently? I thought that had been around for years. I got the mumps in second grade, it was not fun (and my tonsils were never the same again).

I was born in 1975 and had the MMR as a toddler- so it's been around at least that long.

-Angela

[Barbee]

Originally Posted by lilbsmama

Can't remember if this link has been posted already or not, and I'm too riled up to look. When you looks at this, how could you let someone stab your babies with $h*t like this?

http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/ingredie.html

Thank you for this link. Great information

[lilbsmama]

sure!

[ann_of_loxley]

Ill copy Caros list hehe (it would have also been mine! hehe)

[Pandme]

Originally Posted by alegna

I was born in 1975 and had the MMR as a toddler- so it's been around at least that long.

-Angela

I was born in 1973 and had M, M and R separately.

eta: also wanted to say, I spent a lot of time poking around these forums, as well as reading books, talking to pediatricians (yes, mine is ultimately provax, but supported my delaying) and other doctors, all kinds, MDs, chiropractors, and naturopaths. For you to come on this one thread and say that no one has told you in a clear concise manner with a doctor to back them up why vaxxing is bad, is really short-sighted. Between the books and the poking around (there is a lot of stuff on the internet and some of it IS propaganda, like you said, so I tried to stick with things like the CDC Pink Book which outlined each disease separately) this stuff has taken me about....three years and going on. And I still think and read all the time. I read every single thread in the Vaccination section (there is a thread for every disease there) and some of the discussions went very interesting places.

Bottom line is, it takes a long time. And no one person or post is going to provide the answer.

[Jugs]

1. I have a vaccine-injured child, so the "rare" risks are all too real from my perspective. I may not be able to control which pathogens they are exposed to, but I can control whether or not they are injected with them.

2. I don't believe vaccine safety is held to a high enough standard (trial phases on last a matter of weeks; manufacturers oversee their own own safety trials; no true placebo is used; the vaccination schedule hasn't been been safety tested in the manner it is carried out).

3. Vaccines haven't been evaluated for their potential to cause long term damage (like, as stated in each package insert, cancer, genetic mutations or impaired fertility). Until we know what the long term risks are, I don't believe they can honestly be outweighed by the short term benefits.

4. As history has taught us, we can prevent most infectious diseases and/complications through sanitation, proper nutrition, and proper management of infection. Vaccines can serve to fill in the gaps when those resources are lacking, such as in the developing world.

5. I cannot trust a system that encourages blind trust and chastizes those who expect more information before they make such a major healthcare decision.

[dinahx]

I truly think the reason cancer and other diseases have risen is because we have actually diagnosed them. Take 20 years ago...did we know what autism even WAS? Now that we do, it's easier to diagnose.

Believe this if you want, but it is patently, demonstrably untrue. We didn't just invent doctors, yk. There is plenty of medical literature dating back at least 300 years, we would have plenty of evidence if autism rates were not rising but instead diagnosis was. This may be a comforting thought, but if you have ever spent meaningful time around autistic kids, you wouldn't say 'oh they were just considered quirky back in the day'. I actually want to scream and hit the wall when someone advances that simplistic idea.

If you want evidence for the rising rates of childhood and adult cancer in this century, read 'Living Downstream' by ecologist Sandra Steingraber. It could not be more false to say that cancer is just 'diagnosed more'. That is horribly untrue and is a real injustice to the millions of children and adults suffering from environmentally caused cancer right now. A lot of Biologists think that 80% of cancer is environmentally caused.

However, in a stunning example of injustice and human manipulation, we (the public) are told that cancer is primarily due to lifestyle choices. Scientists don't believe this.

[dinahx]

Anony-mouse: Some of us don't believe that new medical techologies are 'innocent until proven guilty'. That ethos is for PEOPLE not chemicals. The precautionary principle is 'dangerous until proven safe', and you will find that is a much safer way to interact with the chemical world, IMO.

Additionally, the risk benefit ratio means NOTHING if your child is the 'risk' so everyone else gets the 'benefit'. If your child is vaccine injured, it means nothing to say 'well the risk benefit ratio stacked up, so sorry LO'. Can you imagine saying that to your child? This is not a society that demands child sacrifice for the greater good. Or is it? If any child is maimed or killed by a vaccine, that is one too many. (And if you look at the package insert and/or VAERS, you will see that children ARE maimed or killed by every vax on the market.)

I can control whether my child is in public school, whether they swim in public pools (look into it, implicated in Polio epidemic), whether they attend stadium type events or play on indoor playgrounds. I can't control whether or not they react negatively to mercury, aluminum, or the vaccine itself. Since no vaccine is 100% effective, please tell me why you wouldn't attempt to control your child's exposures? Since no vaccine is 100% safe (or even close) please tell me why it is a better move to NOT control their exposures and roll the dice at the doctor's office???

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by dinahx

Believe this if you want, but it is patently, demonstrably untrue. We didn't just invent doctors, yk. There is plenty of medical literature dating back at least 300 years, we would have plenty of evidence if autism rates were not rising but instead diagnosis was. This may be a comforting thought, but if you have ever spent meaningful time around autistic kids, you wouldn't say 'oh they were just considered quirky back in the day'. I actually want to scream and hit the wall when someone advances that simplistic idea.

Exactly. If autism existed in huge numbers way back when like it does today, not only would it have been recognized, but it would have had a name and we'd be calling it that name today. Doctors aren't so completely oblivious that they would not have noticed 1 in 60 children coming into their practice with these painfully obvious symptoms. It's also interesting that those who defend the vaccinations and doctors' ability to know what is best (ex. vaccination) will say doctors didn't have a clue to the point of not being able to diagnose something so obvious. So doctors are simultaneouosly clueless and someone to be trusted wholeheartedly. Autism diagnosis is made strictly by observation.

Only in the Bizarro World of vaccination do we get these arguments. Vaccines work and will protect you from diseases, but not really, so we need to fear the unvaccinated. Vaccines are completely safe, but we have this compensation program for vaccine injury that has paid out over $1,000,000,000. Vaccines are the reason we are living longer, but the rate of lifespan growth is the same now as it was over 100 years ago when almost no vaccines were around, and the growth rate is 50% less than it was in the first half of the last century. Vaccines are the reason this disease has decreased so much, but the disease wasn't actually reported back then so it is just an "estimate." Vaccines are making us healthier, but we are spending more per capita on healthcare than ever before.

If you want evidence for the rising rates of childhood and adult cancer in this century, read 'Living Downstream' by ecologist Sandra Steingraber. It could not be more false to say that cancer is just 'diagnosed more'. That is horribly untrue and is a real injustice to the millions of children and adults suffering from environmentally caused cancer right now.

Children's hospitals are big business for a reason.

[Lauren710]

Originally Posted by dinahx

A lot of Biologists think that 80% of cancer is environmentally caused.

I actually learned this specific number in a cancer bio class.. I do think that improved diagnostic techniques have led to more cases of cancer, autism, what have you being diagnosed EARLIER, or more accurately, but I doubt there's been any real increase in incidence that can be attributed to diagnosis. There are a ton of environmental risk factors that just weren't present 100, 200, 300 years ago.

I'm really, honestly trying to look at vax/nonvax arguments, too.. my LO is 3 months old and has had all her shots so far, but I'm thinking about delaying and doing them one at a time from now on, in case she has a reaction. (Edit: Or not doing them at all, if I don't find any compelling reasons to continue, period.)

Scientific studies actually do hold water in my house.. DH and I are both scientists. But this still doesn't mean we believe everything we read.

For any study you find published in a peer-reviewed journal, the authors have to declare any financial interests they may have and the institution(s) with which they are affiliated are clearly listed. A lot of us are federally funded, so I'm pretty sure that you as a member of the public can look at the NIH website and see where the money's going. If anyone has any pressing desire I can search around for grant information and see what I can find for you.

Yes, once in a while you will find a paper that has a bias or is misleading, but if that's the case the rest of the literature will not support it, or the paper will be retracted; if it's the only study out there and it's NOT brand-new, then I might be skeptical about its conclusions - it's possible there's a lot more data out there that didn't get published because it didn't support some conclusion or another.

As a caveat, books are NOT. double-blind peer-reviewed.

Just throwing some other things out there to think about. I'm not pro-vax or anti-vax, but I AM pro-reading all the information I can find and separating fact from fiction, which admittedly can be tricky when science comes into the picture

And you know what? If all the information points one way but your gut points another - go with your gut! In the developed world today, honestly, it seems like vaccines may not be harmful for most people - but they may not be beneficial for most people, either. Research the diseases. Research the vaxes. I'm still learning so I can't say for myself yet. I do wish I had delayed DD's first vaxes more than the 2 or 3 weeks she got while I did some reading. It's definitely a very personal decision.