MTYH INFORMATION FROM:
Six Common Misconceptions about vaccination and how to respond to themhttp://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/6mishome.htm
Posted with permission from CDC:
Information Resources Management Office (IRMO)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CDC is a U.S. federal government agency and as such, the information contained on our website is not copyrighted unless specifically noted.
You may use information from our site as you requested. ( COMMON MYTHS)
I don't have the time to go into a lot of detail with backup, but here's a short version of my response to the "myths"...
There are "hot lots" of vaccine that have been associated with more adverse events and deaths than others. Parents should find the numbers of these lots and not allow their children to receive vaccines from them"Do they think we are just plain stupid?
They are basically saying, just because there are several reports of adverse reactions in regards to one particular lot, it doesn't really mean it's a hot lot. They say the point it that just because an adverse event has been reported by the suveillance system, doesn't mean it was caused by the vaccine.....and there is every chance it was caused by the vaccine.
No one even attempts to find out in many of the cases. No lot has ever been recalled no matter how many reactions were reported. In fact, to lessen the chance of identifying a potential hot lot, the lots are now split up instead of being sent to one area, which would consolidate the reactions, making it most obvious it was the vaccine and not just a "coincidence". Much harder to blame the vaccine if you have what seem to be "isolated" events here and there, instead of a cluster of damage in one area.
"The majority of people who get disease have been vaccinated"I have read about recent cases where the vaccinated are getting the disease, relating to chickenpox. It appears this vaccine is not very effective at all. As far as the others, I don't know. Once a vaccine is given, it is rare one is tested for immunity, not only that, you don't know how many are actually exposed, that do or do not catch it.
"Diseases had already begun to disappear before vaccines were introduced, because of better hygiene and sanitation"(The incidence of hepatitis B has not dropped as much because infants vaccinated in routine programs will not be at high risk of disease until they are at least teenagers. Therefore a 15-year lag can be expected between the start of routine infant vaccination and a significant drop in disease incidence.)So tell me again why infants are being vaccinated for this if they are not at high risk until they are teenagers? Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine is another good example, because Hib disease was prevalent until the early- to mid- 1990s,
when conjugate vaccines that can be used for infants were finally developed. (The polysaccharide vaccine previously available could not be used for infants, in whom most cases of the disease were occurring.) Hib was not nationally notifiable until AFTER the vaccine had been licensed, so it's prevaccine numbers are a guess at best.
Are we expected to believe that better sanitation caused incidence of each disease to drop just at the time a vaccine for that disease was introduced? Since sanitation is not better now than it was in 1990, it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance of Hib disease in children in recent years in countries with routine Hib vaccination (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993, and dropping in the United States of America) to anything other than the vaccine.see above note, hib not nationally notifible until AFTER the vaccine was in general use.Well then, lets look at a disease there is no routine vaccine in use, TB. TB has been on a steady decline in the US without the use of routine vaccination, if not due to better sanitation etc, what then? No vaccine to give the credit to, yet.
Here, for example, is a graph showing the reported incidence of measles from 1950 to the present.
(the chart shows measles decline)But look at a chart earlier than 1950, and you will see the death from disease rates going down BEFORE the introduction of the vaccine. Still a similar amount of cases per year, but far less deaths.
more charts here...
"Vaccines cause many harmful side effects, illnesses, and even death - not to mention possible long-term effects we don't even know about"
Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in many anti-vaccine publications. Most vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary, such as a sore arm or mild fever. These can often be controlled by taking paracetamol after vaccination. More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousands to one per millions of doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed. As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically. This is just pure ca ca. If vaccines are so "very safe", then why bother to make them safer? IE: DPT to DPaT. What is rare is that the adverse event gets reported, or admitted as being related to the vaccine.
Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)More garbage. Look at the cold hard numbers, scroll all the way to the bottom of the page and look at the last chart. The death rate is highest in 1-6 months, period. They can try and justify, explain away all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that babies are dying at a time with the most shots are being given, period.
And this, taken from their own words to Myth #1,
"Also, more coincidental deaths are associated with vaccines given in infancy than later in childhood, since the background death rates for children are highest during the first year of life."
Coincidental Deaths. So that's what death by vaccine is labled, IOW, SIDS.
"Vaccine-preventable diseases have been virtually eliminated from my country, so there is no need for my child to be vaccinated"
So this is supposed to be a good reason to get vaccinated? Can still, will, or won't infect anyone who is not protected. They already told us vaccines do not give 100% protection. You are taking a risk either way, but which is the bigger risk?
The second is to protect those around us. There is a small number of people who cannot be vaccinated (because of severe allergies to vaccine components, for example), and a small percentage of people don't respond to vaccines. These people are susceptible to disease, and their only hope of protection is that people around them are immune and cannot pass disease on to them. A successful vaccination program, like a successful society, depends on the cooperation of every individual to ensure the good of all. We would think it irresponsible of a driver to ignore all traffic regulations on the presumption that other drivers will watch out for him or her. In the same way we shouldn't rely on people around us to stop the spread of disease; we, too, must do what we can.
I don't rely on others to keep my family healthy, and I would expect they wouldn't rely on my family to keep theirs healthy.
"Giving a child multiple vaccinations for different diseases at the same time increases the risk of harmful side effects and can overload the immune system"
Children are exposed to many foreign antigens every day.
Yes, but not via injection.
Eating food introduces new bacteria into the body, and numerous bacteria live in the mouth and nose, exposing the immune system to still more antigens.Yes, exposure in a NATURAL way that stimulates a NORMAL immune response. Exposure is NOT via injection.
An upper respiratory viral infection exposes a child to four to ten antigens, and a case of "strep throat" to 25 - 50. According to "Adverse events Associated with childhood vaccines", a 1994 report from the Institute of Medicine in the United States, "In the face of these normal events, it seems unlikely that the number of separate antigens contained in childhood vaccines . . . would represent an appreciable added burden on the immune system that would be immuno-suppressive."An upper respiratory infection is not injected!
Indeed, available scientific data show that simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines has no adverse effect on the normal childhood immune system.Then they must not have very good scientific data available.
A number of studies and reviews have been conducted to examine the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines simultaneously.
No long term studies have been done on the impact of injecting up to 40 doses into a child by the age of 5 years.
Research is underway while the experiment on our children continues.