The case for vaccination - Page 3

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Louisw 

Fist of all we should be clear that NO vaccine provides ANY immunity. Immunity is a natural process that requires the interaction between your natural immune system and your acquired immune system. Immunity can only be acquired by contracting the NATURAL or wild disease. "Vaccination only effects antibodies in your acquired immune system and is INCAPABLE of providing immunity.

http://healthyprotocols.com/2_natural_immunity.htm

The CDC has once again lied to us by changing the definition of "immunity". The CDC says "immunity" is the production of antibodies. The production of antibodies has NEVER been shown to prevent or mitigate disease.

You can go to the CDC site to find out how long they say each "vaccine" "protects" or provides "immunity" or how long the production of antibodies to a certain level persists. This information seems to be difficult to find. I wonder why?

The existence of "booster shots" is an admission that antibody production is transient; just as one might expect from any artificial operation on the human body.

Your definition of immunity is bizarre and incorrect.  Antibodies provide immunity.  Your assertions have no basis in science.

Your idea that "natural" infection provides lifelong immunity is also incorrect.  Antibodies/immunity fade both for wild-type infection and vaccination.

[Louisw]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I am darn sure you're more likely I have a serious complication from chicken pox than you are from the vaccine, which I think is the more relevant statistic.

Oh don't be so sure. "Vaccination" IMO is destroying our kids immune systems.

Here is one method of action for this epidemiologically demonstrated destruction.

"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

The rate of Autism is doubling about every three to four years. At this rate in a few years we ALL will have an autistic child. Instead of developing "vaccines" to stop smoking how about a "vaccine" for autism? We already have one it is called birth control. Don't want an autistic child don't have ANY children. This is the not so hidden message of the explosion of autism.

[purslaine]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

Unless it's for economic reasons, like I mentioned upthread. If making it part of the schedule makes it available to everyone where it wouldn't be otherwise, I'm for it. People can opt out if they don't want it, but it's harder to opt in for a vax that isn't part of the schedule (which is why most vaxes that aren't on the schedule are stuff that isn't relevant for most people anyway, like yellow fever, anthrax, etc.)

The problem with this is that most states require CP vaccination for school entry. 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/laws/downloads/izlaws05-06.pdf   page 30 or 31. 

You cannot opt out of it without consequences (which may range from getting an exemption to keeping your kids out of school).  This  is pretty lousy given the fact that CP is not, statistically, a dangerous childhood disease.

[MichelleZB]

Thanks for starting this thread! It's so nice to see some other mamas on here who vaccinate. I had been feeling quite down because I like this forum so much, and I do breastfeed exclusively, and cloth diaper, and co-sleep, and didn't circumcise, etc. But I'm very scientifically minded and my son will be vaccinated for everything. And I just felt like... I didn't fit in here.

You have a good number of studies up so I don't feel like I need to add to them. I just wanted to post to say I'm with you guys!

[Louisw]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

 Antibodies provide immunity. 

Please provide a reference demonstrating this.

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Louisw 

Oh don't be so sure. "Vaccination" IMO is destroying our kids immune systems.

http://healthyprotocols.com/2_vaccinated_Child.htm

Here is one method of action for this epidemiologically demonstrated destruction.

"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

The rate of Autism is doubling about every three to four years. At this rate in a few years we ALL will have an autistic child. Instead of developing "vaccines" to stop smoking how about a "vaccine" for autism? We already have one it is called birth control. Don't want an autistic child don't have ANY children. This is the not so hidden message of the explosion of autism.

You don't have some sort of set number of potential antibodies. You don't use them up. It's not a non-renewable resource.

Tell me more about this Arthur Research Foundation that you cite with such authority. Because when I google it, the ONLY mention I find of it is anti vax websites, in the EXACT same quotation you give. Exactly the same.

This leads me to believe that there is no "Arthur Research Foundation." I don't think it even exists. Someone made it up, made up this "fact" that 60% of our immune system is depleted by vaccines, and it's just been uncritically and unthinkingly repeated.

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by Louisw 

Please provide a reference demonstrating this.

Try any basic biology text.  Seriously, you're the one coming on here making outlandish statements that go against known science.  I think the burden is more on you to provide a reference.  And, I mean a reference.  I looked at that "healthy protocols" site that you linked to, and that doesn't count.  I want links to studies or accepted references. Not a website that links to a bunch of other websites.

[AbbyGrant]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

So even if we list  dangerous activities from least dangerous to most dangerous, my point still holds.  

Two scenarios:

Vaccine is safer than CP

vaccine

CP

riding in car

CP is safer than vaccine

CP

vaccine

riding in car.

The point still holds.  Going to get the vaccine is more dangerous than not bothering.

Decisons are not made in isolation.  Particularly in discussions on risk and safety, I think it is important to mention that the activity of driving to get the vaccine is more dangerous than either getting the vaccine or skipping the vaccine.

This just seems like a bizarre risk assessment to me. Also, I'm not really sure about your assessment of each risk listed. 

Originally Posted by erigeron 

Unless it's for economic reasons, like I mentioned upthread. If making it part of the schedule makes it available to everyone where it wouldn't be otherwise, I'm for it. People can opt out if they don't want it, but it's harder to opt in for a vax that isn't part of the schedule (which is why most vaxes that aren't on the schedule are stuff that isn't relevant for most people anyway, like yellow fever, anthrax, etc.)

Exactly.  Insurance wouldn't cover it if it was not on the schedule. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

The problem with this is that most states require CP vaccination for school entry. 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/laws/downloads/izlaws05-06.pdf   page 30 or 31. 

You cannot opt out of it without consequences (which may range from getting an exemption to keeping your kids out of school).  This  is pretty lousy given the fact that CP is not, statistically, a dangerous childhood disease.

Schools can make their own requirements independent of the CDC schedule and likely have their own reasons for having CP on the list like outbreaks and absences.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

Try any basic biology text.  Seriously, you're the one coming on here making outlandish statements that go against known science.  I think the burden is more on you to provide a reference.  And, I mean a reference.  I looked at that "healthy protocols" site that you linked to, and that doesn't count.  I want links to studies or accepted references. Not a website that links to a bunch of other websites.

A biology text book is NOT a primary source and is therefore not an acceptable source of proof. As a medical doctor surely you can provide us with a peer reviewed published primary research paper that proves specific antibodies = immunity to specific disease. BTW, how does this work with HIV?

[AbbyGrant]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

A biology text book is NOT a primary source and is therefore not an acceptable source of proof. As a medical doctor surely you can provide us with a peer reviewed published primary research paper that proves specific antibodies = immunity to specific disease. BTW, how does this work with HIV?

I think you missed the point.

[Rrrrrachel]

Ok, Louise, I see we are operating under fundamentally different understandings of science, biology, and the natural world. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Rrrrrachel]

Taxi you know you could still report your reactions? You could go on vaers right now and do it. There's no time limit.

[Rrrrrachel]

Typically there's not a citation required for common knowledge. I mean if we're going to get into primary sources and all.

[Xerxella]

Thank you RRRRachel for a very insightful group of sources. I'm always so sad when these thoughtful discussions get spin off into the realm of goofiness.

I don't vaccinate and I would like to point out 2 disagreements with your facts.

My first is on your source about Aluminum.

You state (sorry I'm bad with multiquotes), "Aluminum
Aluminum is present in some vaccines, as well as lots of other sources. The amount of aluminum in vaccines is very low and far less than children are exposed to from environmental sources in the first year of life. Not all vaccines have aluminum. "During the first 6 months of life, infants could receive about 4 milligrams of aluminum from vaccines. That’s not very much: a milligram is one-thousandth of a gram and a gram is the weight of one-fifth of a teaspoon of water. During the same period, babies will also receive about 10 milligrams of aluminum in breast milk, about 40 milligrams in infant formula, or about 120 milligrams in soy-based formula." "

The problem with this statement is in the severe discordance with injested and injected aluminum. Injested aluminum is not highly absorbed by the body, whereas injected aluminum IS highly absorbed and has numerous known negative effects. Here's the pubmed source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21568886 and here's the whole article: http://www.1796kotok.com/pdfs/Aluminum_adjuvants.pdf . Now, I know you've spoken to this topic ( http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1352538/aluminum-studies/0_30 ) before, but I still find enough fact based evidence discussions to show that even well respected, well studied persons disagree on the impact of the aluminum in vaccines.

So, I don't see why anyone would be surprised that a mom like me would be inclined to agree with one set of experts and a mom like you would be inclined to agree with another set of experts. IMO, I would prefer to err on the side of caution and not inject my child with aluminum until I feel confident that the benefits outweigh the risks and as of now, I am not convinced of that.


My second thought builds on my first and I don't have time to cite and source, but it disagrees with your title, "Are Vaccines Really Necessary?" I wish someone would lay it out better, but I'm very fond of the Dr. Sears Vaccine Book. (Which you probably know actually recommends all vaccines. BTW, he also raises concerns on the Aluminum load in vaccines.) Generally, it appears that the actual threat of first getting the disease and then having a severe reaction to the disease is lower than the risk of a severe reaction from the vaccine. I DO believe in herd immunity and I DO think all those who put their child at risk, keep my child safer. If less people vaccinated, I would probably be compelled to vaccinate to keep my kids safe. Luckily, this country has a very low rate of VPDs and the actual threat of catching the disease is negligble. Is there a risk my child will get a VPD? Yes. Is there a risk my child will have a severe reaction from a vaccine? Yes. I feel the risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the VPD.

Using your own source: http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/Surveillance/32260 , they state there were 222 cases of measles in 2011, 90% of which were brought into the country from people traveling overseas. We do not travel overseas so that threat is not pertinent to us. So, 10% (or 22) cases were from people just walking around who came in contact with one of those people who were overseas. (In truth the vast majority of those 22 were probably family members who were in close contact with the overseas individual, but the article doesn't address that and it's just supposition on my part, so we won't consider that.) So, the chance of my child getting measles in the US in 2011 was about 22 in 300 million (the number of people in the US) or 0.000000073.

The severity of the cases wasn't discussed in your article, but I looked it up and there were zero deaths from measles in 2011.

There were 698 FDA VAERS reports for the measles vaccine in 2011, including 4 deaths. (I understand the problems with the VAERS system, it's severly underreported or severely overreported depending on who you ask.) But, you can see where this math is going. In addition to the fact that the number of people who get the vaccine any year is obviously not the total population. I don't have a source readily available but, there are 4,000,000 babies born in the US each year. So, lets say 5,000,000 people got the vaccine every year. 698 in 5,000,000 is 0.0001396.

Very rare? Yes. But, which problem is MORE likely.
0.0000000793 chance of getting measles
0.0001396 chance of having a vaccine reaction

[Imakcerka]

Way to make me smile first thing in the morning.

[AbbyGrant]

Originally Posted by Xerxella 

Using your own source: http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/Surveillance/32260 , they state there were 222 cases of measles in 2011, 90% of which were brought into the country from people traveling overseas. We do not travel overseas so that threat is not pertinent to us. So, 10% (or 22) cases were from people just walking around who came in contact with one of those people who were overseas. (In truth the vast majority of those 22 were probably family members who were in close contact with the overseas individual, but the article doesn't address that and it's just supposition on my part, so we won't consider that.) So, the chance of my child getting measles in the US in 2011 was about 22 in 300 million (the number of people in the US) or 0.000000073.
The severity of the cases wasn't discussed in your article, but I looked it up and there were zero deaths from measles in 2011.
There were 698 FDA VAERS reports for the measles vaccine in 2011, including 4 deaths. (I understand the problems with the VAERS system, it's severly underreported or severely overreported depending on who you ask.) But, you can see where this math is going. In addition to the fact that the number of people who get the vaccine any year is obviously not the total population. I don't have a source readily available but, there are 4,000,000 babies born in the US each year. So, lets say 5,000,000 people got the vaccine every year. 698 in 5,000,000 is 0.0001396.
Very rare? Yes. But, which problem is MORE likely.
0.0000000793 chance of getting measles
0.0001396 chance of having a vaccine reaction

I think it would make more sense to compare the risk of the vaccine versus the risk of getting the disease pre-vaccine.

[Xerxella]

I think it would be make more sense to compare the risk of the vaccine versus the risk of the disease pre-vaccine.

That's too hard to do since so many things have changed from 100 years ago when there wasn't a vaccine until now. Better medicine, better hygiene and more people traveling, faster spread of disease. Besides, I honestly don't care what the threat of a disease was 100 years ago. All I care about is what is the current threat to my child and what will be the safest thing for me to do for my children.

What is the danger of the vaccine vs. what is the danger of the VPD?

[AbbyGrant]

Originally Posted by Xerxella 


That's too hard to do since so many things have changed from 100 years ago when there wasn't a vaccine until now. Better medicine, better hygiene and more people traveling, faster spread of disease. Besides, I honestly don't care what the threat of a disease was 100 years ago. All I care about is what is the current threat to my child and what will be the safest thing for me to do for my children.
What is the danger of the vaccine vs. what is the danger of the VPD?

The measles vaccine came out in 1963 I think it was. And the current threat to your child is lower because others vaccinate. The risks in an unvaccinated population would be different. 

[erigeron]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Typically there's not a citation required for common knowledge. I mean if we're going to get into primary sources and all.

This. You might as well ask for a citation for the fact that the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 or that "boy" is a noun and "to run" is a verb. And remember, a dictionary is a tertiary source.

[Xerxella]

The measles vaccine came out in 1963 I think it was. And the current threat to your child is lower because others vaccinate.

Yes, I agree. Thank you.