Are unvaxed kids generally more healthy? - Page 3

[lisalou]

I don't know with dd I delayed vaxes until she was 2. She had a few ear infections, 2 bouts of pneumonia and a stomach bug. Got her caught up on vaxes and other than a couple of quick mild colds she hasn't been sick since and she's 6. Nutrition for her hasn't changed we eat whole foods and grains although breastfeeding ended right before she was 3. I have yet to see anything even vaguely credible about vaccines damaging immune systems to cause chronic illnesses and I really despise nutritionism. And in my case dd sort of proves the opposite but anecdotes often do.

[MyLilPwny]

My daughter's pediatrician is Dr. Pamela Middleton, M.D. (http://www.pediatricwellness.net) and she is completely anti-vaccines and does not give them in her office because she has witnessed it first hand as a pediatrician and believes that vaccines damage health and that unvaccinated children are healthier.

My daughter's chiropractor is Dr. Rochelle Neally, D.C. (http://www.drneally.com) who is also a DAN! Practitioner and she is also completely anti-vaccines. She has lots of patients who are damaged by vaccines. I first brought my daughter to Dr. Neally for a chiropractic adjustment when my daughter was 11 months old. Upon learning that my daughter was completely unvaccinated, born at home, and never received any drugs or antibiotics, asked me how her health was and I replied that she had never been sick yet, Dr. Neally told me that my daughter is and will be healthier than vaccinated children.

[bbrandonsmom]

Ds1 was vaxed until 4m-those were his last. Ds2-none. Ds2 is much healthier and robust than ds1. Both were ebf and we eat a healthy diet. We believe, and have had a few drs agree, that ds1 immune system was effected by the vaccines. He can get very sick from just a basic cold, while the rest of us get over it like normal.

[Plummeting]

I've never been able to tell a vaxed kid from an unvaxed kid either by how healthy they were, how they acted or anything else. I don't vaccinate, so I obviously think there are some benefits to not vaccinating, but I've always said I can't tell by how much a kid gets sick or whatever. My DD had food allergies before she ever had a single vaccine (she reacted to things in my breastmilk), and she's only had 5 vaccines total, but she gets the average number of colds and all that.

Originally Posted by ThereseReich

So, science is showing that nutrition determines our genes, and that would explain why kids are healthier than other kids, regardless of whether or not they are vaccinated (in addition to other environmental factors that affect their health). I've also read in a few different places that vaccines are capable of changing DNA and can affect your genes as well. So can pesticides and other chemicals. So, its not only nutrition that is to blame on your genes.

Your genes are your genes - you get what you're born with. What I think you mean is that nutrition can alter gene expression, which is sort of like turning genes 'on' or turning them 'off'. Neither your diet nor vaccines can "determine" or change your actual genes. I don't know that there's any research at all showing that vaccines can alter gene expression. I guess it could be true (all sorts of things can alter gene expression) but there's probably no research to show that, so it's not accurate to state it as a fact.

[Cavy]

To be honest, I would expect it to go the other way around (in the absence of modern medical science, anyway, that might limit the severity of many illnesses). I would expect unvaxed kids/people to tend to be more susceptible to illnesses .

What I mean is I know several people IRL who had (or had to worry about) long-term structural damage to their bodies from diseases routinely vaccinated against, this led to a chronic weakness in the most affected area. For instance:

DH had pneumonia from HIb (as an adult); he was Xrayed in case there was long term lung scarring from it that could lead to general respiratory weakness.

DH uncle developed asthma after having had whooping cough as a child. He is in his 60s now and very wheezy. None of his close relatives are asthmatic or have (had) allergic type conditions.

My dad hates swimming; it hurts his ear too much where he is deaf from meningitis (nearly died from it) as a toddler; his identical twin's ears are fine and so Uncle goes swimming happily (I find it very strange to see someone who looks exactly like my dad enjoying water!!). My dad used to be very prone to sinusitis type infections, too (not his twin, though; my dad rarely has sinus trouble nowadays since he started getting an annual flu jab).

Think of the sister in Little Women who is chronically weak and sickly after a bout of Scarlet Fever and dies young....

~~~~~~~~~

I only know one child IRL who is completely unvaxed and he is only 2, so not much to compare on. 2 of my DC tend to get illness worse than the other 2, but all 4 DC were breastfed/fed/vaccinated very similarly (pretty much vaxed with everything on offer in the UK).

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by Plummeting

I've never been able to tell a vaxed kid from an unvaxed kid either by how healthy they were, how they acted or anything else.

This hits the nail on the head. If we can't tell the difference, what is the point? Especially since bad reactions to vaccines are so common that the medical community has developed an entire theory called "risk to benefit" to rationalize all the terrible damage.

If vaccinations are supposed to make us healthier, and ultimately that is the argument, then there should be a big difference in health between vaccinated and completely unvaccinated children (even 1 vaccine makes a child vaccinated). There is no scientific evidence of this anywhere. The default is to not inject something that can maim and kill until it is proven effective.

The growth of life expectancy rate in the U.S. has in fact slowed down markedly since the 1950's, compared to the first half of the 20th century and the last half of the 19th century, and in the last 30 years slowed down even more to an almost halt. Per capita health costs are at an all-time high. Strange autoimmune conditions are all over the place in children. Children's hospitals are a booming industry. Look at all the cancers, neurological conditions and strange ways the body is attacking itself nowadays.

If we look at the fact that infant mortality was much higher before doctors learned to stop passing around infections, the life expectancy rates pre-vaccination with all the vaccines children now receive, are even more glaring. If we had kept up the pace before all these vaccines were introduced, we'd be living on average into the 90's by now.

[waiflywaif]

If vaccinations are supposed to make us healthier, and ultimately that is the argument

Actually no, that's not the argument (of general improved health). A vaccine is supposed to prevent a very specific, particular disease. The idea is you get that vaccine, you do not contract that disease. It doesn't prevent anyone from getting a cold or stomach flu or any other illness beyond the one it was developed to act against.

I'm not commenting on the pros or cons of vaccination in any way. Just correcting the perception that vaccines lead to general better health.

I only know one unvax'ed kid and she is very susceptible to colds and flu and has had all kinds of minor illnesses. Which doesn't prove anything, but since everyone else is sharing their stories I will too.

[bbrandonsmom]

I didn't see. Have there been any studies done? In one year, how many kids are sick and vaccinated vs how many kids sick and not vaccinated.
I actually think you need to look at long term as well as short term, and that just leads to the arguement if vaccines are safe or not.
For short term, out of everyone I know who either vaxs vs not vaxes, the families who do not vax get less colds etc than the other, but on the flip side, those families also eat healthier and live a healthier lifestyle.

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by bbrandonsmom

For short term, out of everyone I know who either vaxs vs not vaxes, the families who do not vax get less colds etc than the other, but on the flip side, those families also eat healthier and live a healthier lifestyle.

Good point. This subject is so complex, it is very difficult to tell what role vax have in general health of children.

I have 2 contradictory anecdotes with the flu and my kids (8 yo, vaxed through age 2...2 yo, never vaxed).

Last year they both got the flu. 8 yo's fever was 5 days, and 2 yo's fever was 6days. 8 yo's lingering cough was manageable, but 2 yo was coughing until vomiting for weeks. Evidence that my unvaxed 2 yo has a weaker immune system?

This year, 2 yo had a mystery illness with fever for 24 hours, and then 8 yo had the flu with fever for 3 days+ lingering cough. Evidence that my unvaxed 2 yo has a stronger immune system?

Completely vaxed me had no symptoms either year, even though I sleep with these kids, lol.

As for the Amish, that is another complex issue. Some Amish do vaccinate, and some Amish do get autism. I think I recently read that a breakthrough in the genetics of Autism was found in the Amish community. The researchers were able to identify the gene partly because the gene pool is so small.

link

[caned & able]

To the OP:

No one knows if un-vaccinated children are really healthier, and never will know. The studies would be small and underfunded. No drug company would underwrite such a study. They do not care. Drug companies are in the business of making and selling drugs, and they will not fund a study that will show that one is better off not using their product.

Therefore, there would be no peer-reviewed, double-blind, scientific, long term studies to determine this, so much of the evidence is anecdotal.

But I do not feel that kind of evidence is with out validity.

[PlayaMama]

i'm glad you clarified because the initial statement that, "science is showing that nutrition determines our genes," didn't make sense to me. you get your genes from your parents not your food.

though i have to disagree that homocysteine elevation indicates genetic damage. from the few studies i glanced over, the consensus seems to be that the homocysteine levels affect DNA methylation which can effect gene expression in an epigenetic manner. this does NOT change the underlying DNA sequence but is merely changes the genes that are expressed.

so, we're back at nutrition causing phenotypic change not genotypic change.

in this abstract regarding atherosclerosis, also a disease associated with elevated levels of homocysteine, :

"DNA methylation is a major epigenetic modification of the genome that has the potential to silence gene expression."

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/...ct/132/8/2406S

i have to make dinner but i'll bbl for the other two examples. i'll be honest, i'm not really buying the thc breaking dna example either. if the dna was broken it would be unable to replicate effectively.

i'm more suspicious of MSG and aspartame but i haven't done enough research yet to talk about them intelligently.

Originally Posted by ThereseReich

From my understanding of Dr. Blaylock's analysis, he is saying that nutrition affects both--determining the actual genes and also if the genes are physically expressed. One example that he gives for nutrition determining the actual genes is that if a woman before she was pregnant and during her pregnancy is only eating junk with no nutrition in it, the genetic makeup of her fetus will be made of junk too. This is because poor nutrition produces cellular damage to the sperm and ova, just like it does to other cells in the body. He gives many other examples, but here is one on how nutritional deficiencies can actually alter DNA on page 35 of Health and Nutrition Secrets:



He relates that to studies that have found that babies with neural birth defects have elevated homocysteine levels and is saying that if the mother had adequate proper nutrition, then the baby would have normal homocysteine levels, and would not have that particular birth defect.

Just found another one where he is talking about how excitotoxins like MSG and aspartame have a "deleterious effect" on the formation of a fetus' brain during its last trimester and first two years of life, and they can also have that deleterious effect on the DNA within reproductive cells of the ovaries, so then future generations would be damaged by the first mother who is eating foods with excitotoxins. Also by particularly eating aspartame, it breaks down into formaldehyde in the body, which is known to accumulate near the DNA in cells, so it can result in "numerous deletions and strand breaks in the nuclear material." Aspartame is in so many food products nowadays. Just pick up a pack of gum or non-fat yogurt and its likely to have it. And for those that didn't know, MSG and formaldehyde are commons vaccine ingredients, so vaccines can be altering vaccinated children's DNA for the same reasons.

Here is another one. If the mother is eating hemp, hemp contains tetrahydrocannabinol (thc) and Blaylock points out that tetrahydrocannabinol is very genotoxic, meaning it causes DNA to break in multiple areas, meaning a mother eating hemp may be permanently damaging her children's DNA.

I can find more examples if those weren't enough.

[*Erin*]

well, anecdotally, i think mine are, but there are SO many variables that could apply to why...good diet, healthy lifestyle, plenty of sunshine, rest, vitamins, lots of love and laughter.
some of it must be genetic. and constitution.i know kids who seem totally immune to everything, and have perfect teeth, despite eating pure junk all the time and being vaxed up to the hilt.

i also think that some kids are more equipped to handle vaccines than others. i have always had a very strong gut feeling that had i vaccinated my kids, they would have been profoundly, negatively affected by them.

also, i think family structure and lifestyle plays a big part of health and catching bugs-my dd didnt even have her first cold until she was 2 yrs old or so, and my ds, my 2nd child, caught his at 2 WEEKS. and again at 2 months. he also had rotavirus with dd last year, 2 other random stomach flu things this past year, and the flu recently. All that aside, he (and rebounds very fast, and is usually, blessedly, a bright eyed, pink-cheeked, energetic picture of health. dd also.

dd didn't have an older sibling to share cooties with her and ds was out and about in germy kid places wayyyyy more and wayyyyy earlier than dd.


i'd be very hesitant to make a blanket statement that all unvaxed kids are healthier than vaxed kids....

edited to add...
just read the thread, and this is sort of OT...as far as nutrition triggering genetic response-made me think of an article that was posted in the breastfeeding forum not too long ago-breast milk and genetic destiny

[MyLilPwny]

Originally Posted by PlayaMama

i'm glad you clarified because the initial statement that, "science is showing that nutrition determines our genes," didn't make sense to me. you get your genes from your parents not your food.

though i have to disagree that homocysteine elevation indicates genetic damage. from the few studies i glanced over, the consensus seems to be that the homocysteine levels affect DNA methylation which can effect gene expression in an epigenetic manner. this does NOT change the underlying DNA sequence but is merely changes the genes that are expressed.

My statement that "science is showing that nutrition determines our genes" was my interpretation of what Dr. Blaylock is saying. He talks about research over the past twenty years showing that early nutrition "significantly influences our genes" and he talks about proper nutrition's results being "enhanced through each generation, because our nutrition improves the genetic health of our reproductive cells, the sperm, and the ova." Dr. Blaylock is the author of the book Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills so he is an expert on MSG and aspartame and therefore he knows what he is talking about when he says that they break down and delete DNA, so yes, genes come from parents but the food that the parents ate can cause altered DNA to be passed down to the children. Here is another thing he says on that, page 62 of Health and Nutrtion Secrets he says, "There is abundant evidence that poor nutrition during the period of brain development can lead to a loss of DNA." (source of that is Suzuki K. Martin PM. Neutrotoxicants and Developing Brain. In Developmental Neurotoxicology, Harry GJ (ed). Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1994

No, Dr. Blaylock was not saying at all that just because homocysteine levels are elevated that it means genetic damage, nope he wasn't saying that. He was saying that there are studies of babies with neural birth defects and in these studies the babies are shown to have elevated homocysteine levels. One of homocysteine's responsibilities in DNA maintenance. But in order to do that particular action, it requires 3 vitamins, and deficiencies in those vitamins will result in dangerously high levels of homocysteine. Furthermore, he says that homocysteine and its breakdown products are also excitotoxins (like MSG and aspartame) so some of homocysteine's damaging effects can be due to its excitotoxicity and also due to the interference with DNA synthesis and maintenance that was caused by deficiencies in those 3 vitamins. And then he also mentions that homocysteine levels are also elevated in Alzheimer's disease. Does that mean he's saying that elevated homocysteine levels automatically mean genetic damage in all cases? I don't think so.

Dr. Blaylock also has a chapter on vaccines in his book. According to what he has written, it appears that he would say that unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children because he explains how vaccines destroy dendirtic connections, precipitate abnormal brain-pathway development, stimulate excitotoxicity, activate microglia, and more.

[amnesiac]

Please remain on topic regarding vaccines. If you wish to continue discussion regarding other factors affecting health or immunity (such as diet/nutrition or genes), please do so in Health & Healing.

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by waiflywaif

Actually no, that's not the argument (of general improved health). A vaccine is supposed to prevent a very specific, particular disease. The idea is you get that vaccine, you do not contract that disease. It doesn't prevent anyone from getting a cold or stomach flu or any other illness beyond the one it was developed to act against.

I'd disagree. No diseases = supposedly healthier life. I do agree that the movement stays away from stating this specifically and only suggests it. An example would be "Get the H1N1 vax or possibly die and cause everyone around you to get sick and possibly die." The opposite of good health would be death. It's sleight of hand, but the message is clear. The movement won't unequivocally state, "Vaccines make you healthier" because they have no proof of that at all. It is a lot easier to stick with the prevent a certain disease argument because then they can come up with an infinite number of diseases and corresponding vaccines and never prove anyone is doing any better. Only suggest it.

I wanted to add that it is interesting that an industry can make billions of dollars on a healthcare product without producing any evidence of health, but a pittance can be spent to prove eating decent foods and walking a little can be lifesavers.

[pumpkinhead]

My children are both vaccinated. Not fully, but they have both had Pentacel and my oldest has had the MMR and Varivax but no boosters.

Both are generally extremely healthy. Ear infections have never been an issue for either of them. My youngest has never had one and my oldest had one at 19 mos which we did not treat with abx.

IME, I have not seen a difference.

I do think that nutrition plays a huge role and breastmilk vs. formula most likely factors in somewhere.

[earthmama4]

I haven't read the replies yet but wanted to say I am amazed how little my unvaxed baby gets sick compared to his vaxed brothers. His brothers had several colds, croup, at least one GI bug, and multiple ear infections their first year of life, despite being EBF and me being a SAHM. Later, I blamed much of their illnesses on food intolerances as I learned more about those, but now I don't know. My baby has worse intolerances that any of them and he has doesn't get sick anywhere close to what they did. He has had two minor colds, about 2 days in duration. That's it. My nephew who lives next door and is fully vaxed gets sick 10 times as often as my baby. He is not in daycare either. All my kids struggled w/ eczema too, my nephew does as well, but my unvaxed baby? Nope. I have heard anecdotal evidence from daycare workers that vaxed children get sick more and have more eczema than unvaxed. Based on my both my research on the toxic effects of vaccines and my personal experiences seeing with my own eyes the differences between closely related vaxed and unvaxed family members, I am convinced that the immune system of an infant or young child is compromised rather than helped by vaccines.

[orangewallflower]

Both my kids are immunized on the Sears schedule, and both are very healthy, and seem to have better immune systems than most kids around them. Several of the non-vaxed kids I know have chronic coughs. Seems like they start in the late fall and last until summer. I don't think this is causal, but I agree with a PP that illness early in life can have years-long effect on immunity. I would say, though, that kid for kid around me breastfeeding seems to make a world of difference in general health.

[PlayaMama]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

I'd disagree. No diseases = supposedly healthier life.

I wanted to add that it is interesting that an industry can make billions of dollars on a healthcare product without producing any evidence of health, but a pittance can be spent to prove eating decent foods and walking a little can be lifesavers.

i think not dying from diptheria is a healthier life than dying from diptheria. i do not think that by vaccinating i am ensuring my children never get sick.

the idea that vaccines are a health care product is interesting. when i think of health care products i think of things like, CLO supplements, or Nair or something. i think of vaccines as a medical product like antibiotics or heart medication.

i do think that americans tend to be very short-sighted when it comes to health, as in, give me this vax and i'll never get the flu, forget about washing my hands or eating a decent diet.

i've been thinking about this and i think that this sort of question when answered by anecdotal evidence is really subject to observer bias. i do believe that vaxes prevent or ameliorate serious diseases, and in my experience with my kids, my vaxed kid gets sick less often. though neither of my children have been sick with anything there is a vaccine for, knock on wood.

i would think that those who are against vaccination would probably observe their unvaxed kids being healthier than the vaxed kids because they notice it more when vaxed kids get sick because it reinforces their views.

so, neither side really wants to admit that they might be doing something that would harm their child, of course, so it's in everyone's best interests to support their own views. my two cents.

[felix23]

Originally Posted by PlayaMama

i think not dying from diptheria is a healthier life than dying from diptheria. i do not think that by vaccinating i am ensuring my children never get sick.

the idea that vaccines are a health care product is interesting. when i think of health care products i think of things like, CLO supplements, or Nair or something. i think of vaccines as a medical product like antibiotics or heart medication.

i do think that americans tend to be very short-sighted when it comes to health, as in, give me this vax and i'll never get the flu, forget about washing my hands or eating a decent diet.

i've been thinking about this and i think that this sort of question when answered by anecdotal evidence is really subject to observer bias. i do believe that vaxes prevent or ameliorate serious diseases, and in my experience with my kids, my vaxed kid gets sick less often. though neither of my children have been sick with anything there is a vaccine for, knock on wood.

i would think that those who are against vaccination would probably observe their unvaxed kids being healthier than the vaxed kids because they notice it more when vaxed kids get sick because it reinforces their views.

so, neither side really wants to admit that they might be doing something that would harm their child, of course, so it's in everyone's best interests to support their own views. my two cents.

ITA.