or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Its not just a personal choice
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Its not just a personal choice - Page 12

post #221 of 264

Interesting graph from CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4829a1.htm#fig1
 

The article referenced is this one.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=768249

 

 

 

 

 

Edited to add:
However … in terms of vax or no-vax, morbidity might be relevant too - the figure above is only for mortality. 

 

How are morbidity-mortality correlated?  Just because fewer people die from an infectious disease doesn't mean fewer people got sick - it could mean the same number got sick but more survive.  But do the survivors recover completely or not? If they don't - do they have mild/severe health issues because of it?  These cannot be answered from the figure below.  Still more questions ...


Edited by MamaMunchkin - 8/20/12 at 2:40pm
post #222 of 264
This is a common misunderstanding. Someone who is vaccinated, even fully vaccinated, can still carry and spread each and every disease, including the ones they are vaccinated against.

Pertussis, polio (from the oral polio vaccine), MMR, and flu are excellent examples. Merck is now being sued for lying about the efficacy of the mumps component of the MMR.
post #223 of 264

the great vaccine debate ...

 

I'm trying to get my research together to have a conversation with our pediatrician at the two year appointment!

 

difficult stuff!

post #224 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by TorreyMomma View Post

http://www.icnr.com/articles/vids.html This site is from Rebecca Carley, MD   It was given to me in paper form by my healthcare provider in 2009. Our healthcare provider refuses to give vaccines because her research has shown some horrible inaccuracies in vaccine information: both to under-reported VID and VD, as well as overestimations of benefits.

 

Just in case anyone was going to use this information in making their vaccine decisions, I think it's only fair to point out that Rebecca Carley is unfortunately a very mentally ill woman whose medical license was revoked in 2003 due to practicing medicine while actively delusional.

 

Full details here:  http://w3.health.state.ny.us/opmc/factions.nsf/58220a7f9eeaafab85256b180058c032/777c474f253ed8d085256d5f0053955e/$FILE/lc175786.pdf

post #225 of 264
Quote:

Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post

 

I think it's only fair to point out that Rebecca Carley is unfortunately a very mentally ill woman whose medical license was revoked in 2003 due to practicing medicine while actively delusional.

 

Don't you think it rather strange that virtually every medical professional who comes out against "vaccination" is censored, often radically?

 

IMO it is the medical professionals who have not independently examined "vaccination" yet continue to strongly recommend it who are delusional.

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1360495/fda-safety-reviewers-made-to-fear-for-their-lives#post_17081770

post #226 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisw View Post

 

Don't you think it rather strange that virtually every medical professional who comes out against "vaccination" is censored, often radically?

 

IMO it is the medical professionals who have not independently examined "vaccination" yet continue to strongly recommend it who are delusional.

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1360495/fda-safety-reviewers-made-to-fear-for-their-lives#post_17081770

 

That is what I initially thought -having your license revoked (particularly if you took an anti vaccine stance) and being mentally ill did not necessarily mean you were not credible.

 

However…..

 

-The link Torreymomma  cited had a pretty inflammatory title - it claimed vaccines were weapons of mass destruction and were part of a genocide.  

 

-The article was not well cited 

 

-The author of the article does seem to have been quite mentally ill (according to the paper Wild Kingdom posted)

 

I don't think the article is credible.


Edited by kathymuggle - 8/20/12 at 7:46pm
post #227 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

It completely falls down, however, if your own adult boosters are not up to date - then you are just a big old hypocrit who likes to point fingers and deny your own culpability.

 

Thankfully Adults have far more sense to get dozens of these worthless "vaccinations" every couple of years for their entire lives. OTOH if  they did our master's population problem would be solved.

 

It will not happen even at the point of a gun.

 

Anyone who thinks you can stop the spread of germs by "vaccination" is living in la-la land. Right now your body contains hundreds of virus species and hundreds if not thousands of bacteria species. Many of these can become deadly if you become weak enough and allow them to proliferate.

 

TB is a great example. About 2 billion people on this good earth carry the TB bacillus in its inactive state. Allow your vitamin D status to drop low enough the the TB bacillus may become active and turn into the active form of infectious TB.

post #228 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

-She does seem to have been quite mentally ill (according to the paper Wild Kingdom posted)

 

In the USSR if you disagreed with  the state you were often ruled "delusional" locked up and drugged. Do you realize there is a movement in the USSA today to do the same with people who disagree with politically correct thought such as "vaccination" and "global warming".

 

What goes around comes around.

post #229 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonttu View Post

Then PLEASE , stop denying all the clear evidence out there , that speaks in favor of vaccines ! 

We all know , that there are some risks involved , but let´s stop blowing things out of proportion , for God´s sake and stop insulting those of us , who are trying to make an informed choice for our kids and ourselves . 

  that part made me laugh ROTFLMAO.gif

 

It's also hilarious that you feel your being insulted and that you are making informed desicions....cause thats how I feel as well and I don't vaccinate my kids. GASP! can it be so?? Can it be that both vaxers and non vaxers can make carefully thought out, well researched choices and come to different conclusions???? In your world that seem to be a resounding NO. I'm in the mental health field. That kind of thinking is called cognitive distortion or black and white thinking.

post #230 of 264

I believe we all have a responsibility to our own children and to others.

 

My husband and I have chosen a very selective schedule for our 5 month old son based on a lot of reading and talking with medical and holistic professionals on my part.  The Vaccine Book by Dr Sears is awesome.  He is exclusively breast fed, non-day care baby and we choose to give him the Dtap, Hib, and Rotateq (as per our own peds experience of her child getting Rotavirus even being non-day care and losing 3 lbs in 2 hours and being hospitalized....enough to make me change my mind!)

 

Here are some very convincing articles from another doctor I follow:

 

http://vaccines.mercola.com/

 

Also, an disturbing article on Gardisil:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/24/hpv-vaccine-victim-sues-merck.aspx

 

It's a very controversial debate and I believe we all have to consider the Hippocratic Oath every doctor takes to "do no harm" and find a doctor you can trust to have your child's best interest in mind and not to be leaning toward the pharmceutical companies bottom lines.  We were very blessed to find that doctor and she is very open to reading the research and articles I find on the various vaccines.

 

I pray this is helpful for anyone who is searching to find the truth as I have been.

post #231 of 264
Quote:

Originally Posted by MRubio View Post

 

It's a very controversial debate and I believe we all have to consider the Hippocratic Oath every doctor takes to "do no harm"

 

In the mid 1990s or so a new version of the HO was introduced. This is required because now doctors are required to help people die; I wonder if the people must ALWAYS want to die,

 

"I recognise the special value of human life but I also know that the prolongation of human life is not the only aim of healthcare."

 

Medicine is not what we often think it is. Women watch out if you think your doctor cannot make advances under the HO.

 

"10. Only 3% prohibit sexual contact with patients."

 

http://www.imagerynet.com/hippo.ama.html

 

It is nice to have a "medical professional" to help you make decisions of life and death but it is extremely important to realize ONLY YOU are responsible for your life and USUALLY the lives of your kids. If the "medical professional" or the "health service" or the "government" is wrong you must do what is best for yourself and your kids.

 

"There is no God higher than truth.”    Mahatma Gandhi

 

“Medicine, as we know it, is dying. It's entering a terminal phase. The disease is caused by conflict of interest, tainted research, greed for big bucks, pretentious doctors and scientists, lying, cheating, invasion by the morally bankrupt marketing automatons of the drug industry, derelict politicians and federal and state regulators - all seasoned with huge doses of self-importance and foul odor." Nick Regush

 

"I will always remember the case of a little girl who developed H. Influenza meningitis and was in a deep coma. The pediatricians consulted me, suspecting a brain abscess. This was quickly ruled out. I noted the child was getting D5W as an IV solution. A simple blood test demonstrated she had severe hyponatremia. Because she was comatose, the pediatricians wanted me to let her die. I refused. They even went so far as to approach my partners to have them take me off the case. Fortunately, they refused to intervene. I corrected her sodium deficiency and she made a good recovery and had no further seizures."  Doctor Russell Blaylock MD, Note every honest physician has MANY stories like this. This murderous outrage would not continue unless it were sanctioned at the very top. By the top I mean WAY above the puppets in Congress.

post #232 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisw View Post

 

In the mid 1990s or so a new version of the HO was introduced. This is required because now doctors are required to help people die; I wonder if the people must ALWAYS want to die,

 

"I recognise the special value of human life but I also know that the prolongation of human life is not the only aim of healthcare."

 

Medicine is not what we often think it is. Women watch out if you think your doctor cannot make advances under the HO.

 

"10. Only 3% prohibit sexual contact with patients."

 

http://www.imagerynet.com/hippo.ama.html

 

It is nice to have a "medical professional" to help you make decisions of life and death but it is extremely important to realize ONLY YOU are responsible for your life and USUALLY the lives of your kids. If the "medical professional" or the "health service" or the "government" is wrong you must do what is best for yourself and your kids.

 

"There is no God higher than truth.”    Mahatma Gandhi

 

“Medicine, as we know it, is dying. It's entering a terminal phase. The disease is caused by conflict of interest, tainted research, greed for big bucks, pretentious doctors and scientists, lying, cheating, invasion by the morally bankrupt marketing automatons of the drug industry, derelict politicians and federal and state regulators - all seasoned with huge doses of self-importance and foul odor." Nick Regush

 

"I will always remember the case of a little girl who developed H. Influenza meningitis and was in a deep coma. The pediatricians consulted me, suspecting a brain abscess. This was quickly ruled out. I noted the child was getting D5W as an IV solution. A simple blood test demonstrated she had severe hyponatremia. Because she was comatose, the pediatricians wanted me to let her die. I refused. They even went so far as to approach my partners to have them take me off the case. Fortunately, they refused to intervene. I corrected her sodium deficiency and she made a good recovery and had no further seizures."  Doctor Russell Blaylock MD, Note every honest physician has MANY stories like this. This murderous outrage would not continue unless it were sanctioned at the very top. By the top I mean WAY above the puppets in Congress.

 

I don't have enough eyes to roll.  The Hippocratic Oath was not changed because doctors are required to help people die now.  That is just ridiculous.  The Oath was changed because it was outdated and irrelevant.

 

Here is the original:

 

 

Quote:

I swear by Apollo, the healer, AsclepiusHygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art; and that by my teaching, I will impart a knowledge of this art to my own sons, and to my teacher's sons, and to disciples bound by an indenture and oath according to the medical laws, and no others.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with boys, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secretand will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all humanity and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my life.

As you can see, not much relevance to today's world.

 

Here is the Oath we used at my school:

 

 

 
Much more relevant.  And nary a word about being required to kill anyone.
post #233 of 264
I cannot read a pdf. I find it interesting thatthe old and not the new was printed so as to be easily read. Also, it really took until the 1990's to get rid of Apollo and friends? I'll have to check on that.
post #234 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

I cannot read a pdf. I find it interesting thatthe old and not the new was printed so as to be easily read. Also, it really took until the 1990's to get rid of Apollo and friends? I'll have to check on that.
no great mystery. The new oath is over 200 words and it would violate MDCs UA if I copied the whole thing. The original oath is not under any copyright protection, being several thousand years old. And.no, it did not take until the 90s to stop using the original oath. I don't know where Louis got that from. The one that I link to is from 1964.
post #235 of 264
According to pbd.org, the old oath is close to what you printed, but not exactly. It does not, in either your version or pbs's, specifically state "do no harm", just keeping patients from harm and injustice.

The new oath on pbs.org does mention killing patients. Though before the oath the site specified the percentages of medical schools including various references to sex, etc, so there is clearly no longer one oath, but many.

So how do I as a patient know what my doctor promised? And it is not a legally binding contract. Hmm.

Sorry. I get easily led along tangents. Facinating as this oath discussion is, what does it have to do with vaccinations?
post #236 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

According to pbd.org, the old oath is close to what you printed, but not exactly. It does not, in either your version or pbs's, specifically state "do no harm", just keeping patients from harm and injustice.
The new oath on pbs.org does mention killing patients. Though before the oath the site specified the percentages of medical schools including various references to sex, etc, so there is clearly no longer one oath, but many.
So how do I as a patient know what my doctor promised? And it is not a legally binding contract. Hmm.
Sorry. I get easily led along tangents. Facinating as this oath discussion is, what does it have to do with vaccinations?

 

Well, the old oath is translated from ancient Greek, so it's going to vary depending on the translation.  As far as what your doctor promised- the oath honestly is just tradition.  You're right, it's not any sort of contract.  If anyone is worried that their doctor is going to try to sleep with them because it's not the in oath, no need.  

The Board of Medicine for each state forbids that.  

 

As far as what this has to do with vaccinations- nothing, as far as I know.  I was just responding to Louis's assertion that doctors were required to take an oath to kill their patients.

post #237 of 264

Hippocrates

 

... I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

 

- Hippocrates

 

Certainly we can see the problems in the original oath.

 

The state has legalized a physician helping a patient to commit suicide. Soon the state will DEMAND every physician do this.

 

The state and Industrial Medicine has long ago gotten into the abortion business.

 

Euthanasia and murder of unwanted infants is on the table.

 

Once the political decision to reduce the world's population by billions was made a LOT of things followed, including IMO "vaccination". Our problem is many of those slated for an early death are people we love.

post #238 of 264

I thought you believed the individual had the right to make their own medical decisions, and the state shouldn't be able to decide for them?

post #239 of 264

Wow this thread has made tempers hot, but I wanted to add another opinion anyway.  I decided to vaccinate my older daughter (now 6) after talking to my grandmother about it.  I had and still have friends who have chosen not to vaccinate (one because her first child had adverse reactions) and was emotionally distraught  trying to decide what to do and weeding through all the articles on the subject (yes- researching).  It is really scary to let anything be injected into your baby and feels counter to some natural mothering urges.  My grandmother simply said "if you had seen polio, you would not question the benefit of vaccines".  I delayed and spread out my DD's vaccines to watch for reactions, but I am very glad I listened to someone who had lived through the diseases we are now able to protect our children and the unvaccinated (by personal choice or because they are unable to- yes I believe in herd immunity).  Now that I have a second baby, I am again afraid of potential of reaction in my tiny little person, but I am grateful to live in a time when I am more than likely to see both of my children survive their childhood.  Nostalgia for a time before vaccines and the benefits of the "natural" immunity that used to exist is forgetting or ignoring the fact that families in those "golden days" could not expect to see all of their children survive.  A trip to an old cemetery is all it takes to bring this reality.  Anticipating the redundant responses to this sort of evidence- this is not just because of sanitation, but numerous advances in medicine, including vaccination.  I also believe that home birth is safe, but am sure there are many women who had hospital transfers for complications who would have died in those "good old days"  (And in response to posts on the subject- small pox is not on the schedule because belief in vaccination eradicated it to the point were it could be removed).  I tend to be very skeptical and believe in a number of things that might even be labeled conspiracy theories, so I do not just take the word of government or institutions, but denying that medical advances save lives is just beyond me.  As for the money argument- vaccines are far less profitable than drugs to treat diseases.  Isn't this the argument that some "conspiracy theorists" give as to why we have yet to create an HIV vaccine?

 

As an academic, I also want to caution the thread to look for sources and citations and peer review on all articles cited (both sides).  This is a caution we give all first year college students- articles without sources or citations from other research are merely the opinion of the author and may have no basis in fact.  This is not to say that facts and research can not be skewed to support the beliefs of the author (they most certainly can), but peer review and referencing other research definitely provides more dependable information.

 

Wishing health to all of your children.

post #240 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Country Girl View Post

 As for the money argument- vaccines are far less profitable than drugs to treat diseases.  Isn't this the argument that some "conspiracy theorists" give as to why we have yet to create an HIV vaccine?

 

 

I think it would be wise to keep pejorative terms such as  "conspiracy theorists" out of the discussion.

 

Questioning the motives, honesty, and accuracy of reporting from the most highly profitible industry in the world does not  make one anything less than cautious and critical,  particularly when discussing invasive procedures that even the industry has admitted has caused brain damage and death.  Why would anyone resort to applying extremely insulting labels towards those who question the marketing tatics of an industry which has been fined multiple times for lying?

 

As far as the profitibility of vaccines are concerned, isn't it irrelevant which is more profitable, vaccines or drugs, when both are billion dollar industries?

 

And isn't the ultimate profitibility of vaccines affected by the fact that vaccines can cause/trigger illnesses/conditions that REQUIRE lifelong drugs, such as thyroid disease, diabetes, asthma, and rheumatoid arthritis?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Its not just a personal choice