or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Why so much mainstream hatred for non-vaxers?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why so much mainstream hatred for non-vaxers? - Page 13

post #241 of 312
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

Except that unless they qualified for TPS (Temporary Protected Status) after the earthquake, and are unemployed, if the visa status runs out they are required to return.

 

Also, when I went to Haiti (Oct. 2010 post earthquake) YF was not required.


But is it one country's responsibility to pay for the vaccines of foreign nationals leaving said country? 

 

I'm in a country where there is some YF in some areas, not the metropolitan areas. It is only available if you live in certain parts of the country. Paid for the govt of this nation.

 

post #242 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post



I was.  Your attitude towards their concerns about flu seems dismissive and cruel.  I'm glad you're nice to them in person.  



Apparently, you've run out of arguments, so you've resorted to personal attack. 

 

Fine--you can play that game if you'd like.  Why don't you give an example of where I was dismissive and cruel in my attitude towards my friends' concerns about flu? 

 

Oh, that's right.  You can't--because I was neither dismissive nor cruel, ever.

 

If you'd like to discuss an issue, then discuss the issue.  If you are taken aback by people posting proof that something you believe in--no matter how whole-heartedly-- is actually not what you'd been led to believe, please don't attack the messengers.  It doesn't do you any good, and it annoys the heck out of the messengers.

 

 

post #243 of 312

If the personally pointed comments continue I will need to remove privileges of members posting such comments so that this discussion can stay on track and comfortable for everyone. Please post about the general subject, without attacking or insulting anyone or any group - vaccinating or not vaccinating.

post #244 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

 

It would behoove the pro-vax camp to start taking measures to accomodate parents a bit more, instead of making choice more inconvenient.



I think you'll find that pro-vaxers do not see the issue in this light.  A substantial part of the whole point of vaccines is herd immunity, which works best with high levels of vaccination.  Thus, in the interests of public health, it makes sense to make getting a vaccine exemption inconvenient.  

 

HepA is a thing you get from eating in restaurants, typically.  HepB is a thing you get from infected needles and unprotected sex, or bite wounds.  HPV causes cancer.  Flu can be a killer for vulnerable populations, and the more people are immune to it, the safer those vulnerable people are.  CP is hideous for adults and the immuno-suppressed (can have flesh-eating bacteria as a sequel in extreme cases), and super massively inconvenient for a lot of working parents.  Vaccine reactions are rare.  I get that we're in this forum where basically everyone who habitually posts here disagrees with all or most of that, but as a point of information, from the pro-vax perspective limiting the spread of those diseases is an important goal and it does not make sense to make it easier (than it is now) for people to not vaccinate for these diseases.

post #245 of 312

Vaccine reactions are not rare.  Even the confirmed ones are not rare, and I am certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that most reactions are never documented and confirmed.

 

Manipulation of parental fears as part of vax campaign is the norm.  I find it offensive that I cannot trust the sources of information because they are pretty much in the pocket of pharma-for-profit interests and out to use information as a tool for their interests.  I hate the tactics that are used to attempt to manipulate me and my friends.  The big questions about risk aren't being asked and studied, because the government and medical establishment is heavily biased to be pro-vaccine and every other question they consider starts with that spoken or unspoken given.  First assumptions: Vaccines are great and a cornerstone of good health.  You aren't even allowed to be taken seriously as a professional studying vaccines if you don't accept that assumption.  Unbiased information is unavailable because it's essentially a condition for membership.

 

The truth is that vaccines are a questionable approach to health care with some major successes as well as some major weaknesses and contraindications.  Vaccines have lots of side effects.  Death is one of them.  Brain damage is another.  These are facts.  Debating the numbers for occurrence of each of these is questionable because the methods of collecting data are flawed.  However, we KNOW that they occur sometimes, we simply can't be sure how often.  Some of the side effects look minor (fevers, swelling, seizures) but these symptoms can indicate invisible damage is occurring to the brain or immune system in many cases.  Such side effects are much more scary because we can't get any numbers at all that are trustworthy.  However, the minor side effects are not rare at all.  It's pretty well documented that "minor" reactions are common.  We have no way of knowing their effects are all temporary.  We have no way to tell how vaccinations do or do not effect the rampant autoimmune and allergic health problems in our population, but there is reason enough to suspect connections that our scientific community ought to be pouring lots of effort into finding out.  The token effort to rule out any connection to autism is a joke, and it is appallingly unscientific that the media is spreading what little has been studied as proof that there is no connection.  It's bad science to state that not finding one particular connection means that all possible connections have been disproven.  It is so sad to me that we cannot trust our scientists and health care organizations to place health and safety first--even those who aren't in the pockets of big-business are stuck using the studies and data provided by those who are and stuck with the absence of studies in broad areas because studies in those areas aren't profitable and don't get the funding. 

 

Anyone who really wants to weigh this out is stuck between a rock and a hard place trying to make an informed decision about this.  The information is appallingly limited and biased, so we have to make do with what we get and extrapolate from what we know if we don't want to just follow the directives we receive with little question.  I fall back on what I know of nature and its resilience.  I fall back on what I know about the typical "slippery slope" of side effects that lead to more interventions that lead to more side effects that come from so many of our "cleverest" interventions in human bodies.  Meddling with the immune system of newborns is a very scary intervention.  It's quite a propaganda victory that we aren't all a lot more scared of that.  Since I can't trust the information I can access, I have to fall back on the fact that I trust the immune system God gave me a whole lot more than I trust the humans who are entangled in this for-profit health care system.  It's not that that my natural immune system is never ever ever going to allow something bad to happen, but I sure don't see that great health and vitality is coming from that health care system.  Its methods are consistently flawed and frightening in many other health matters besides vaccination--what would make vax more trustworthy than some of these other interventions?  Increasing investment in pharmaceuticals (remember vaxes are really just a pharmaceutical product we are being sold) sure as heck does not make me feel that bad health outcomes are less likely for me.  Americans just aren't getting healthier from trusting what that system provides, and we aren't even on the path to begin to fix it.  I think the more health intervention I accept from "Big Medicine" the more risks I am taking that I will be the victim of the next severe side effect that we didn't see coming.  I notice so many people in deteriorating or vulnerable health with no known cause.  I suspect a fair bit of it is side effects that we just haven't tracked down yet, because it really doesn't seem natural to me.

 

Healthy immune systems don't come from shots.  Isolated immunity to some single diseases might come from shots, but something widespread in modern health is causing immune systems to fall apart, and vaxes are a top suspects for possible causes.  I think vaxes are a major risk to take for anyone who is concerned to have overall good health.  It's really hard to close one's eyes to that once you've glimpsed the rest of the story.  Once you see that there really are two sides to this, you can't forget it and you can never feel 100% sure that you are doing the right thing again. 

 

For anyone who comes here 100% knowing that vaxing is "right" I know that you have never seen that the other point of view.  Once you can see, you wouldn't judge because you would know that there are two sides.  You would know that the questions are quite serious even though they are hard to answer.  You would know that either action we take might be a mistake.  If you can't see that there is any legitimacy to the other point of view, I observe that your comments will always be harshly judgmental.  I cannot say whether your choice to vax is right or wrong, but I know that taking away my right to decide what goes in my body is a deep and serious violation.  I also know that the widespread propaganda that tricks me into making a particular decision is an equally serious violation.  The widespread propaganda that says mainstream folks should fear and judge non-vaxers is also a violation that turns us against each other when we should in fact be on the same side--the side that promotes the health of our children.  Vaccination masquerades as a simple solution, but it is not simple.  Nonvaxers deserve respect for what we face and choose as well, instead of being treated as though we must be ignorant and evil and dangerous to you.  It isn't that simple.  Don't be manipulated into thinking it is.

post #246 of 312
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

I think you'll find that pro-vaxers do not see the issue in this light.  A substantial part of the whole point of vaccines is herd immunity, which works best with high levels of vaccination.  Thus, in the interests of public health, it makes sense to make getting a vaccine exemption inconvenient.  

 


Yeah, I realize that. I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens... I can speculate all I want, but who knows what's gonna happen... I just see the issue becoming more polarized, more interested in sel/del/non vax, and more routes taken by the powers that be to increase the vax and minimize the choice. I wonder when things will break.

 

Luckily there are still ways around it, for the most part, for those who want it.

 

Hep A and CP are diseases that everyone would be better off getting in childhood, in my opinion. 

 

I guess we could go into a herd immunity debate, but I'm sure that's been done a gazillion times here before. 

 

Even if we could agree that herd immunity is 100% true, do we not get into ethical issues of individual vs. group? Issues of is it ok to sacrifice some children for the better of the group? I have issues with this. I can understand the numbers, if we *assume* that they and herd immunity are 100% true, that there are few reactions and it saves a lot more money, health problems, deaths. But I don't see how we can ask a parent to put that onto the potential health of their child, and not only ask, but misinform and bully.

 

Worse is that parents don't really know what they are signing their kids up for. Mainstream info about vaccines is terrible, as I addressed earlier in the post (post 109, page 6). And, worse - 

 

 

Quote:
In addition to broad liability protection, the 1986 Law also provides another shield to manufacturers under federal law. (48) The 1986 Law permits them the right to not disclose known risks to parents or guardians of those being vaccinated. Resting on the "learned intermediary" doctrine, manufacturers bear no liability for giving, or failing to give accurate or complete information to those vaccinated, and have only to provide relevant information to doctors, who must give patients CDC Vaccination Information Statements.(49)  (page 9)

 

(I want to know what is defined as "relevant information" to doctors, and how well do the cdc sheets disclose known risks? I've never seen one since never vaxed DD in the US, any link?)

 

 

The VICP doesn't appear to be functioning too well, and it's whole existence is because if we are putting children in the position of severe reactions/death for the good of others, their parents should be compensated...? Though I doubt that money really helps too much. 

 

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has put the burden of proof for bringing cases to the VICP low because vaccine science is "a field bereft of complete and direct proof of how vaccines affect the human body." (page 10), and if I'm reading the footnote of that quote correctly, that quote is from a 2005 court decision Althen v Secretary of Health and Human Services.

 

If you read that above article, you may (or may not) conclude that VICP is not actually following the burdens the petitioner must follow. I belive that the rules for amounts compensated set in 1986 have not changed since. 

 
I find hypocrisy in the whole we must vaccinate everyone for everything, on schedule, "to avoid" potential harm/death.... while by doing so we are putting children in direct way of harm/death.

 


Edited by slmommy - 2/21/12 at 4:33pm
post #247 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlest birds View Post

Nonvaxers deserve respect for what we face and choose as well, instead of being treated as though we must be ignorant and evil and dangerous to you.  It isn't that simple.  Don't be manipulated into thinking it is.



As today's representative of the pro-vax viewpoint, I feel bound to point out that what nonvaxers "face" and "choose" is to not go get vaccinated.  From what I can see that actually saves you some time and, depending on your insurance, a co-pay for the office visit.  As long as there aren't too many people who do this, you still benefit from herd immunity.  And then, at some point, if you send your kids to school, someone will ask for their shot records, and you will need to fill out an exemption form.  So you know, getting the records from the doctor can also be a time-consuming pain in the rear.  I've done both, so I can assure you that in some states it's actually easier to just file the exemption.  And then, your kids can be booted from school in an outbreak.  I've only ever heard of that happening once, in the case in NY, though I suppose that can't actually be the first time.  It's still rare.  Also, it protects their health, so I don't really see the outrage.  

 

Reactions are also really rare.  I don't know why autism is on the rise, and neither does anyone else (though I lean towards believing that the numbers are up in part because willingness to diagnose is up), and if they did know what caused autism, the scientific community really would move heaven and earth to stop it.  If you don't trust the scientific community at all, that's no comfort to you.  

 

Does anyone have anything else to say about the Nazis?  I came for Nazis.  I have an article to write this week, so if we're done with Nazis, I'm out.  

 

 

post #248 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

Hep A and CP are diseases that everyone would be better off getting in childhood, in my opinion. 

 

My mom got Hepatitis A as a five year old kid. Her liver was damaged ever since, and got progressively worse. The last 20 years were especially miserable for her. (She's in a hospital right now, and was there five times last year.) Maybe she should start a campaign with a slogan "Hep A disease for every kid - because everyone is better off getting Hep A in childhood! (tm)" 

post #249 of 312
Thread Starter 

Autism rise can not just be explained by willingness to diagnosis:

 

Quote:

Dr. Thomas Insel, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health and Chair of the federal government's Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC)
 
...
"As far as I can tell, the burden of proof is upon anybody who feels that there is NOT a real increase here in the number of kids affected," Dr. Insel told me in a telephone interview on Friday. He said factors such as better ascertainment "don't really explain away this huge increase" and that "you really have to take this (increase) very seriously -- from everything they are looking at, this is not something that can be explained away by methodology, by diagnosis."

 

And the "effort" to really explore the issue:

 

 

Quote:

On January 12, (2009) a cadre of mid-level health bureaucrats left over from the Bush administration ignored Federal requirements for advance notice in order to vote to quietly strip vaccine research studies from funding allocated by Congress in the Combating Autism Act (CAA) of 2006. Members of Congress had said that this money should be used to study the vaccine-autism connection.

These rogue bureaucrats -- members of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee -- held an unannounced vote to remove previously approved vaccine studies from funding under the CAA. Nearly all of the "Federal" members of the panel voted to remove the two studies, whose estimated cost was $16 million - or 1.6% of the billion dollars authorized by Congress for autism. The panel's civilian members, in contrast, voted nearly unanimously to retain the funding.

IACC's action to halt vaccine-autism research flies in the face of congressional intent. The bill's authors clearly stated that vaccine research should be funded. Even the esteemed Institute of Medicine has condemned CDC's methods. In 2005, an IOM panel condemned CDC for its "lack of transparency" in vaccine-autism research.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-david-kirby/autism-vaccines-and-the-c_b_161395.html

 

oooh I wonder who were the individuals that held the unannounced vote to remove the study... 

 

Maybe I should've put this in the main vax forum... no more nazis here, good luck with your article stik!

post #250 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

>Reactions are also really rare.  

and you know this how?

Those of us who have seen reactions, and reacted ourselves keep telling you that, no, it's not rare, and that most reactions have gone unrecognized and unreported. As littlest birds pointed out in her brilliant post, the methods of collecting data for vaccine reactions are severely flawed.

But you keep repeating that "reactions are really rare,"

If they're so rare, why are there so many of us who have had them? And why have those of us who have had them faced the same ignorance and lack of concern from those who might have diagnosed us if they'd only known that what we were experiencing was NOT really rare, and was NOT a coincidence?

And when we WERE finally diagnosed by an MD specialist who actually was familiar with vaccine reactions, why do we STILL encounter well-meaning, well-educated, but somehow still ignorant people who insist that "reactions are really rare?"

And why do these same people never say, "complications from childhood illnesses are really rare," but instead talk about herd immunity, how measles kills, pertussis kills, flu kills?

What about when vaccines kill?

What about when vaccines change your health forever?

What about when vaccines change your life forever?

And, no, you can't say, "well, that happens more rarely than complications from childhood disease," because the truth is, you don't know if that's true, because the reactions go unreported, and the complications from childhood diseases are reported in such a way as to factor in complications in third-world, war-torn, famine-stricken countries. The complications from flu are simply dishonestly reported (in the US, elderly who die of pneumonia are listed as flu deaths whether they had flu or not, not that they were EVER tested for flu).

Interesting, how NOBODY who has lost a child, or a child's health, or their own health to a vaccine has ever stepped forward and implored people to vaccinate their children "for the sake of the herd."
post #251 of 312
Thread Starter 

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoubleDouble View Post

My mom got Hepatitis A as a five year old kid. Her liver was damaged ever since, and got progressively worse. The last 20 years were especially miserable for her. (She's in a hospital right now, and was there five times last year.) Maybe she should start a campaign with a slogan "Hep A disease for every kid - because everyone is better off getting Hep A in childhood! (tm)" 

 

What I understand about Hep A infections in children is as follows:


"Hepatitis A infection causes no clinical signs and symptoms in over 90% of infected children and since the infection confers lifelong immunity, the disease is of no special significance to those infected early in life." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_A

 

Dr. Sears says only 30% of kids under 6 even act sick - mild intestinal thing, and 6-12 yrs is a bit worse, but not until teen/adults do most people have a major problem.

 

I'm sorry your mother isn't doing well, but this information was the basis of my statement.

 

post #252 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

Quote:

 

What I understand about Hep A infections in children is as follows:


"Hepatitis A infection causes no clinical signs and symptoms in over 90% of infected children and since the infection confers lifelong immunity, the disease is of no special significance to those infected early in life." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_A

 

Dr. Sears says only 30% of kids under 6 even act sick - mild intestinal thing, and 6-12 yrs is a bit worse, but not until teen/adults do most people have a major problem.


Now imagine if that Wiki article said:  "Hepatitis A vaccination causes no clinical signs in over 90% of vaccinated children", and if Dr. Sears said "Only 30% of kids under 6 even react after vaccination - mild intestinal thing, and 6-12 yrs is a bit worse".

 

Imagine the uproar and the rightful indignation! Everyone would be "whoa, this is huge! The numbers are so bad! Poor children, they so suffer!"

 

post #253 of 312
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDouble View Post


Now imagine if that Wiki article said:  "Hepatitis A vaccination causes no clinical signs in over 90% of vaccinated children", and if Dr. Sears said "Only 30% of kids under 6 even react after vaccination - mild intestinal thing, and 6-12 yrs is a bit worse".

 

Imagine the uproar and the rightful indignation! Everyone would be "whoa, this is huge! The numbers are so bad! Poor children, they so suffer!"

 

Apparently Hep A vax has been around since 1980's but wasn't added to the schedule for everyone until 2006, so I guess some other people didn't consider it that important a vax for most kids either. It is largely to protect the adult population. It has a lot to do with people not washing their hands and spreading it and sewage/water issues. The vax does not offer lifetime immunity.

 

Yeah there would be major uproar if anyone admitted a vax caused clinical infection in 10-30% of the recipients.

 

 

post #254 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post



As today's representative of the pro-vax viewpoint, I feel bound to point out that what nonvaxers "face" and "choose" is to not go get vaccinated.  From what I can see that actually saves you some time and, depending on your insurance, a co-pay for the office visit.  As long as there aren't too many people who do this, you still benefit from herd immunity.  And then, at some point, if you send your kids to school, someone will ask for their shot records, and you will need to fill out an exemption form.  So you know, getting the records from the doctor can also be a time-consuming pain in the rear.  I've done both, so I can assure you that in some states it's actually easier to just file the exemption.  And then, your kids can be booted from school in an outbreak.  I've only ever heard of that happening once, in the case in NY, though I suppose that can't actually be the first time.  It's still rare.  Also, it protects their health, so I don't really see the outrage.  

 

Reactions are also really rare.  I don't know why autism is on the rise, and neither does anyone else (though I lean towards believing that the numbers are up in part because willingness to diagnose is up), and if they did know what caused autism, the scientific community really would move heaven and earth to stop it.  If you don't trust the scientific community at all, that's no comfort to you.  

 

Does anyone have anything else to say about the Nazis?  I came for Nazis.  I have an article to write this week, so if we're done with Nazis, I'm out.  

 

 

 

What we face is that we have seen additional information about reactions and risks that people who feel 100% sure they are right don't have to believe are legitimate.  We know there are real problems with vaccine safety and real problems with the information and lack of information about safety and long-term health effects.  We know there have been lots of reactions.  We know that there are many connections waiting to be made and some of them are likely to involve vaxes while some we will one day learn do not--but because of the undone studies we just can't tell yet.  There are people who do not want the studies done.  We know we are being manipulated when it comes to the information we receive and the way we receive it.  If the information is clearly being manipulated the sources are untrustworthy.  If I need to be manipulated to take actions that are 100% healthy then maybe that's because they are not 100% healthy.  Once we know that there are problems with vaxes, many of us can't turn back and pretend it is all okay anyway.  The facts present us with a more complex set of risks than most people are seeing.  If you are 100% confident about the wisdom of vax then you have never taken this other body of risk seriously.  You've probably never seen it very clearly, and that is probably because there is some serious information control in place about this.  I don't feel the least bit paranoid or conspiracy theorist about this--it' just obvious.

 

As you have stated again and again, you do not take the other body of risk seriously.  You obviously hardly even know what that body of risk is.  You need not stand in judgment of everyone who does.

 

Everyone who refuses vax faces judgment all around.  We also face two sets of risk when we make our choice.  You who are confidently pro-vax only see one set of risks as relevant.  You say that the other one is full of things that are "rare" and "unproven" and think that it is a black and white issue.  We face a pressure to be physically violated by something we perceive as dangerous, while our friends and neighbors mock us if we resist.  We face that vaxes may harm us AND one of the diseases we haven't vaxed against may harm us.  Some of the objectors have watched a child die from a vax reaction.  Some of us have watched a child have seizures caused by vax.  Some have seen a child disintegrate suddenly into an autistic state within hours after receiving vaxes.  Please attempt to wrap your mind around the power of that and have a little more respect for all of the people who have experienced this thing you say is "rare."  You should not brush it aside.  It breaks my heart that our freedom to choose what happens to our bodies is being threatened so intensely now. 

 

Vaccine simply have not been proven safe.  They are known to cause reactions mild, moderate, and severe, including death.  They certainly have not been proven innocent in causing SIDS, nor autism, nor autoimmune problems.  If you think they have, that must make you very comfortable.  My logical mind is such that I know they've not been proven to be even moderately safe, so I don't get to be comfortable that way. 

 

It's true that we do not know what causes autism.  We don't know what causes SIDS.  We don't know what causes autoimmune disorders and severe allergies.  And what I am saying is that it's got a few things to do with all of our meddling.  The possibility that these immunity-meddlers called vaxes could have something to do with immune system problems is pretty plausible.  We also do know that vaxes sometimes cause death and SIDS is death of an unknown cause.  Coincidence?  We do know that vaxes sometimes cause brain damage and autism appears to be widespread brain damage with an unknown cause.  Coincidence?  The power and money involved don't like these questions, and even awesome and ethical scientists are dependent on the power and money who fund them.  And also, these are extremely difficult studies to conduct.  So of course they are not happening and what little does happen is inadequate to reach the needed answers. 

post #255 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

Apparently Hep A vax has been around since 1980's but wasn't added to the schedule for everyone until 2006, so I guess some other people didn't consider it that important a vax for most kids either. It is largely to protect the adult population. It has a lot to do with people not washing their hands and spreading it and sewage/water issues. The vax does not offer lifetime immunity.

 

Yeah there would be major uproar if anyone admitted a vax caused clinical infection in 10-30% of the recipients.

 

 


Hep A isn't on the Canadian Vaccination Schedules at all.  It's one some people will get if they go to Mexico or wherever but not regularly given.  Is it more prevalent in the US or something?  I don't think most of Europe has it on their childhood schedules either along with the CP vax.

 

post #256 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyBoysBlue View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

Apparently Hep A vax has been around since 1980's but wasn't added to the schedule for everyone until 2006, so I guess some other people didn't consider it that important a vax for most kids either. It is largely to protect the adult population. It has a lot to do with people not washing their hands and spreading it and sewage/water issues. The vax does not offer lifetime immunity.

 

Yeah there would be major uproar if anyone admitted a vax caused clinical infection in 10-30% of the recipients.

 

 


Hep A isn't on the Canadian Vaccination Schedules at all.  It's one some people will get if they go to Mexico or wherever but not regularly given.  Is it more prevalent in the US or something?  I don't think most of Europe has it on their childhood schedules either along with the CP vax.

 



We (Australia) have chicken pox on the schedule for everyone but Hep A is only on for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders who live in high risk areas. And it's recommended for travel to some countries.

post #257 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlest birds View Post

Vaccine reactions are not rare.  Even the confirmed ones are not rare, and I am certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that most reactions are never documented and confirmed.

 

Manipulation of parental fears as part of vax campaign is the norm.  I find it offensive that I cannot trust the sources of information because they are pretty much in the pocket of pharma-for-profit interests and out to use information as a tool for their interests.  I hate the tactics that are used to attempt to manipulate me and my friends.  The big questions about risk aren't being asked and studied, because the government and medical establishment is heavily biased to be pro-vaccine and every other question they consider starts with that spoken or unspoken given.  First assumptions: Vaccines are great and a cornerstone of good health.  You aren't even allowed to be taken seriously as a professional studying vaccines if you don't accept that assumption.  Unbiased information is unavailable because it's essentially a condition for membership.

 

The truth is that vaccines are a questionable approach to health care with some major successes as well as some major weaknesses and contraindications.  Vaccines have lots of side effects.  Death is one of them.  Brain damage is another.  These are facts.  Debating the numbers for occurrence of each of these is questionable because the methods of collecting data are flawed.  However, we KNOW that they occur sometimes, we simply can't be sure how often.  Some of the side effects look minor (fevers, swelling, seizures) but these symptoms can indicate invisible damage is occurring to the brain or immune system in many cases.  Such side effects are much more scary because we can't get any numbers at all that are trustworthy.  However, the minor side effects are not rare at all.  It's pretty well documented that "minor" reactions are common.  We have no way of knowing their effects are all temporary.  We have no way to tell how vaccinations do or do not effect the rampant autoimmune and allergic health problems in our population, but there is reason enough to suspect connections that our scientific community ought to be pouring lots of effort into finding out.  The token effort to rule out any connection to autism is a joke, and it is appallingly unscientific that the media is spreading what little has been studied as proof that there is no connection.  It's bad science to state that not finding one particular connection means that all possible connections have been disproven.  It is so sad to me that we cannot trust our scientists and health care organizations to place health and safety first--even those who aren't in the pockets of big-business are stuck using the studies and data provided by those who are and stuck with the absence of studies in broad areas because studies in those areas aren't profitable and don't get the funding. 

 

Anyone who really wants to weigh this out is stuck between a rock and a hard place trying to make an informed decision about this.  The information is appallingly limited and biased, so we have to make do with what we get and extrapolate from what we know if we don't want to just follow the directives we receive with little question.  I fall back on what I know of nature and its resilience.  I fall back on what I know about the typical "slippery slope" of side effects that lead to more interventions that lead to more side effects that come from so many of our "cleverest" interventions in human bodies.  Meddling with the immune system of newborns is a very scary intervention.  It's quite a propaganda victory that we aren't all a lot more scared of that.  Since I can't trust the information I can access, I have to fall back on the fact that I trust the immune system God gave me a whole lot more than I trust the humans who are entangled in this for-profit health care system.  It's not that that my natural immune system is never ever ever going to allow something bad to happen, but I sure don't see that great health and vitality is coming from that health care system.  Its methods are consistently flawed and frightening in many other health matters besides vaccination--what would make vax more trustworthy than some of these other interventions?  Increasing investment in pharmaceuticals (remember vaxes are really just a pharmaceutical product we are being sold) sure as heck does not make me feel that bad health outcomes are less likely for me.  Americans just aren't getting healthier from trusting what that system provides, and we aren't even on the path to begin to fix it.  I think the more health intervention I accept from "Big Medicine" the more risks I am taking that I will be the victim of the next severe side effect that we didn't see coming.  I notice so many people in deteriorating or vulnerable health with no known cause.  I suspect a fair bit of it is side effects that we just haven't tracked down yet, because it really doesn't seem natural to me.

 

Healthy immune systems don't come from shots.  Isolated immunity to some single diseases might come from shots, but something widespread in modern health is causing immune systems to fall apart, and vaxes are a top suspects for possible causes.  I think vaxes are a major risk to take for anyone who is concerned to have overall good health.  It's really hard to close one's eyes to that once you've glimpsed the rest of the story.  Once you see that there really are two sides to this, you can't forget it and you can never feel 100% sure that you are doing the right thing again. 

 

For anyone who comes here 100% knowing that vaxing is "right" I know that you have never seen that the other point of view.  Once you can see, you wouldn't judge because you would know that there are two sides.  You would know that the questions are quite serious even though they are hard to answer.  You would know that either action we take might be a mistake.  If you can't see that there is any legitimacy to the other point of view, I observe that your comments will always be harshly judgmental.  I cannot say whether your choice to vax is right or wrong, but I know that taking away my right to decide what goes in my body is a deep and serious violation.  I also know that the widespread propaganda that tricks me into making a particular decision is an equally serious violation.  The widespread propaganda that says mainstream folks should fear and judge non-vaxers is also a violation that turns us against each other when we should in fact be on the same side--the side that promotes the health of our children.  Vaccination masquerades as a simple solution, but it is not simple.  Nonvaxers deserve respect for what we face and choose as well, instead of being treated as though we must be ignorant and evil and dangerous to you.  It isn't that simple.  Don't be manipulated into thinking it is.

 

The assumption of ignorance of the other group, on BOTH sides, is why this always seems to come to bitter recriminations.  

post #258 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

Quote:


 

 

Should we just continue to expand schedule? We could add vax for roseola, Fifths disease, Duke's disease, noravirus, add some more serotypes to prevnar, more serotypes for hpv, men B, get some vaccines for strep, Hep C, etc. etc. etc. All because someone could get these illnesses and not be able to go to work.

 

Nevermind that, I think, the more vax we add to the schedule, the more reactions we are going to have = more non-vaxers.

 

there is a vax in the making for that....

http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/21/10470608-norovirus-vaccine-showing-promise
 

 

post #259 of 312
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Originally Posted by slmommy View Post
 

Quote:

 

Should we just continue to expand schedule? We could add vax for roseola, Fifths disease, Duke's disease, noravirus, add some more serotypes to prevnar, more serotypes for hpv, men B, get some vaccines for strep, Hep C, etc. etc. etc. All because someone could get these illnesses and not be able to go to work.

 

Nevermind that, I think, the more vax we add to the schedule, the more reactions we are going to have = more non-vaxers.

 

Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post
 

there is a vax in the making for that....

http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/21/10470608-norovirus-vaccine-showing-promise
 

 

I think quite a few on that list are `in the making`....

 

post #260 of 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

Quote:


But is it one country's responsibility to pay for the vaccines of foreign nationals leaving said country? 

 

I'm in a country where there is some YF in some areas, not the metropolitan areas. It is only available if you live in certain parts of the country. Paid for the govt of this nation.

 



Well, when YF is required to enter another country, admission to that country can be denied without proof of receiving the vaccine. And considering the cost of deporting an individual, tacking on the cost of vaxing that individual against the required diseases is probably insignificant.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: I'm Not Vaccinating
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Why so much mainstream hatred for non-vaxers?