or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › First ever vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

First ever vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study - Page 2

post #21 of 48
Juvysen, I was just thinking the same thing!!!!

I really don't know this, so I'm asking if anybody does know--how hard is it to test blood before they give it to people? Is it that the blood might need to be used in case of emergency, and there would be no time to test it? That's the only thing I can think of.
Still, I won't be vaxxing my sweet precious baby with any of that poison, no thank you.
post #22 of 48
Oh my god, look what they did to those poor little baby monkeys!
Quote:
Infants were separated from their mothers at birth and reared within a neonatal nursery. Separation was necessary for this study as mothering precludes neonatal testing due to the distress caused to both the mother and the neonate when temporarily separated [23-24]. Infants were similarly isolated, housed, and bottle-fed by hand in the nursery until achieving temperature regulation, typically 7-10 days from birth. Infants that could self-regulate temperature during this three-day period were moved out of their incubator and singly housed in a small nursery cage. The cage had mesh walls on all sides to provide the infant with good visibility of his environment and also contained a cylindrical shaped hanging cloth surrogate suspended from the cage ceiling. Infants could see and hear each other but had no physical contact. Each cage also contained a formula feeder used to train infants to feed themselves. They received a standard infant baby formula (Enfamil, Mead Johnson and Co., IN).12
They didn't even cuddle them! And for a vaccine that's no longer used. I am sickened. Why aren't I surprised that Enfamil was involved?
post #23 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
Juvysen, I was just thinking the same thing!!!!

I really don't know this, so I'm asking if anybody does know--how hard is it to test blood before they give it to people? Is it that the blood might need to be used in case of emergency, and there would be no time to test it? That's the only thing I can think of.
Still, I won't be vaxxing my sweet precious baby with any of that poison, no thank you.
Blood donors are screened. I have had many surgeries done and they never offered me a hep B shot in case donor blood was tainted. Seems fishy too me.
post #24 of 48
Thread Starter 
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/he...fact-sheet.pdf

Here's the fact sheet that points out the vital info. from the study. At the end it mentions their larger series of studies that will involve the complete childhood vaccine schedule.

Also, I just wanted to add that the full mercury Hep B shot (used in this study) is still given at birth in many other countries.
post #25 of 48
I just feel an overwhelming sense of gratitude for these researchers for having the nerve to do this study.
post #26 of 48

re. why given to babies

I remember reading somewhere that The Powers That Be decided babies should be given the Hep B vax because the populations that really need it (sexually active people, iv drug users...) do not/would not seek out the vax. So, since it's hard to get those older folks vaccinated, better to just do everyone when they're really young and have no say in the matter.
post #27 of 48
It's about time!!!!!!!!!!!!
post #28 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by murmur View Post
It is exciting...the article says this is the first of a larger series of studies they are doing. This is what many of us have been waiting for...I still can't believe this is the first study of vacc. vs. unvacc. animals. This is groundbreaking, and I look forward to more!
Well, as exciting as this is, this is mostly about mercury which no longer in most vaccines (except for some flu ones), so it's no longer a serious threat to big pharma. Aluminum study would be a totally different story though...
post #29 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruthla View Post
This study is a great first step! Now they need to expand the study to include newborn monkeys getting the "thermiserol free" version of the vaccine and see how they respond. I also hope the continue this study past the first few weeks of life, and look at how this vaccine might affect the rest of childhood development. Then they need another study giving some monkeys the "full childhood vaccine schedule" and compare it to unvaxed monkeys, and watch all these monkeys a few years.

Then maybe another study showing the effects of delayed vax (as an alternative to both vaxing on schedule and no vaxes at all)- or am I just dreaming now? According to Wikipedia, rhesus macaque monkeys reach maturity at 3-4 years old, so it won't take a rediculously long amount of time to study the effects of infant vaccines on all of childhood development or look for effects that last into adulthood.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening any time soon.
post #30 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yulia_R View Post
Well, as exciting as this is, this is mostly about mercury which no longer in most vaccines (except for some flu ones), so it's no longer a serious threat to big pharma. Aluminum study would be a totally different story though...
Being in the middle of flu vaccine season I have to say this is still hugely an issue specially for pregnancy women. Just a few hours ago I had a woman telling other pregnant women not to worry about being unable to find mercury free flu vaccinations as she got the normal one and always does and her kids are fine and there is no peer reviewed study showing mercury is harmful in any way....

This study is worth so very much to me. We "know" mercury is harmful so hopefully this study can open doors to others like the all important Aluminum kind!
post #31 of 48
This study is seriously flawed. Only 2 weeks using a vaccine that isn't even used. The statistical difference is very small. Not to mention this study was done by a company that makes money off of people who have been "damaged" by vaccines. I'm all for being critical of vaxes but honestly if this study had shown no difference or that vaccines actually helped these monkeys we'd be tearing the methodology apart limb by limb.
post #32 of 48
I definately see flaws in the study. If the monkeys reach adult hood that quick, how are they doing long term effects of the vaccine or the ingrediants? Wasn't shooting the vaccines into the human population study enough?
post #33 of 48
murmur, do you have some connection to this study?
post #34 of 48
Don't all vax studies compare the vaccinated to the unvaccinated? How else do they know if it works?
post #35 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by tessie View Post
Don't all vax studies compare the vaccinated to the unvaccinated? How else do they know if it works?
Only when there is no other vaccine out there for the disease. So for Gardasil, yes placebo group. For a new measles, vax, no. But all vaxes get tested on animals first.

As a side not, it's kind of a big no-no for anyone to release a galley for a paper before it's actually been reviewed and published. I think these 13 monkeys died for nothing although the researchers were really, really, really trying to prove their point. But there were no developmental delays for either group.
post #36 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisalou View Post
Only when there is no other vaccine out there for the disease. So for Gardasil, yes placebo group. For a new measles, vax, no. But all vaxes get tested on animals first.
Ah, right. Cheers.

I wonder if this vax has been tested in this way before?
post #37 of 48
Where does it say the monkeys died?


Quote:
Originally Posted by lisalou View Post
Only when there is no other vaccine out there for the disease. So for Gardasil, yes placebo group. For a new measles, vax, no. But all vaxes get tested on animals first.

As a side not, it's kind of a big no-no for anyone to release a galley for a paper before it's actually been reviewed and published. I think these 13 monkeys died for nothing although the researchers were really, really, really trying to prove their point. But there were no developmental delays for either group.
post #38 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolphin View Post
Where does it say the monkeys died?
And that there "there were no developmental delays for either group"

Can you share your link for this info that we are missing and the linked to page clearly did not agree with...
post #39 of 48
Quote:
Neonatal reflexes and sensorimotor responses were measured daily from birth until post-natal Day 14.
They had to stop there because they say that, at 14 days, other things happen to the monkeys that would mess up the results.

In Hewiston's other studies, which have not been published but the 'poster presentations' have been talked about extensively- the monkeys were all killed after the study period. Though the second time this happened, it was to dissect their guts and the like.


Notice how they changed the protocol mid study, adding the 4 saline injection group monkeys to the no injection group to create an N of 7-- which they call "unexposed"...given that they are only looking at a 2 week period, I would think it's obvious that the handling and injection of those 4 (given that not handling was a big part of the study protocol) makes them different than the 3 that did not have the handling and injections.

Of course, I really don't get why they didn't just make the two groups even *shrug*-- same with the birth weight and gestational age- why make the exposed group the one with the less weight and younger age?

I could go on...this is just like her last one, pretty poorly put together.
post #40 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisalou View Post
Only when there is no other vaccine out there for the disease. So for Gardasil, yes placebo group.
I didn't read ahead, sorry. But this was a reactive placebo containing aluminum. Determining real side effects when you don't use a true placebo can be problematic.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › First ever vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study