what are the cons of vaccinations? - Page 4

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I don't know a lot about epigenetics, so bare with me, but I thought it, by definition, meant NOT changing DNA, just DNA expression?

Is changing DNA expression irrelevant?

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm just trying to understand the argument.  I thought it was that the DNA in vaccines would recombine with the recipient's DNA and re-write their DNA (at least one person has referred to this as creating hybrid human beings.)  Then the argument was that there was a contaminated batch of Polio vaccine that had a virus that can change DNA, this seems to be independent of the issue of human DNA in vaccines.  Both of these have been referred to as epigenetics, which I thought specifically meant NOT changing DNA but only gene expression.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm just trying to understand the argument.  I thought it was that the DNA in vaccines would recombine with the recipient's DNA and re-write their DNA (at least one person has referred to this as creating hybrid human beings.)  Then the argument was that there was a contaminated batch of Polio vaccine that had a virus that can change DNA, this seems to be independent of the issue of human DNA in vaccines.  Both of these have been referred to as epigenetics, which I thought specifically meant NOT changing DNA but only gene expression.

So you're patching together different posters' arguments to refute them as one, and then complaining that it doesn't make sense?

[stik]

Yeah, I am really interested in the assertion that vaccines make hybrid humans.  I want to hear more about that.  I'm intrigued. 

I agree that all kinds of things affect our cells all the time, and sometimes the effects include cancer.  This is hardly a whole-body conversion though - people with cancer do not have 100% of their DNA messed up or replaced by viral DNA.  We're talking about a few cells that picked up a mutation somewhere, sometimes through perfectly natural errors in cell replication, and went rogue creating tumors and malignancies. 
 

[Rrrrrachel]

No, bokonon, I'm just trying to clarify. If they're separate that's good to know.

[BeckyBird]

Ok, 1 person said "hybrid", and nobody claimed "100% of DNA messed up or replaced by viral DNA".

The fact remains-DNA can be altered by viruses.

Now, on the subject of hybrids....this is very interesting, and I too would love to learn more. My question is this--if a virus can alter DNA, and a virus from a vaccine can alter DNA, what happens when the virus is mixed with foreign DNA and injected? I gave a few examples where foreign DNA was introduced via virus, so it's within the realm of possibility. Real-life SciFi!

[Rrrrrachel]

There's no evidence the attenuated viruses in vaccines can alter DNA. Not all viruses are created equal.

[BeckyBird]

When you say "there's no evidence", do you mean there have been experiments which prove the vaccine viruses absolutely do NOT alter DNA? Or, do you mean there is nothing in current scientific literature to suggest this, therefore there is no evidence?

When I hear the phrase "there's no evidence", I always want to follow it with the word "YET"!!

[Rrrrrachel]

It's difficult to sort out because people came into the conversation part way through and seemed to be agreeing with a previous poster but really they were just bringing up another issue, I guess.

[Rrrrrachel]

There's no evidence, to me, means there's no research or theoretical science to support it. Not that there's evidence against it.

Theres no evidence vegetables cause pregnancy. Yet.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 


Theres no evidence vegetables cause pregnancy. Yet.

*applause* *standing ovation* *applause*

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

There's no evidence, to me, means there's no research or theoretical science to support it. Not that there's evidence against it.

Too much openness and you accept every notion, idea, and hypothesis—which is tantamount to knowing nothing. Too much skepticism—especially rejection of new ideas before they are adequately tested—and you're not only unpleasantly grumpy, but also closed to the advance of science. A judicious mix is what we need. 

— Carl Sagan

[BeckyBird]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

There's no evidence, to me, means there's no research or theoretical science to support it. Not that there's evidence against it.
Theres no evidence vegetables cause pregnancy. Yet.

Why do vegetables always enter the conversation?

[amnesiac]

Maybe it would help to elaborate on exactly what is meant by "viruses alter DNA" and to explain the mechanism by which that alteration occurs?

Maybe that dialogue would be helpful for those evaluating whether that particular issue is pertinent or is a "con" of vaxing?

[AbbyGrant]

      Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

Too much openness and you accept every notion, idea, and hypothesis—which is tantamount to knowing nothing. Too much skepticism—especially rejection of new ideas before they are adequately tested—and you're not only unpleasantly grumpy, but also closed to the advance of science. A judicious mix is what we need. 

— Carl Sagan

I don't see what that has to do with what Rrrrrachel said.

[BeckyBird]

Well, since we don't know everything about DNA,  it might be premature to suggest that "There's no evidence the attenuated viruses in vaccines can alter DNA." There's no evidence.....yet!

(If you talk about vegetables one more time, be careful, because your head might turn into a cabbage.)

This idea was rejected before it was adequately tested. Why is there no evidence? Has it been adequately tested in order to come to this conclusion? If so, where are the tests? I'm asking, because I haven't found any. Maybe someone can tell me where the tests are that prove this lack of evidence. The lack of evidence that the live viruses in vaccines mixed with foreign DNA could cause some kind of harm. Where is that evidence? (apparently it is located in Rrrrachel's vegetable crisper.)

I, Becky, do not find the years of "safe vaccination" to be proof.

................................................................................................................................................................................................................

And, since I'm nursing at the keyboard, I have a few uninterrupted minutes to finish (I'm never going to wean this kid)......

................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Genetically modified foods were unleashed on the public before any human safety tests were conducted. Monsanto: "There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops". http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx#q2

*So, we are learning of the harmful effects of GMO's from...drumroll......adverse reactions in animals (farm & lab animals) that are fed the GMO's. Scratching head...hmm, so if this hurts animals, what does it to do people? Maybe safety tests are in order?

*No, according to Monsanto, they are not. The FDA, in Monsanto's back pocket? Forget about that too. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/29/MNEN1NDVO3.DTL

If there are no "Official" safety studies on the DNA in our food, then is it safe to assume there are no "Official" safety studies on the DNA in our sacred cow vaccines? Are there any acceptable safety--Pro Science--studies? Where's the real science I hear so much about on these forums???

[BeckyBird]

Which brings me to answer the question, "What are the CONS of vaccination?"

My opinion, mine alone, I do not speak for the entire community of non-vaccinating parents.....

  I do not have any faith in the CDC or FDA--the organizations that are supposed to protect us. I don't like them, and I don't trust them. No Faith! We, the people of the USA (can't speak for other countries) are expected to believe in these organizations, and make health decisions based on their recommendations. I have no faith in them.

   Now, does this mean every pediatrician, doctor, lab researcher, etc. is involved in some huge conspiracy to harm the public? No, and if you suggest this, then you are deliberately trying to steer the issue into sketchy territory. No, the health professionals are given info to pass on to their patients. The researchers are given experiments to run. These are good, hard working people. I have a problem with the people at the top--the ones who make public policies, who profit off of the drugs recommended, who are involved in revolving door relationships. The ones who give the info to the doctors and researchers.

   If you look at the cancer "industry" you will see examples of expensive drugs/surgeries that are recommended over cheaper, often more helpful natural remedies. I read a lot about cancer, health, and nutrition, and the cancer industry is in the business of making money--at the expense of the patient's health and well-being. Yeah, I said it. I believe in the pharma conspiracy to keep people ill so their drugs can be sold. That's what I believe, and I'm not a bad person for saying it. If you ever listen to people who have left the pharmaceutical industry or government health organizations, they'll say the same thing. So, I've chosen to listen to the whistleblowers over the ones currently in office making policies. I've chosen to listen to the former pharma reps and former researchers who tell the truth about the industry. I listen to them, instead of the ones who are currently in the industry and rely on their salaries to pay their bills.

I listen to the "formers" instead of the "currently employeds". Their stories ring true to me, so I listen. My choice, and I'm honest about it. I just don't have enough faith in the current health recommendations, including but not limited to, vaccines.

I'm not going to argue with anyone who disagrees. Go ahead and make fun of me. Enjoy yourself.  I don't want to give links to support my decision, because I've done so previously. If you want my reasons, look into my post history and you'll find tons of links.  This is what I've found to be true, and it is my opinion.

[stik]

Scientist don't test every conceivable theory. First, there has to be some sort of proposed mechanism that would explain why one thing would affect another. What is the mechanism through which a vaccine might change a recipient's DNA? It's a tiny quantity of a dead virus injected into a muscle.

I'm clinging to hope that Mirzam will come back and explain her perspective on the hybrid thing.

[BeckyBird]

If I'm going to eat it or have it injected into me, I would like to know it's been completely tested. I'm not satisfied with the tests so far.

The amount of virus is tiny, but somehow your body learns to recognize it, right? So, what else can the tiny virus do in your body? What can the foreign DNA do? If scientists are going to put shrimp on treadmills, it's not so far-fetched to have them fully test the combination of virus  & DNA in vaccines (and DNA in gmo food while they're at it.) If there are no tests yet, I would rather wait until there are before I use the product.

[stik]

Have scientists put shrimp on treadmills? What were they studying? Did they publish? Do you have a link? I'm intrigued.