Is it dangerous to start vaccines and then stop aburptly? i.e. not giving boosters etc - Page 2

[lovebug]

as PP have said there is no harm in stopping.

[stiss]

Originally Posted by Gitti

That is a very good point. But look around you, who gives more than one perspective of the vaccine issue? Everywhere I look, other than a few little forums, claims how great vaccines are and how they have saved humanity from total demise.

But then who does all the educating and informing? The manufacturer of course. And what else would he say?

Fact is that social progress and human well being is always second to monetary gains. And certainly there is little to extract from a healthy human body.

Health researchers DO call for a more balanced discourse on the issue. I know. I just wrote a 50 page paper on the topic. It's definitely a problem in vaccine research and policy. As for "who gives more than one perspective"...well, there ARE researchers out there, and I think that policy makers are trying as well. Are they still biased? Always. Everyone is. However, most experts totally acknowledge that vaccines are not without risk, and not without fallibility. I can find lots of papers for you, written by doctors and researchers who support vaccination, who do not agree with mandatory vaccination, or pressuring parents to vaccinate. There is also an ongoing discourse about conflicts of interest and the need for greater transparency in vaccination research. None of these claims are not without merit - they are serious issues.

I've had this debate before, in other threads...there is no doubt that we need better independent research on safety and efficacy trials. That doesn't mean that everyone who supports/researches vaccines is working for big pharma. They're making way more money off anti-depressants and Viagra than they ever will off vaccines, by the way.

Now...your turn. What's the problem with the anti-vaccination movement? Do you know? Unless you've really looked at both sides on an issue and can honestly speak to the biases and shortcomings, you're doing yourself a disservice. Talk to me about Wakefield, Mercola, and Tenpenny.

It's great to have a forum to learn more and share information, but if your information is only coming from one side, you're not any better informed than someone who just "blindly follows mainstream medicine". The truth is always somewhere between A and B.

[Gitti]

Thanks for your response.

Originally Posted by stiss

Now...your turn. What's the problem with the anti-vaccination movement? Do you know? Unless you've really looked at both sides on an issue and can honestly speak to the biases and shortcomings, you're doing yourself a disservice. Talk to me about Wakefield, Mercola, and Tenpenny.

It's great to have a forum to learn more and share information, but if your information is only coming from one side, you're not any better informed than someone who just "blindly follows mainstream medicine". The truth is always somewhere between A and B.

I don't agree and don't really want to get into it. I will only tell you this: my information comes first and foremost from one side - gut instinct. I will stick with that no matter what. I relied on it before I had ever heard the names Wakefield etc. or MDC for that matter. I needed no books or anyones paper. Thank you!

But I must say it is nice that so many people have come to the side of Mother Nature. Nice to finally not feel like I am the only one.

As for doctors, our family does not need nor use them (no types) unless in case of trauma. Than I am very grateful for their knowledge.

OK. end of private discussion.

[stiss]

Originally Posted by Gitti

Thanks for your response.



I don't agree and don't really want to get into it. I will only tell you this: my information comes first and foremost from one side - gut instinct. I will stick with that no matter what. I relied on it before I had ever heard the names Wakefield etc. or MDC for that matter. I needed no books or anyones paper. Thank you!

But I must say it is nice that so many people have come to the side of Mother Nature. Nice to finally not feel like I am the only one.

As for doctors, our family does not need nor use them (no types) unless in case of trauma. Than I am very grateful for their knowledge.

OK. end of private discussion.

Well yay for open-minded discussion!

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by stiss

Yes, you're quite right. I meant the statement as really a [I]potential [/I]issue, that may be a concern*.

*and that concern only exists if the person in question actually believes in the efficacy of vaccines. Just in case it wasn't clear.

The addition of the word potential (or, better yet, theoretical) would have been better, IMO, since immunity is so individual and dependent on different factors.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by stiss

You know, once again I typed out this big long answer, but I don't see the point. The short version is that I have always been forthcoming in having open, respectful discussions about perspectives on immunization. I know that my views are "in the minority" in this forum, but only sharing knowledge from one perspective serves nobody, in the end.

I answered the OP, and for the record, my view didn't differ from that of ThereseReich (who already answered before me) or any other poster, for that matter. There was nothing to clarify - clearly my answer presupposes a belief in vaccine efficacy, which is quite possibly a concern for the mother (otherwise, what danger of NOT vaccinating would one be concerned about, exactly?) I thought the caveat was superfluous and unnecessarily adversarial, so I rolled my eyes. I think I may have found a use for the ignore button!

Trust me, if I found it irritating to be "in the minority", I wouldn't bother. Glad you found it entertaining, though.

I saw nothing wrong with the post after yours clarifying that you have to believe vaccines confer immunity in order to say there is danger. You were obviously annoyed by her clarification with the eyeroll comment. So I tried to diffuse the situation a bit...wasn't entertained. Just trying to keep things light.

Now that I think about it, you really aren't "in the minority," here or in the world, are you? You delay/selectively vaccinate. You probably get heat from both sides.

[sweetpeppers]

haha, it's less dangerous than continuing them, anyway (IMO)

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by stiss

Health researchers DO call for a more balanced discourse on the issue. I know. I just wrote a 50 page paper on the topic. It's definitely a problem in vaccine research and policy. As for "who gives more than one perspective"...well, there ARE researchers out there, and I think that policy makers are trying as well. Are they still biased? Always. Everyone is. However, most experts totally acknowledge that vaccines are not without risk, and not without fallibility. I can find lots of papers for you, written by doctors and researchers who support vaccination, who do not agree with mandatory vaccination, or pressuring parents to vaccinate. There is also an ongoing discourse about conflicts of interest and the need for greater transparency in vaccination research. None of these claims are not without merit - they are serious issues.

I've had this debate before, in other threads...there is no doubt that we need better independent research on safety and efficacy trials. That doesn't mean that everyone who supports/researches vaccines is working for big pharma. They're making way more money off anti-depressants and Viagra than they ever will off vaccines, by the way.

Now...your turn. What's the problem with the anti-vaccination movement? Do you know? Unless you've really looked at both sides on an issue and can honestly speak to the biases and shortcomings, you're doing yourself a disservice. Talk to me about Wakefield, Mercola, and Tenpenny.

It's great to have a forum to learn more and share information, but if your information is only coming from one side, you're not any better informed than someone who just "blindly follows mainstream medicine". The truth is always somewhere between A and B.

So agree with the bolded. The problem is, the majority of the time, even if "both sides" are discussed throughout, the conclusion is always the same: Vaccines always have and always will be more beneficial than risky. The benefits ALWAYS outweigh the risks.

The risks may be examined briefly, but then we come full circle and are assured that the answer is always to vaccinate.

Yes, there are doctors and scientists who do not do this. But rarely are they given voice. The few times in which they are, they are dismissed and/or drowned out by the mainstream message.

What we need, honestly, is for the government to end vaccine mandates and recommendations and admit that there are serious risks to vaccines which may override the benefits in some individuals, then advise parents to research the issue and make an informed decision for their families. (Of course, I imagine if this were to happen any time soon, it would be the evil Obama administration trying to kill all of the world. )

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by stiss

Well yay for open-minded discussion!

To me the truth is always hidden in plain sight.