or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › 90% convinced to not vaccinate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

90% convinced to not vaccinate - Page 2

post #21 of 38
Except even if a vaccinated person carries the bacteria they most likely aren't sick with a cough or are sick with a very mild one so they aren't nearly as likely to spread the disease. Cocooning certainly doesn't guarantee an a symptomatic person won't give your child pertussis, but it can help improve the odds!
post #22 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Except even if a vaccinated person carries the bacteria they most likely aren't sick with a cough or are sick with a very mild one so they aren't nearly as likely to spread the disease.

 

If they have a mild cough, they probably go about their normal lives, maybe even visiting friends with babies, whereas a person with the full symptoms of pertussis would not.

post #23 of 38

I have been riding the "vaccination" merry go around for several decades and am 100% convinced it is all one great deadly scam. The "vaccines" do not prevent their target disease and are EXTREMELY toxic to your children.

 

Yes I know this is an "extreme" position but after thousands of hours of study I feel very confident in making it.

 

For YOU there is no other way but to become INFORMED about "vaccination".

 

Most rational countries DELAY most "vaccination" beyond the first two years of brain development; FOUR is better.

 

Here is one of the great problems with "vaccination"; it is only ONE of MANY.

 

"All vaccines given over a short period of time to an immature immune system deplete the thymus gland (the primary gland involved in immune reactions) of irreplaceable immature immune cells. Each of these cells could have multiplied and developed into an army of valuable cells to combat infection and growth of abnormal cells. When these immune cells have been used up, permanent immunity may not appear. The Arthur Research Foundation in Tucson, Arizona estimates that up to 60 % of our immune system may be exhausted[19] by multiple mass vaccines (36 are now required for children). Only 10 % of immune cells are permanently lost when a child is permitted to develop natural immunity from disease. There needs to be grave concern about these immune system injuring vaccinations! Could the persons who approve these mass vaccinations know that they are impairing the health of these children, many of whom are being doomed to requiring much medical care in the future?"   Is the "vaccination" needle a weapon of mass destruction

post #24 of 38
Thread Starter 

Wow, so what I'm getting is not only are there risks to the pertussis vaccine, there are actually no proven benefits?? I forget who posted the link to the cases of pertussis, but there seems to be an awful lot of cases if the shot worked.

 

I guess I misunderstood cocooning, I thought it to mean keeping the baby away from sick people...

post #25 of 38
Thread Starter 

Wow, so what I'm getting is not only are there risks to the pertussis vaccine, there are actually no proven benefits?? I forget who posted the link to the cases of pertussis, but there seems to be an awful lot of cases if the shot worked.

 

I guess I misunderstood cocooning, I thought it to mean keeping the baby away from sick people...

post #26 of 38

 

http://www.dailypaul.com/167931/a-collection-of-mainstream-news-reports-and-studies-exploding-the-whooping-cough-vaccine-myth

Quote:
A collection of mainstream news reports and studies exploding the whooping cough vaccine myth
 

 

Pertussis Epidemic Scam Threatens Children

http://www.omsj.org/corruption/pertussis-epidemic-scam-threatens-children

 

Whooping Cough and Pesticide Programs
California Counties 2010

http://harpub.co.cc/whoop/

post #27 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonflawah View Post

Wow, so what I'm getting is not only are there risks to the pertussis vaccine, there are actually no proven benefits?? I forget who posted the link to the cases of pertussis, but there seems to be an awful lot of cases if the shot worked.

 

I guess I misunderstood cocooning, I thought it to mean keeping the baby away from sick people...

 

 

 

Definition of cocooning:

http://www.preventpertussis.org/provider/

 

I don't think that is entirely how we have been using the word in this thread - but the intent is still the same.  Cocooning as defined by the CDC sets out to reduce risk by making sure those who care for baby are vaccinated.  On this thread we have discussed limiting the number of people who see baby to reduce risk.  The two are not exclusive - one can choose to get a booster for themselves while still limiting excursion where the masses are in close contact.  

 

 

Look at it this way:  

 

The baby sees or is in close contact with  only 2 people a day (mother and father for this example).  The baby might go for a walk or hang  out in the back yard, but is generally kept at a distance from people   (this article say drops spread through coughing travel 3 feet).  The baby really only has 2 sources of exposure  - the parents.  One may be able to reduce the risk further if the parents get a booster shot.

 

http://childrenshospital.org/clinicalservices/Site1863/Documents/What%20You%20Should%20Know%20about%20Germs.pdf

 

OTOH, a baby is brought out wherever.  Baby might go to the mall, festivals, ride on public transit, daycare, etc.  There are countless number of  transmission routes for pertussis and way more risk of exposure.  I think wandering around with an infant in a severe pertussis outbreak is not an overly safe activity.  

 

The question that remains  (for me ) is this:

 

When we say pertussis is 59-85 percent effective, what does that mean?  Does it mean 70% (ex) will not get the disease if exposed to it?  Does it mean some may get it - but it will be milder (which is of limited value for family members in regard to spreading the disease as they are in very close contact with the family).  What is the breakdown on getting a mild case versus not getting it at all for vaxxed adults?

 

I think limiting a babies outings is a good idea no matter what in a serious outbreak, but what effectiveness rate means might influence whether or not the parents choose to get a booster for themselves.  

 

Off to figure out exactly what they mean by effectiveness rate when they discuss pertussis!

 

Anyone know and have links?


Edited by purslaine - 5/27/12 at 7:56am
post #28 of 38

OP:

 

Here is a great link for you (or any lurkers) on pertussis.

 

http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Whooping-Cough.aspx

post #29 of 38
Cocooning how the CDC describes it means making sure all adults and older kids who come into contact with an infant are vaccinated against pertussis. Now that also means basically that you don't take the baby to public places either since the vaccination status of each person is unknown. We plan on doing cocooning when our new baby is born in Sept. I call it "cocooning with a hole" since I am not going to vax my other 3 y/o daughter and she will be attending two day a week preschool. But every adult that comes to isot either must have TDaP or a history of recent (last 5 years) naturally acquired pertussis with a titer to prove it. And we will take turns leaving the house to go to the store, take DD to school, etc. it's going to be boring for sure, but I've really looked at all the risks and benefits and in my heart this seems like the best way I personally can go. Sure the Tdap is not 100% but I have no issues with fully grown consenting adults with no history of vaccine reactions getting it as added insurance. My DH and parents have already gotten it. (And a few weeks later my DHs workmate got pertussis! He's been out of work for months. DH did not get it. So i at least think the tiny percentage of effecacy of the vax might for sure been in his favor there.) As for me, had pertussis 4 years ago so I got a titer to make sure I am still immune. Anyway, I know for "perfect" cocooning I would be getting my other child her DTaP series. But after researching it very very extensively I found that 1.). It is a misconception that 3 doses is the base series. 3 is the base for D and T but for pertussis 4 is considered the base series. Only then do kids have the (poor) 56-80% immunity. There have been no studies throwing kids have a percentage of immunity from each shot. It could be assumed but without proof it's not fair to bet on it. So I'd have to give my DD 4 doses of DTaP to even give her minimal protection. There is not enough time to adequately space them before the new baby is born, as well as I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks of the vaccine.

Now tetanus, that's a different story. The vax is 98% effective after 2-3 doses. If there was a thimerasol free single tetanus vaccine I would do it in a minute....But it doesn't exist so again, all the risks and benefits have to be weighed again...
post #30 of 38
Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

When we say pertussis is 59-85 percent effective, what does that mean?  Does it mean 70% (ex) will not get the disease if exposed to it?  Does it mean some may get it - but it will be milder (which is of limited value for family members in regard to spreading the disease as they are in very close contact with the family).  What is the breakdown on getting a mild case versus not getting it at all for vaxxed adults?

 

It is all black magic Kathy. During flu season when you get sniffles 86% of the time it is NOT from the "seasonal flu" but one of the viruses you carry in your body year around. Whatever virus(es) was the cause of your sniffles the CDC nor anyone else knows. How can something this nebulous even be investigated on a mass basis. Smoke and mirrors; just another reason to get a needle into your arm and some mercury into your body.

 

Vitamin D can solve all your viral problems.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm.

post #31 of 38
Saying its 59-85% effective means somewhere in that range is the percentage of people who won't get it at all if exposed. There is a separate effectiveness rate for serious cases that is higher.
post #32 of 38
Kathy, I remember reading that 59-85% effective means the DIFFERENCE between
1) those who get the shot and don't get the disease and
2) those who don't get the shot and still don't get the disease.

So, for example, in the case of flu shots, 59-85% fewer people who've gotten the flu shot get the flu than those who haven't gotten the flu shot--but either way, close to 95% of BOTH groups studied did NOT get the flu.


It does NOT mean that 59-85% who get exposed are protected.

I believe that was according to the Cochrane Collaborative, but am out of town right now, and not able to access the files on my computer where I had that info saved.
post #33 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Kathy, I remember reading that 59-85% effective means the DIFFERENCE between
1) those who get the shot and don't get the disease and
2) those who don't get the shot and still don't get the disease.
So, for example, in the case of flu shots, 59-85% fewer people who've gotten the flu shot get the flu than those who haven't gotten the flu shot--but either way, close to 95% of BOTH groups studied did NOT get the flu.
It does NOT mean that 59-85% who get exposed are protected.
I believe that was according to the Cochrane Collaborative, but am out of town right now, and not able to access the files on my computer where I had that info saved.

Your post spurred me to look around.

 

This article looked at how efficacy was described, and you are right, it has little to do with how many exposed people got the flu.  

 

If 2% of vaxxed get the flu and 4% of unvaxxed, the efficacy (50%) is the same as if 80% of of unvaxxed people got the flu and 40% of vaxxed did (once again 50%).  Efficacy is measured with attack rate of disease in unvaxxed minus the attack rate of disease in vaxxed divided by disease rate in unvaxxed.  (aru-arv/aru)

 

It was quite the interesting read - one I hope to go back over when I can take it all in.

 

https://www.hidionline.com/hidi/Documents/Vaccine_Epidemiology.pdf


Edited by purslaine - 6/17/12 at 5:37pm
post #34 of 38
Well you learn something new everyday.
post #35 of 38

That is interesting. So 50% effective means you're half as likely to get it if you get the shot than if you didn't, and 85% effective means you're almost 7 times less likely to get it if vaxxed than unvaxxed.

post #36 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

That is interesting. So 50% effective means you're half as likely to get it if you get the shot than if you didn't, and 85% effective means you're almost 7 times less likely to get it if vaxxed than unvaxxed.

 

If 9 percent of unvaxxed get a disease, and 1 percent of vaxxed do, the efficacy rate will be 88%  (9-1)/ 9

 

If 90% of unvaxxed get a disease, and 10 % of vaxxed do, the efficacy rate will still be 88%

 

For me, it is important to know the pecentage of people who get the disease in the first place, not just  the efficacy rate.

 

Using the top line, 91% of unvaxxed do not get disease xyz, and 99% of vaxxed do not get xyz, I might be inclined to skip xyz if xyz does not scare me too much in the first place.

 

Using the bottom number (and assuming I have no other issues with vaccines), where I have a 10% chance of getting a disease if vaxxed and a 90% if unvaxxed, I might be more inclined to vax.  


Edited by purslaine - 6/18/12 at 6:04am
post #37 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

If 9 percent of unvaxxed get a disease, and 1 percent of vaxxed do, the efficacy rate will be 88%  (9-1)/ 9

 

If 90% of unvaxxed get a disease, and 10 % of vaxxed do, the efficacy rate will still be 88%

 

For me, it is important to know the pecentage of people who get the disease in the first place, not just  the efficacy rate.

 

Using the top line, 91% of unvaxxed do not get disease xyz, and 99% of vaxxed do not get xyz, I might be inclined to skip xyz if xyz does not scare me too much in the first place.

 

Using the bottom number (and assuming I have no other issues with vaccines), where I have a 10% chance of getting a disease if vaxxed and a 90% if unvaxxed, I might be more inclined to vax.  

Quite right.

 

And if the vaccine has a risk of serious side effects (like Gardasil) or does not stop transmission of a disease (like FluMist or pertussis vaccines), then that weighs into the decision as well.

 

And we have only recently become aware that people can have serious side effects that are not immediately obvious--like autoimmune issues, seizures etc.  Vaccine-induced seizures may occur weeks after the vaccine--which is something most doctors have not been taught.  Certainly, most people are unaware of that possibliity, and if a child has his first-ever seizure 10 days after a vaccine, the parents would never dream that that vaccine might be involved, nor would the doctor, never having been trained to recognize this possibility.  Autoimmune disorders, once triggered, often take weeks or months for their symptoms to be apparent, even after autoimmune activity is clinically apparent. For example, with celiac disease, one can have visible damage to the intestinal villi well before one has noticeable intestinal symptoms.

post #38 of 38

Yeah I see you're point. You want to know both the baseline frequency, and the efficiacy of the vaccine in making the choice - not just one or the other. 

 

But I think it makes sense to talk about the rates relative to the unvaccinated population in this way since that figure is about the improvement the vaccine itself offers in avoiding a certain disease (ie. make you half as likely, or 9 times less likely to get the VPD), while the baseline frequency will change with time due to factors like what proportion of the population are immunised/immune, general hygiene etc. 

 

But definitely you want to know both when researching vaccine choices. 

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 › 90% convinced to not vaccinate