or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › what are the cons of vaccinations?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

what are the cons of vaccinations? - Page 5

post #81 of 103
I wonder how you find anything to eat. I'm still waiting for those tests on the safety of vegetables. Those things scare me.
post #82 of 103
There is not DNA in vaccines in the way you seem to be implying. There are tiny amounts of extremely fractured and disrupted DNA. It can't do anything. It's totally inert. It's like wanting a study on what saline will do.
post #83 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There is not DNA in vaccines in the way you seem to be implying. There are tiny amounts of extremely fractured and disrupted DNA. It can't do anything. It's totally inert. It's like wanting a study on what saline will do.

Yeah, it's not so much DNA as it is individual nucleotides, that mean nothing and do nothing without the entire DNA sequence. They can't do anything unless they are strung together in the double helix, and even if there was an entire gene in the vaccine it wouldn't be inserting itself into your DNA.
post #84 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

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

DNA is found in vaccines, albeit in tiny amounts.  I am not sure why you are surprised people want to discuss it, or see studies on it, particularly since they are being asked to inject it into themselves and their children.  Hardly shirmp on treadmills - but if you find any studies on shrimp on treadmills, please share.

post #85 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

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

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMO8Pyi3UpY

post #86 of 103
I absolutely understand why people want to discuss DNA. I don't personally think it's a concern, but I can see why the topic is compelling and why others are concerned. Also, I really want to hear more about the hybrid thing.

Becky said scientists were putting shrimp on treadmills, which is why I asked. That sounds fascinating too.
post #87 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post


Becky said scientists were putting shrimp on treadmills, which is why I asked. That sounds fascinating too.

 

I must have missed that, lol.

 

Off to search…..

post #88 of 103
AbbyGrant that's hilarious!!
post #89 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

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.

What would constitute satisfactory testing to you?
post #90 of 103

Well, there have been NO safety tests on genetically modified food, straight from Monsanto's website. So I try to avoid them whenever I can.

 

As for vaccines, I am not satisfied at all with the current safety tests. We've been over this discussion many times, and my answer is the same. There have never been true safety studies on the full recommended schedule. I know, it's unethical, but that doesn't change the fact that there are no true studies. At least, the studies are unacceptable to Me.

 

Even an animal study, to learn what happens when a full series of adjuvants are injected, would be a start. How do all of the combined, injected adjuvants affect the mammalian system? We can test other drugs on animals, so why not adjuvants? Scientists are testing cancer therapies on animals as we speak, right now.  I know not all viruses affect animals the same way they affect humans, so that's a tricky one. But adjuvants, I assume, would damage mammals in similar ways. So, where are the adjuvant tests? One group injected with a full series of adjuvants, and one group injected with nothing? Compare the the 2 groups. Do the same study with gmo food while you're at it. Pretty simple if you ask me. As far as I know, and I would be glad to be shown otherwise, these tests do not exist.

 

Or, find 2 groups of willing parents. parents who have decided not to vaccinate, and parents who have decided to fully vaccinate. Throughout each round of vaccines, starting at birth, compare the groups. Take blood samples, hair samples, samples from any place that would be helpful. Have the parents document every time the child goes to the doctor. The parents must be as cooperative as possible, and report everything--milestones, injuries, illnesses, regressions, etc. This kind of study would satisfy me. It's a start.

post #91 of 103
There's only one adjuvant, aluminum salts.
post #92 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There's only one adjuvant, aluminum salts.

That's not true.

Squalene has been used in Europe, with disastrous results. Adjuvant 65, derived from peanut oil, has not been approved for use in US pediatric vaccines, but has apparently been used in trials, which can involve thousands.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0264410X9500011O (1995)

"The most common adjuvants for human use today are still aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate, although calcium phosphate and oil emulsions also have some use in human vaccinations. During the last 15 years much progress has been made on development, isolation and chemical synthesis of alternative adjuvants such as derivatives of muramyl dipeptide, monophosphoryl lipid A, liposomes, QS21, MF-59 and immunostimulating complexes (ISCOMS). Other areas in adjuvant research which have received much attention are the controlled release of vaccine antigens using biodegradable polymer microspheres and reciprocal enhanced immunogenicity of protein-polysaccharide conjugates."

MF-59 is a squalene adjuvant.
Edited by Taximom5 - 6/3/12 at 4:55am
post #93 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

 

 

Or, find 2 groups of willing parents. parents who have decided not to vaccinate, and parents who have decided to fully vaccinate. Throughout each round of vaccines, starting at birth, compare the groups. Take blood samples, hair samples, samples from any place that would be helpful. Have the parents document every time the child goes to the doctor. The parents must be as cooperative as possible, and report everything--milestones, injuries, illnesses, regressions, etc. This kind of study would satisfy me. It's a start.

 

Becky.  This "study" that you propose would be useless in so many ways.  In all ways, really.  First, you need a hypothesis.  You have to be looking for specific things, not just "samples of everything."  You can't just look around and hope to hit pay dirt.  It would also be biased in every way imaginable.  Selection bias, recall bias...it would also be totally underpowered to the point of no statistical significant at all.

 

I really, really suggest you read this- http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=154  It very succinctly explains the difficulties in doing such a study.

post #94 of 103
Why would you want parental documentation of every doctor visit? There already is a record of every doctor visit in every child's medical record.

Also, taking samples of "everything" has significant risks for the study population with no potential benefit. You can probably get all the blood, hair, pee, and poop in the world, though parental compliance with frequent fecal sample requests will likely become problematic once study participants are out of diapers. Bone marrow and colonoscopy have sometimes been considered relevant to vaccine related issues, but have obvious drawbacks. You will not be able to get review board approval to conduct those on apparently healthy children in order to study an extremely rare problem. I'm going to guess that, as a kind person who likes children, you probably don't actually want those. What about fasting blood work? Sleep studies? What frequency of behavioral inventories? MRIs and EKGs? Food logs? Reporting of minor illnesses?

But more importantly than any of that, would you consent to having your children participate in such a study?

I would not. It's too much scrutiny, too much testing and record-keeping, and too much time for my kids who are children, not lab rats. My kids don't want to be pooping for the doctor once a year or having strands of hair yanked out or blood drawn at every doctor visit. An annual developmental psych interview/observation plus the associated surveys do not serve their interests. With a study this hefty, you're going to be limited to subjects for whom study participation is the only way to get access to medical care. There goes your chance to recruit non-vax participants.
post #95 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

But more importantly than any of that, would you consent to having your children participate in such a study?
I would not. It's too much scrutiny, too much testing and record-keeping, and too much time for my kids who are children, not lab rats. My kids don't want to be pooping for the doctor once a year or having strands of hair yanked out or blood drawn at every doctor visit. An annual developmental psych interview/observation plus the associated surveys do not serve their interests. With a study this hefty, you're going to be limited to subjects for whom study participation is the only way to get access to medical care. There goes your chance to recruit non-vax participants.

 

I wouldn't either.  For the bolded reasons.

 

I do think a study that looks at the health profile of completely unvaxxed children versus vaxxed children would be helpful.

 

I think we need to be creative in figuring out how to do it, rather than saying it cannot be done (which I know you did not say, but is sometimes the vibe I get from the pro-vax community).  

post #96 of 103
I think the difficulty is finding the sweet spot - the type and quantity of information that will satisfy those who have safety concerns surrounding vaccines and also be possible to collect without unreasonable intrusion on children and their parents.

I also think some of those who are concerned will, for various reasons, never be satisfied with any safety study. I think there is a portion of the population that scientists have given up on efforts to satisfy, and I think that's ok too.
post #97 of 103
Comparing overall health has been done, in Germany. I hope it's done more and over and over, but I also hope when it is done people don't continue to just reject results because they disagree with them.
post #98 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

I also think some of those who are concerned will, for various reasons, never be satisfied with any safety study. I think there is a portion of the population that scientists have given up on efforts to satisfy, and I think that's ok too.

 

I agree.

 

However, the study would not really be for them, it would be for undecided parents, future parents, researchers, etc.  It could add to a body of knowledge, even though some people are not open to being swayed.

post #99 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Comparing overall health has been done, in Germany. I hope it's done more and over and over, but I also hope when it is done people don't continue to just reject results because they disagree with them.

link please!

 

Was it vaxxed versus unvaxxed?

 

Who did the study?

 

Thanks!

post #100 of 103
Wait, maybe it was Denmark.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › what are the cons of vaccinations?