or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Journal Of Immunotoxicology
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Journal Of Immunotoxicology - Page 2

post #21 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

 

Id wager a guess that bokon sees the less risky option as NOT vaccinating with the MMR - that's why. Im sure she will anwser for herself!  As for your claim that serious vaccine reactions are even more rare than measles complications - well when 90% of vaccine reactions are denied by the scientific and medical communities as being vaccine reactions - it's not too hard to figure out why that is. You know for vaccine reactions being soooooooo rare and all - there are a BOATLOAD of parents out there with damaged children that were just fine before they received their vaccines. All those poor misguided parents left holding the bag caring for their damaged kids who have a wide variety of issues and problems. Misguided because while they KNOW the vaccines played a role in the damage - we all know it was merely a cooincidence.
 


 

Ah, there we have it.  You disagree with my analysis of the risks of vaccination because you trust anecdotal lay people's opinions over what scientists say the research says.  That's fine.  I can totally accept that.  We disagree fundamentally on what constitutes evidence, but again, that's fine.

 

It does make me wonder why you keep citing scientific articles, though, if you think that they are full of lies. 

post #22 of 55

I think the point being that some scientific evidence says vaccines are totally safe and some scientific evidence says that they're not.   Who do you believe?  Really, pick your biased opinion on anything, vax's included, and you can find the research to back it up. 

post #23 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxwill129 View Post

I think the point being that some scientific evidence says vaccines are totally safe and some scientific evidence says that they're not.   Who do you believe?  Really, pick your biased opinion on anything, vax's included, and you can find the research to back it up. 


I've never seen any scientific evidence that says that vaccines are totally safe.  Nor have I ever seen any scientific evidence that says that the vaccines used today create a risk of brain damage or death that is greater than the risk of brain damage or death that they prevent.  I'd love to see it if you can find it.  smile.gif

post #24 of 55

I don't understand why some treat science as if it's math. When there isn't any "proof" of something, then there's absolutely no consideration of various theories until the proof has been made or if there is "proof" of something, then that is The Bible and there's no chance of it being wrong. Science is constantly evolving, there are numerous examples of "FACTS" in science that have later been proven WRONG.

 

There's so much unknown in science, otherwise, why would they still need to continue studies after studies to determine the effects of certain things on our bodies. Because they don't know. Or better yet, they never thought to consider that "hey, maybe this might be harmful, let's study it" until way later when it becomes so obvious to the rest of the world that something's amiss because the number of people suffering is too blatant to continue ignoring.

 

I don't understand why the apprehension to inject several live viruses of various diseases (and double the amount compared to when I was growing up) that contain traces of aluminum, formaldehyde, mercury etc. over and over again into a tiny baby's body is such a hard thing to understand?

 
 

Quote:

Nor have I ever seen any scientific evidence that says that the vaccines used today create a risk of brain damage or death that is greater than the risk of brain damage or death that they prevent.

 
Well of course not, maybe because no one has studied it??

post #25 of 55

 


Quote:

Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post





All I'm saying is that it makes sense to choose a lower risk rather than a higher risk.  Vaccines have a very, very low risk.  Measles also has a low risk, but it is considerably higher.  Again, I never said or implied that measles is "terrifying" or that everyone who doesn't get vaccinated is going to die from it.  eyesroll.gif  I said that it is not harmless.  It was never harmless.  It continues to not be harmless.  IMO, it is much more harmful than vaccines.  IMO, vaccines save far more lives than they endanger, whereas measles endangers many lives without, as far as I can see, saving any.  If you disagree with my analysis as to which is riskier, that's fine.  But I don't understand why you apparently fail to see the benefit of choosing the less risky option. 


What a second....Am I missing something here?  Vaccines have a very, very low risk?   Since when? Do you know what's IN vaccines? Let me give you a quick preview: 

 

"Vaccines contain ingredients such as MSG, antifreeze, phenol (used as a disinfectant), formaldehyde (cancer causing and used to embalm), aluminum (associated with alzheimer’s disease and seizures), glycerin (toxic to the kidney, liver, can cause lung damage, gastrointestinal damage and death), lead, cadmium, sulfates, yeast proteins, antibiotics, acetone (used in nail polish remover), neomycin and streptomycin.  And the ingredient making the press is thimerosol (more toxic than mercury, a preservative still used in many vaccines, not easily eliminated, can cause severe neurological damage as well as other life threatening autoimmune disease).  These vaccines are grown and strained through animal or human tissue, like monkey and dog kidney tissue, chick embryo, calf serum, human diploid cells (the dissected organs of aborted fetuses), pig blood, horse blood and rabbit brain."   

 

Can you honestly say they are safe and carry very, very low risk after studying what's in them?  Forget about studies and crunching numbers, look at the inserts!   If I       

 


Edited by SilverMoon010 - 4/1/11 at 4:18pm
post #26 of 55

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by babysanchez614 View Post

I don't understand why the apprehension to inject several live viruses of various diseases (and double the amount compared to when I was growing up) that contain traces of aluminum, formaldehyde, mercury etc. over and over again into a tiny baby's body is such a hard thing to understand?

 


No, I understand why it might be scary.  I don't think that it's healthy to let fear overcome reason, but I certainly understand that it often does. 

 

Quote:
Well of course not, maybe because no one has studied it??

 

I wasn't the one who was saying that one could find a study showing anything one wanted.  I was arguing against that point.  I absolutely recognize (and love!) the fact that science is evolving, which means that we are safer and healthier all the time.  If someday the evidence shows that it is healthier and safer to remain unvaccinated than to be vaccinated, of course I will no longer support vaccination. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post


What a second....Am I missing something here?  Vaccines have a very, very low risk?   Do you know what's IN vaccines? Let me give you a quick preview: 

 

"Vaccines contain ingredients such as MSG, antifreeze, phenol (used as a disinfectant), formaldehyde (cancer causing and used to embalm), aluminum (associated with alzheimer’s disease and seizures), glycerin (toxic to the kidney, liver, can cause lung damage, gastrointestinal damage and death), lead, cadmium, sulfates, yeast proteins, antibiotics, acetone (used in nail polish remover), neomycin and streptomycin.  And the ingredient making the press is thimerosol (more toxic than mercury, a preservative still used in many vaccines, not easily eliminated, can cause severe neurological damage as well as other life threatening autoimmune disease).  These vaccines are grown and strained through animal or human tissue, like monkey and dog kidney tissue, chick embryo, calf serum, human diploid cells (the dissected organs of aborted fetuses), pig blood, horse blood and rabbit brain."   

 

Can you honestly say they are safe and carry very, very low risk after studying what's in them?  Forget about studies and crunching numbers, look at the inserts!   If I       


Do you have a reliable source for this list?

post #27 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post


 



Seriously, the fact that you and a few other children did fine is supposed to negate the fact that nearly one million children per year die as a result of measles?  Does the fact that my DD did fine with her MMR vax mean that the vax is nothing to worry about?  Because she did totally fine.  headscratch.gif

 

 

ROTFLMAO.gifbiglaugh.gif

 

Thanks for the laugh. You have a very skewed view of measles in the first world. 

post #28 of 55

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post

 


No, I understand why it might be scary.  I don't think that it's healthy to let fear overcome reason, but I certainly understand that it often does. 

 

 

I wasn't the one who was saying that one could find a study showing anything one wanted.  I was arguing against that point.  I absolutely recognize (and love!) the fact that science is evolving, which means that we are safer and healthier all the time.  If someday the evidence shows that it is healthier and safer to remain unvaccinated than to be vaccinated, of course I will no longer support vaccination. 
 


Do you have a reliable source for this list?


Here you go: 

 

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm

 

Unless everyone is reading the labels every time they get a vaccine, and review all of the ingredients, adverse effects, etc, they are taking a very HUGE risk.

 

With all of these adverse reactions listed on the inserts as well as toxic chemicals, don't you think it's healthcare providers' duty to inform patients of what can occur with these vaccines before injecting them and what they are filled with? No, they do not.  Instead, they jab in the needle with no conversation whatsoever about what's in them or how they can potentially affect the child.  Are they really looking out for parents' best interest, or just following what they are taught in med school? I would say it's the latter.  Doctors have no right pushing vaccines on parents when they don't even know what's in them to begin with, which is why it's ashame parents take every word of advice from their doctors without reseaching themselves. I think a lot of parents are afraid to go against the grain out of fear and some may even be afraid of what they may find if they started researching it, thus, just listen to the doctor. 

 

At a quick glance, just one (out of the many) that stands out to me is the Hep B vaccine. Take a look at the warning on that regarding human plasma and how products using human plasma can transmit disease, and although they screen donors, these "products can still potentially transmit disease." You never know what you're going to get, and that's scary! 

 

There are many, many more listed.  Just take a look for yourself and then decide if there is low risk. Don't forget...the AAP recommends several of these at one time each visit.  Hmmmmm.....no thank you.


Edited by SilverMoon010 - 4/1/11 at 5:59pm
post #29 of 55
Quote:
  I don't think that it's healthy to let fear overcome reason, but I certainly understand that it often does. 

 

 


So, we non-vaxxers are letting the fear of a vaccine reaction overcome our sense of reason? So, it must be reasonable to poke a baby with needles full of chemicals? If that is reason,  then I declare myself to be unreasonable! orngtongue.gif

post #30 of 55

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

ROTFLMAO.gifbiglaugh.gif

 

Thanks for the laugh. You have a very skewed view of measles in the first world. 


Oh, you're welcome.  I'm getting plenty of amusement out of this thread as well.  thumb.gif  Do you want to explain what your view is (and the reason you have that view), or do you want to leave me with my faulty vision?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post

 

Here you go: 

 

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm

 

Unless everyone is reading the labels every time they get a vaccine, and review all of the ingredients, adverse effects, etc, they are taking a very HUGE risk.

 

With all of these adverse reactions listed on the inserts as well as toxic chemicals, don't you think it's healthcare providers' duty to inform patients of what can occur with these vaccines before injecting them and what they are filled with? No, they do not.  Instead, they jab in the needle with no conversation whatsoever about what's in them or how they can potentially affect the child.  Are they really looking out for parents' best interest, or just following what they are taught in med school? I would say it's the latter.  Doctors have no right pushing vaccines on parents when they don't even know what's in them to begin with, which is why it's ashame parents take every word of advice from their doctors without reseaching themselves. 

I don't see your quotation at that source.  Am I missing something?

 

And sure, I do think it is a healthcare provider's duty to inform patients of the risks of vaccinations.  Every time I've been vaccinated or had my DD vaccinated, I've been given the handout that lists the risks.  My understanding is that it is required by law.  And yes, of course they do what they were taught in med school--which is also what is in their patients' best interests--unless there is some evidence that they should change their practices and then, for the most part, they do.  If they are pushy, that is a problem.  If they don't give the handout, or don't explain it to someone who wants an explanation, that is a problem.  I don't think it's the norm.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post


So, we non-vaxxers are letting the fear of a vaccine reaction overcome our sense of reason? So, it must be reasonable to poke a baby with needles full of chemicals? If that is reason,  then I declare myself to be unreasonable! orngtongue.gif


If you made your decision (whatever that decision is) based on your opinion about what is safer for your child, that's reasonable.  If you made it based on fear (which is how I interpreted the comment about "apprehension"), to me that is not reasonable, whatever your decision. 

post #31 of 55

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post

 

I don't see your quotation at that source.  Am I missing something?

 

And sure, I do think it is a healthcare provider's duty to inform patients of the risks of vaccinations.  Every time I've been vaccinated or had my DD vaccinated, I've been given the handout that lists the risks.  My understanding is that it is required by law.  And yes, of course they do what they were taught in med school--which is also what is in their patients' best interests--unless there is some evidence that they should change their practices and then, for the most part, they do.  If they are pushy, that is a problem.  If they don't give the handout, or don't explain it to someone who wants an explanation, that is a problem.  I don't think it's the norm. 



I provided you the inserts, which is much better than the quote I sent.  Look for yourself and you'll find the ingredients.  I'm not going to spoon-feed it.  I guarantee if I sent you the link  the quote is from, you will deem it "biased," so I sent you an unbiased resource.  Straight from the source.  You can't beat that.

 

BTW, can you show me your resource where it says vaccines have low risk, an unbiased resource like I provided you with regarding ingredients? Before vaccinating, did you read all of the inserts?  If not, I suggest you take a look at the insert website I sent and read the precautions/warnings of all vaccines and tell me if your doctor went over all of that with you.  If he/she did, it must have been a ten-hour visit! Are you seriously talking about the laminated one-page sheet about each vaccine? That covers not even a tiny portion of it all, and that is not enough for me since my child would be involved. Sorry, but I need more than that.  I need every single detail before I would make such a decision.

 

Do you truly not believe all of those ingredients are in them? I sincerely want to know, what do you think they are made of? It sounds like you don't believe they have those toxins/chemicals/animal tissue/cells in them.  If you don't believe that, you may want to research some more as you may be misguided/misinformed.


Edited by SilverMoon010 - 4/1/11 at 6:41pm
post #32 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by no5no5 View Post




I've no doubt the human race will survive vaccination as well.  smile.gif

 

My question is, if "rare" complications for measles meant about 1/20, why are serious vaccine complications, which are on the order of one in thousands or millions, not even more "rare"?

I'm very curious as to where the CDC got that number. Measles was very common when I was younger - we had about a third of our high school out with it over a period of a month or so (not me - I had it on a camping trip when I was much younger). Nobody developed pneumonia. Nobody was hospitalized. We're talking about somewhere around 300-400 kids. While I realize that's only one school, I've seen many, many studies (on various topics) that use considerably smaller sample groups than that. One in 20 measles patients developing pneumonia sounds like an insanely inflated stat to me.

post #33 of 55
Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post

 

At a quick glance, just one (out of the many) that stands out to me is the Hep B vaccine. Take a look at the warning on that regarding human plasma and how products using human plasma can transmit disease, and although they screen donors, these "products can still potentially transmit disease." You never know what you're going to get, and that's scary! 

 

 

headscratch.gif The vaccine doesn't contain human plasma... If anything, the quote above makes a good argument in favor of the vaccine.

post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post
"Vaccines contain ingredients such as MSG, antifreeze, phenol (used as a disinfectant), formaldehyde (cancer causing and used to embalm), aluminum (associated with alzheimer’s disease and seizures), glycerin (toxic to the kidney, liver, can cause lung damage, gastrointestinal damage and death), lead, cadmium, sulfates, yeast proteins, antibiotics, acetone (used in nail polish remover), neomycin and streptomycin.  And the ingredient making the press is thimerosol (more toxic than mercury, a preservative still used in many vaccines, not easily eliminated, can cause severe neurological damage as well as other life threatening autoimmune disease).  These vaccines are grown and strained through animal or human tissue, like monkey and dog kidney tissue, chick embryo, calf serum, human diploid cells (the dissected organs of aborted fetuses), pig blood, horse blood and rabbit brain."   

 



Could you please provide the name of even one vaccine containing antifreeze, lead, cadmium or acetone?

post #35 of 55

I am curious about the 1/20 complication rate.

 

In these discussions I think it is relevant to highlight  an inconsistency that I see happen.

 

When children die of measles, they are actually dying from pneumonia and acute encephalitis. Or SSPE. But they are not dying of measles. Yes, the complications are a result of the measles infection. But the infection alone is not a guarantee for death. There have to be other factors involved. Like malnutrition, age, underlying health issues, overcrowding.

 

I am guessing that in the event of the timing of a vaccine being associated with  a dramatic change in a child's overall health (for the worse) it could have acted like a trigger in a child who was at risk. Much like the wild virus is the trigger in a cascade of complications in a child (or adult) at risk.

 

We just don't know. As the children are not being studied. And for some people they are comfortable dismissing anecdotal stories as "correlation doesn't equal causation", or doing anything to cast suspicion on the parent making a claim. Rather than keep an open mind on an issue that has no conclusive information.

 

 

 

post #36 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugs View Post





Could you please provide the name of even one vaccine containing antifreeze, lead, cadmium or acetone?


That is not going to happen.

 

 

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/03/13/common-anti-vaccination-myths-and-misconceptions/

 

post #37 of 55


 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugs View Post





Could you please provide the name of even one vaccine containing antifreeze, lead, cadmium or acetone?

 You should definitely read the whole article.   Very informative. Whether this is not reliable enough for you, well, that's not my problem.

 

I also don't see you disputing the other 10 ingredients, in addition to the animal tissue. Are you saying you feel those are safe?

 

http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/VACCINES.08.htm

 

 

 

post #38 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugs View Post





Could you please provide the name of even one vaccine containing antifreeze, lead, cadmium or acetone?


Read VERY carefullly (This is actually from a different resource than where the originally quote came from);

 

Extremely toxic chemicals are always added to all vaccines.  They include mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, acetone, lead, cadmium and others.  Most often, they are not listed on the package insert.  However, they are needed as sanitizers, stabilizers and preservatives.

They must be added to reduce contamination of the vaccine with other viruses, bacteria, parasites, fecal matter and other items found in the culture medium on which the vaccine germs are grown.

These additives are themselves deadly, especially for very young children.  However, they are highly toxic for everyone.  For instance, they are all neurotoxic.  This means they impair and can destroy brain function, especially in young, quickly-growing children and infants. Some are toxic for the immune system, for the digestive system and for other body systems as well.

 

Read VERY carefullly (This is actually from a different resource than where the originally quote came from);  

 

 

post #39 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post




That is not going to happen.

 

 



Exactly winky.gif

 

post #40 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post


 

 


 ReadRedm

 

 

 

 

 

You should definitely read the whole article.   Very informative. Whether this is not reliable enough for you, well, that's not my problem.

 

I also don't see you disputing the other 10 ingredients, in addition to the animal tissue. Are you saying you feel those are safe?

 

http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/VACCINES.08.htm

 

 

 

I've read it and many others like it. However, it does not answer the question I posed: "Could you please provide the name of even one vaccine containing antifreeze, lead, cadmium or acetone?" 

 

As far as the other ingredients, yes they are present in small amounts, just as most are ubiquitous to our environment. Following the time-honored pharmacological principle of "The dose makes the poison", I am confident that a healthy body can filter and excrete these excess ingredients, while leaving behind the amounts of formaldehyde and aluminum that are naturally present in the body.Take that glycerin, for example (although its only in the smallpox vaccine); while it does have a threshold where it is considered toxic, it is also present in many health and beauty products, and is also a carrier for many herbal extracts and a ingredient in many foods. Point being, while these ingredients are not inherently safe, they are not inherently toxic either; even consuming pure water can be toxic in too high amounts. 

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Journal Of Immunotoxicology