The case for vaccination - Page 18

[rachelsmama]

Originally Posted by tonttu 

Cynthia , I am sorry , if my words came across a little harsh , but I condemn ANY form of child abuse and deliberately exposing my helpless baby to a potentially debilitating or even fatal disease goes against my firm belief , that a child has the same right to be treated  respectfully and with dignity .

So , if anyone gets offended by it , I apologize !

You pre-emptively expose your children to vaccines, which are potentially debilitating and even fatal in the hopes that they won't have to deal with a surprise case of chicken pox at a time when they are less able to deal with it, or when it would be less convenient.  Those are pretty much the same reasons for participating in a cp-party.  While you and the cp-party participants obviously disagree about the risk/benefit assessment of the vaccine -vs- the real thing, you are all making your decisions based on what you believe to be the best interest of your children.  Unfortunately, if it ever becomes truly clear which strategy really is better, it won't be for a very long time.

[stik]

The case for vaccination is that the risks of VPDs are substantially greater than the risks of vaccines.

[Louisw]

Link to banned website

Edited by Louisw - 6/8/12 at 6:25am

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Louisw 

An interesting paper showing why Childhood Disease declined radically in the US.

http://www.whale.to/a/bystrianyk3.html
 

Louis, you're new here so you don't know, but we don't link to that website on MDC.  It is a Holocaust denial website.

[Rrrrrachel]

Apparently whale.to links are persona non grata around here, Louis. You better take that down.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Louisw 

Originally Posted by stik 

The case for vaccination is that the risks of VPDs are substantially greater than the risks of vaccines.

Yes but how do you support this assertion?

The pro-vax lobby have a poor case.

Vaccine's Did Not Save Us - 2 Centuries of Official Statistics

[stik]

Mirzam, I get that you are not a fan of germ theory or the vast body of scientific evidence on this point. I am. And those things support the case for vaccination.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by stik 

Mirzam, I get that you are not a fan of germ theory or the vast body of scientific evidence on this point. I am. And those things support the case for vaccination.

And stik, there is no need to be condescending. My link had nothing whatsoever, to do with my understanding on health and healing, it was government statistics which do not support your case. If I am a source of annoyance to you, please feel free to put me on ignore.

[Rrrrrachel]

I've read that document before. I am not impressed.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I've read that document before. I am not impressed.

So you are not impressed with actual historical government statistics, okay. 

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm not impressed with the way they are distorted and misrepresented, regardless of their original source.

[slmommy]

haven't read this whole thread and don't intend to... don't know if it has been said, but a "pro" for the "case for vaccination": false sense of security.

(until Paul Offit fulfills his ideal of 1000s of pedi vaccinations that is...)

[stik]

Mirzam, you have presented that source before. I concur with Rrrrachel's assessment of its skewed presentation of statistics. If I put you on ignore, I will miss your explanation of your proposal that vaccines are creating hybrids in the other thread. I respect the presence of a diversity of opinions in this thread. Nonetheless, there is a case for vaccination and it lies in evidence you dispute. The case for vaccination says childhealthsafety.com has twisted the living daylights out of those stats to argue that all vaccines do is make money for drug companies.

[stik]

Originally Posted by slmommy 

haven't read this whole thread and don't intend to... don't know if it has been said, but a "pro" for the "case for vaccination": false sense of security.
(until Paul Offit fulfills his ideal of 1000s of pedi vaccinations that is...)

I would argue that the case for vaccination is that, while no vaccine is 100% effective, they do a decent job preventing VPDs and are less risky than the illnesses themselves. From the pro-vax perspective, Paul Offit is a great guy. I'm personally impressed by his work, his expertise, and his patience.

[purslaine]

nm - been said before

[Rrrrrachel]

But if everyone looks at it like you do and then decides not to vaccinate, they will get a lot more common.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

But if everyone looks at it like you do and then decides not to vaccinate, they will get a lot more common.

Sorry, rachel.  I removed it.  I am pretty sure I said it before in this thread and am trying to work on saying my piece and being done with it  (a challenge for me, lol).

[Cynthia Mosher]

Originally Posted by tonttu 

Cynthia , I am sorry , if my words came across a little harsh , but I condemn ANY form of child abuse and deliberately exposing my helpless baby to a potentially debilitating or even fatal disease goes against my firm belief , that a child has the same right to be treated  respectfully and with dignity .

So , if anyone gets offended by it , I apologize !

You may define whatever you like as child abuse for your own personal parenting guidelines. But when you place it into a discussion with a diverse group of people who have a variety of views about what is and isn't appropriate for their children it is no longer your own definition for your parenting choices but an accusation and an attack against those who decide differently than you. My request was for an edit, not an apology. You can either edit as requested or I can remove your post entirely and your forum access. Your choice. 

[prosciencemum]

From way up this thread: 

Quote (kathymuggle I think):

Do you have a figure you prefer from a mainstream site on how many pregnant women and children get the flu vaccine with thimerosal in it? 

Yes I posted it in my thread. I said: 

Quote:

In 2011-2012, out of 13 flu vaccination formulations, 4 contain thimerosol (which is 30% of them; and is only those sold in multi-dose vials where risk of infection is high and therefore the antibacterial properties of thimerosol are needed). http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/vaccines.htm

1 of those without thimerosol is a nasal spray - still 4/12 shots or 33% do not contain any thimerosol. As to which are available at any given location, well I have no idea how to get the statistics for that. I do understand that the multi-vial ones (which contain thimerosol) are cheaper, so may be more likely to be used at a drug store etc. Pregnant women at a guess are more likely to get this at a Doctors visit, and more likely to have access to single doses? 

 My problem with the 90% number wasn't so much that it's only found on websites with an anti-vax bias (although obviously that raises flags for me), but more that it has no actual source I could find, so seems to just be a guess. 

Also of course we should add that this is still just a trace amount of thimerosol (about 1 billionth of a typical woman's body weight) and similar amount of mercury to that found in a single can of tuna I learnt today (in another thread). 

Do we need to start a new thread for the "case for vaccination". This one seems to have been completely derailed..... interesting to me, but probably intimidating to anyone just visiting this board  though. 

[Rrrrrachel]

I figure someone just visiting isn't making it past the first couple of pages, anyway. This is eventually bound for a thread in the research forum, I just thought we'd get some of the conversating over with first.