do you vaccinate? - Page 15

[Marnica]

Whoa - where do you see Mandy labeling all scientists as liars and frauds? Did I miss something?

Ok Your hubby is an honest, ethical scientist who loves his work. SUPER! Im sure there are many more just like him. However the fact remains that scientific miscondust and fraud happens and unfortunately not all that infrequently. So given that and the blatant COI that abound in the medical industry, I don't think a dose of healthy skeptisim applied to EVERY scientific study one reads is unwarranted.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0404.brownlee.html

http://www.pediatricsupersite.com/view.aspx?rid=67170

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/42.pdf

http://bostonreview.net/BR35.3/angell.php

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57601/

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/PRC/15964

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/PRC/15964

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/explosive-conflict-of-interest-who-profits-from-the-national-health-plan-and-from-other-investments%E2%80%A6/

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/782/9/

 

Dr. John Ioannidis , a foremost expert on clinical trial methodology has identified various factors that, one way or another, confound the integrity of medical research reports. He found that "as much as 90% of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed." 

Originally Posted by Crafty 

Wow, that is incredibly offensive to all the scientists out there who work their rear ends off to make this world a better place. My husband goes into the lab before it's light out and routinely comes home long past 5 pm, most of the time bringing work home with him- not necessarily because he has to, but because he loves it. I can assure you that he's never skewed data in his life. All the scientists I know LOVE science and would never lower themselves to making up data to please anyone, because making stuff up is not at all what science is about. Data is data. If it doesn't say what you were hoping, it's back to the drawing board and you start over. How offensive that you just discount all scientists as liars and frauds.

And FTR, not all labs are funded by pharmaceutical companies. Most are funded by MULTIPLE sources. 

[BeckyBird]

Vaccines!!!

Great for disease control. Also great for causing unpleasant side effects, such as:

*anaphylactic response

*Fever

*Guillain Barre Syndrome----acute flaccid paralysis, yay!

*Allergic reactions

*Seizures

*Convulsions

*thrombocytopenia

*Death!

[chaoticzenmom]

Please remember that the new user agreement still requires that members be respectful to each other when posting. Let's please try to keep the discussion respectful in order to allow a full discussion of this issue.

Thanks

Lisa

[Calm]

I've always questioned the vax/autism link, although I do trust parents when it comes to their children and they are sure it is the connection.  It could be.  But if it is, all this talk about mercury is going to shoot them in the foot.  It could be something else entirely in the vaccines.  News reports are saying cases of autism have remained the same even though mercury was taken out.  Then they say, case closed.  

They so desperately want to shut the book on vaccines and just have us all take them, forcibly preferably... they really put up a lot of resistance to the idea it has issues, even though historically vaccines have been a major problem for the manufacturers.  The adverse reactions vs disease complications ratio is bad, and in some cases, absolutely reversed.  

Take Gardasil for instance (shudder).  The damage from that is perhaps unprecedented.  The law suits are plenty and countries have removed it or are removing it.  Erin Brockovich is taking on Gardasil.  All that and it remains available in the States.  Due to red tape and greed, ($360 for three shots, whether you pay or your country's gov pays, it is still paid to the vax companies) it will remain on the market until forced by law after years of litigation or after years of anger from citizens.  Considering most people don't know that there is a reason to be angry yet, they will keep taking it, and more people will die, get arthritis, Guillaine-Barre or become paralysed.  It is estimated by the VAERS that only 1% report to them, which just makes this thing staggering.  

I guess a billion bucks is not a drop in the bucket to some people. 

I linked that doco coming out in April in this thread a little earlier.  I'm looking forward to it.

[Calm]

Regarding who does the studies, there is brilliant research out there that is completely blotted out because they can't afford to pay what is required.  The backyard mad genius can actually turn out better studies than the red tape ones.  The structure is such that only the wealthy can afford to even do these trials, only the biggest companies... and it is obvious what is inherently wrong with that.  Most of it is red tape fees.  Bunsen burners don't cost 10 million bucks.  If there is ever an issue as to the efficacy of a study then they could put a note on those types of studies, but instead they just don't admit them, and they are not accessible, virtually anywhere unless you know they exist.  

For example, this private experiment on aspartame by a woman is brilliant, and is getting a lot of scholarly attention, but she didn't pay a thing for her tests, so you won't see it "peer reviewed" or in any journals.  Here is more info, on another site, as some citizens are hosting her information because "mysteriously", most of her links keep being broken or they take you to some obscure unrelated site.  Further info on study.

So there are possibilities out there for unvested results.  

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Calm 

Regarding who does the studies, there is brilliant research out there that is completely blotted out because they can't afford to pay what is required.  The backyard mad genius can actually turn out better studies than the red tape ones.  The structure is such that only the wealthy can afford to even do these trials, only the biggest companies... and it is obvious what is inherently wrong with that.  Most of it is red tape fees.  Bunsen burners don't cost 10 million bucks.  If there is ever an issue as to the efficacy of a study then they could put a note on those types of studies, but instead they just don't admit them, and they are not accessible, virtually anywhere unless you know they exist.  

For example, this private experiment on aspartame by a woman is brilliant, and is getting a lot of scholarly attention, but she didn't pay a thing for her tests, so you won't see it "peer reviewed" or in any journals.  Here is more info, on another site, as some citizens are hosting her information because "mysteriously", most of her links keep being broken or they take you to some obscure unrelated site.  Further info on study.

So there are possibilities out there for unvested results.  

I don't understand what you are saying here.  Anyone can submit a study to a journal. You don't need millions of dollars for that.  You don't pay anything.  Your study is reviewed by the journal and they publish it or not.  Now, I can't comment on the merits of this particular experiment, because I don't see it written out in a way that clearly lays out a hypothesis, methods and results.  It looks like she put NutraSweet in her rats' water and took pictures of them with supposed tumors?  Did she autopsy the rats to find out what type of tumors they had?  Where was her control group?  I find it interesting that if you want to see her complete results, you have to purchase her e-book for $9.99.

It's very interesting to me that you consider this experiment "brilliant" and "unvested."  It honestly looks like trash to me.  

[Ldavis24]

Hmm, I'm starting to feel this whole debate is going in circles or nowhere or both

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Calm 

They so desperately want to shut the book on vaccines and just have us all take them, forcibly preferably... they really put up a lot of resistance to the idea it has issues, even though historically vaccines have been a major problem for the manufacturers.  

Who is "they"?

As to vaccines keeping third world countries in despair: I don't think anyone disputes that clean water, improved sanitation, and a better overall infrastructure would do wonders for the health of people living in third world countries. But those things take a lot more money and across the board cooperation from a variety of nations than vaccine drives do. While those things shouldn't be given up on, it stands to reason that people will try to vaccinate for the urgent health problems facing them in the meantime. And I don't understand how vaccines themselves could keep a country or group of people poor. What do you think of vaccines some people are trying to develope for HIV/AIDS? Don't you think that if it effectively prevented people from getting HIV it would go a long way toward allowing them to continue working and they'd be better off because of that?

Also, you told me twice that you'd answer my original question, but never did. You've talked about a lot of other things, so I wanted to remind you, just in case you'd forgotten:

 

Are you trying to say that the measles vaccine is ineffective at providing recipients immunity to measles? Or are you trying to say that the dramatic decrease in measles that we see today would have happened even if the vaccine had not been introduced? How do you reconcile either of those beliefs with the numerous examples of how when vaccination rates decline the incidence of circulating disease rises? Or all of the studies that show that people who are vaccinated against the measles are so much less likely to contract it?
 

[Calm]

 

It's very interesting to me that you consider this experiment "brilliant" and "unvested."  It honestly looks like trash to me.  

 

Geez.  I hope no one knows her on this forum, and I hope she never actually sees that.  Would you actually say that kind of thing to another person?

Why do I get the feeling that you are going to see anything I write through a negative lens?  Imagine if a friend had shown you that study... how differently might you have reacted?   

My point was to show that we are ALL scientists, and that we are all capable of wading through information and deciding what is best... we just need to have all the information.  I believe these "trashy" experiments are very interesting, and vary from the backyard to the small-school clinical and even higher.  We have a lot to learn, and we can't honestly think only the lab coats are going to teach us, can we?  

Edited by Calm - 3/24/11 at 12:55am

[ema-adama]

On the re-emergence of measles, I remember reading an article some years ago about the re-emergence of measles in a highly vaccinated population. And I remember thinking that this would be blamed on parents not vaccinating. Just like the Pertussis outbreak in Ca.

The issues are so much more complex than vaccinate everyone and the disease goes away. There are factors that we just are not aware of today. Just like the public was promised one measles vaccine would eliminate the disease in the 1960's - today we know that is just not going to happen. I am quite sure there will be factors discovered that in hindsight we will be able to put the pieces together and understand why despite high vaccination levels, the disease cannot be eliminated.

For anyone interested in the article.

[chaoticzenmom]

I've locked this thread for now since it has gone way off-topic.  It will remain locked until a moderator can review it. 

Thanks

Lisa

[chaoticzenmom]

We've decided to re-open this thread, however the Aids/Malaria conversation will be moved to Health and Healing.  We'll have the new link later today and I will post it here.  Please try to post with the original question in mind so as not to keep this thread relevant to vaccines.

Thank you

Lisa

[heathergirl67]

I tried reading the article you linked but it said it couldn't connect because it was an incorrect address. Is that happening for anyone else? Is there another link you could provide to it? TIA.

Originally Posted by ema-adama 

On the re-emergence of measles, I remember reading an article some years ago about the re-emergence of measles in a highly vaccinated population. And I remember thinking that this would be blamed on parents not vaccinating. Just like the Pertussis outbreak in Ca.

The issues are so much more complex than vaccinate everyone and the disease goes away. There are factors that we just are not aware of today. Just like the public was promised one measles vaccine would eliminate the disease in the 1960's - today we know that is just not going to happen. I am quite sure there will be factors discovered that in hindsight we will be able to put the pieces together and understand why despite high vaccination levels, the disease cannot be eliminated.

For anyone interested in the article.

[ema-adama]

Modelling measles re-emergence as a result of waning of immunity in vaccinated populations.

I hope that works. I am having issues with c&p on the new MDC.

[NJTKC]

My oldest son who is now 7 was on a delayed vacination schedule per the advice of a pediatrician that is more into holsitic medicine because he was a premie. I was told that as long as I was breastfeeding that my son didn't need to be vacinated. Because I was giving him the antibodies that he needed. I truly believe that is true. Having worked as a nurse in labor and delivery that is part of the reason we would prefer that the moms breastfeed. The second reason is that if I held off on vacinations it would give my sons natural immune system a chance to build itself up first. I did vacinate my other 3 until the last set of shots my oldest sone recieved because it cause my son who was already Autistic to regress. We went from a 5 year old who was almost completely potty trained to a child who no longer spoke and was no longer potty trained at all. Among several other complications. So from that moment on my husband and I made the decision not to vacinate anymore.

[NJTKC]

Being a parent of an Autistic so that was given a series of vacinations in the last 2 years I can tell you it made my son worse. I had a child who was finally starting to talk at age 5, mind you. He was almost potty trained, he was starting to feed himself, among several other big break throughs for him. Then we gave him the servies of vacinations for a 5 year old and next thing you know we had a completely different child within 24 hrs. He was no longer communicating at all not even with sign. Started beating his head on things, he was no longer potty trained at all. That is just a small list of the things that we went through. Just within the last year we have finally gotten back to the point we were before the vacinations. He is now 7. I can not tell you the horor that we went through for a little over a year. I don't think it is the Mercury I think that it is a chemical over load on the child caused by the vacines in general. I had  Dr just recently try and convince me other wise until I told him what I went through with my son. He looked at me and said ok well we certainly don't want to put him or you through that again. So if I can change a Dr's mind about vacinating my child just based on the things my child went through that tells me that some Dr 's don't agree with the vacinations either.

[Calm]

Originally Posted by NJTKC 

Being a parent of an Autistic so that was given a series of vacinations in the last 2 years I can tell you it made my son worse. I had a child who was finally starting to talk at age 5, mind you. He was almost potty trained, he was starting to feed himself, among several other big break throughs for him. Then we gave him the servies of vacinations for a 5 year old and next thing you know we had a completely different child within 24 hrs. He was no longer communicating at all not even with sign. Started beating his head on things, he was no longer potty trained at all. That is just a small list of the things that we went through. Just within the last year we have finally gotten back to the point we were before the vacinations. He is now 7. I can not tell you the horor that we went through for a little over a year. I don't think it is the Mercury I think that it is a chemical over load on the child caused by the vacines in general. I had  Dr just recently try and convince me other wise until I told him what I went through with my son. He looked at me and said ok well we certainly don't want to put him or you through that again. So if I can change a Dr's mind about vacinating my child just based on the things my child went through that tells me that some Dr 's don't agree with the vacinations either.

Sorry to hear this.  

Did he report this as an adverse reaction?  He still can if he didn't.  They have a limit of 2 weeks now to say it was vaccine related, so doctors need to be even more prodded.  If a child shows a reaction on day 15, they are not classified as vaccine related, and are not compensated nor is it listed in the statistics.  Only 1 to 10% of doctors report adverse reactions, which as you can imagine, is really skewing this whole issue.  The statistics new parents look up to see how "safe" vaccines are will not show them just how risky it is unless doctors start doing their job.  Both you and the doc really need to report this.    He will need to report it to an official place, but then he should also put it on VAERS and that is where you put yours.
 

[WuWei]

Get the word out: Vaccination Survey - Health Outcomes of Vaccinated, Partially Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children and Adults

Pre-registration is now open. (Target date for survey distribution is December 3, 2012)


SHARE: http://j.mp/vaxsurvey

[contactmaya]

i was warned there was malware wen i tried to enter the site

[sonjagrabel]

Originally Posted by Triceratops 

Im just wondering how many mommas vaccinate, dont vaccinate or delay vaccinate - and the effect they have seen so far. What are your reasons for your choice? What advice do you have for moms who are thinking of doing what you are doing? Just curious :]

I'm going to try to stick to the questions asked in the original post.

1. We have chosen not to vaccinate (at least at this time.) Since we aren't vaccinating, we've been VERY careful about building her immunity and protecting her from those that are ill.  (Ex., she's taken probiotics daily from birth, we stay FAR away from anyone who is sick, we exclusively breastfed on demand until we started introducing solids at 6 months, we eat an incredibly healthy diet and supplement with a few select vitamins/minerals, we kept her away from most other people until she was 3 months - we'd take her out on walks in our ERGO, but not to a crowded market, for example.) 

2. My daughter is only 7 months old, so it is hard to see any effects. She has had 1 cold (at 6 months,) no diaper rashes, no thrush/yeast, no colic or reflux, and is generally ahead of "average" in meeting milestones.  Of course, I have no idea ir any of this was impacted at all by not vaccinating.  I'm just providing the facts.  From my perspective, she seems healthier than most of the babies we know - it seems they have a lot more trouble with rashes/yeast/colic/colds, but I don't know the vax status of all of these babies to compare, and there are a lot of other factors to consider (our healthy diet, we co-sleep, we cloth diaper, the probiotics, etc.)

3.  My reasons for not vaccinating - that is a huge question. . .  I started researching vaccines well before she was born.  I initially thought I'd delay/selectively vax.  The more I researched, the more "selective" I became and the more I wanted to delay.  I can't guarantee that we won't do any vaccines, but I can guarantee we won't follow the CDC schedule.  We will at least wait until she is a year old to vax, and if we do vax, it will likely only be a few and we will wait until she is school-aged. (And to address those that think non-vaxxers are unable to comprehend research studies or don't read research: I have a master's degree, have taken classes on reading research, and have even conducted my own research study.  I suspect that very few people actually read the research. Most people read the abstracts and the conclusions at best.  Though more often we read what other people write about the research in articles and journals.  This is actually someone's INTERPRETATION of the research, which is why there is so much disagreement here. . . Two people can read the same study and come to a different conclusion.)  So, on to why I'm not vaccinating:

A. I'm concerned about injecting known neuro-toxins directly into my daughter's blood, especially aluminum and especially while she is so young and the blood/brain barrier might not be fully developed.

B. There is a history of serious auto-immune disorders in my family and am concerned she might be predisposed/sensitive and I don't want to "push it."

C.  I carefully considered each vax and the risks to my daughter. Since we live in an area with few outbreaks, she doesn't go to daycare, doesn't have older siblings, isn't a member of an ethnic group that is more susceptible, and is breast fed, I felt she was at an extremely low risk of catching something at this time.  We had a consultation with her doctor to discuss each vaccine, the risks of the disease, etc.)

C. My life experiences have led me to be skeptical of the western medical system and government regulatory agencies.  (Said life experiences include: my own struggle with chronic health problems that were unresolved - and highly medicated by - the western medical system, but later totally, and easily healed with naturopathic medicine; my previous work as a pharmacist technician - the whole industry is so unethical; my current work as an elementary school teacher - it is truly frightening how many students have developmental/social/behavioral issues - I'm not kidding, it is more and more every year; my graduate research on brain development; and my passion learning about food and nutrition.  I'm not "anti-science," but I currently trust "nature" more than I trust "science."  At some point over the last five years, my baseline for evaluating nearly everything (food, medicine, parenting choices, etc.) is "What were humans designed to do?  What has worked for the human species for thousands of years?"

4. Advice: Read the research, articles, and opinion pieces on both sides of the argument.  If possible, talk to other parents who struggle with this decision - hearing someone else's opinions can help you clarify your own (which I suspect is why you asked the questions in the first place!) Don't feel bullied or pressured to do (or not do) anything - you have to be comfortable with your decision.  If you aren't sure yet, delay vaxing. You can always catch up later if you decide that is what you want to do, but you can't "undo" a vaccine.  Seriously consider an alternate schedule over the CDC schedule if you do vaccinate.  (Even for the vaccines I would consider giving, I seriously question the CDC's timeline.) Consider each vax separately - it isn't an "all or nothing" decision.  Imagine the worst outcome for both decisions - vaccine reaction with vaccinating; preventable disease without vaccinating - how would you feel about each one? If you don't vax, be very proactive about protecting your child in other ways.  If you do vax, research the steps you can take to minimize vaccine reactions and avoid complications.